time public comments, and the discussion and public comments about the
Crown Hydro project. (It was "tonight" when I first wrote and posted this, but the list rejected it for being too long, so now I'm editing it into two pieces.)
This project gets curiouser and curiouser (to quote Alice) the more one looks at it.
A number of people came out of the woodwork to voice their support for the project by clothing themselves with references to the Sierra Club, smoke stacks in their neighborhoods, the "wider view" and other assorted remarks supporting the idea of renewable energy and at the same time implying the people who were opposing the project were simply NIMBY residents.
But let's look at the facts:
* There is not one person opposed to this project who is opposed to renewable, clean, distributed energy generation who has made themselves visible. Such an insinuation is a straw man.
* Many people were already opposed to this project before the neighbors on the river even found out about it. Me, for instance. I'm miles from the river. And it's curious that the neighbors themselves didn't find out about it until the top of the 13th inning.
* There are plenty of reasons to oppose this project beyond concerns on how it may affect the immediate neighborhood.
My view of the folks voicing support is that they fit into one of three categories: 1. Ignorant of the facts. 2. In favor of hydro power at all costs, taxpayers be damned. 3. Friends of, or paid lobbyists for, or people who owe favors to, or are getting kickbacks from this project.
For example, can anyone explain to me why Xcel Energy is in favor of this project? Who's getting kickbacks, or what kind of twisted bookkeeping is making Crown Hydro more financially lucrative to decision makers at Xcel than to generate the same amount or more electricity themselves at their own existing plant across the river? Why buy power when you can produce yourself at a far lower cost?
That's right: Xcel's hydro power plant right across the river from Crown Hydro's proposed location currently generates far less than it is capable of producing simply because Xcel is not permitted to take more water from the river to do so! But if we were simply to give them the water we have to give Crown Hydro to make their power plant go, Xcel could generate the electricity for a lot less money. Not only would they not have to pay top dollar to buy it from Crown Hydro, but they'd still have $5.1 million in their renewable energy fund.
That last bit produces one possible motivation: Xcel was forced by the state of Minnesota into creating that fund in return for allowing Xcel to up the number of nuclear waste storage casks at Prairie Island. They probably hate it.
Discussion amongst the commissioners centered on concerns (voiced by John Erwin, Annie Young and Rochelle Berry Graves, and supported by Vivian Mason) and on when and how to take a vote (this meeting, next meeting in May, or next meeting in June).
In fact, the result is that a vote has been pushed off until the May 19 meeting.
Here is the blow by blow of the Crown Hydro discussion:
At about 6:03pm, the last of the present public members who wanted to comment in the open period finished speaking. The Crown Hydro discussion was taken up.
President Jon Olson [sporting a smart new haircut with a spiked top -- perfect for today's weather] suggests that the board take comments tonight as well as at the next meeting (May 19) and then vote at the June 2 meeting, when he believes all commissioners will be present. Commissioner Marie Hauser is absent tonight.
Comm. Walt Dziedzic also wants to talk tonight and "next week" (actually two weeks) and vote when all 9 commissioners are present.
Olson decides to get the public hearing going, and begins calling those who signed up to speak.
[Following names are from what I heard, so I'm sure I once again butchered their names and for that I apologize. Many had prepared statements, and I would love to receive copies of those statements, if any would be willing to share them with me.]
1. Dick Gillespie of 600 2nd Street South, makes the point [which is the first time I've heard it!] that the Xcel power plant across the river is running far below capacity precisely because water limitations that the Park Board has repeatedly called for. He points out it would be cheaper and easier to simply allow Xcel to increase their generation, and that doing so would eliminate the risks involved with constructing and operating the proposed new plant. Mr. Gillespie is OPPOSED to the project.
2. Ken Bradley of 222 East 3X Street, first mentions his past executive positions with the Sierra Club and the JustEnergy (formerly C.R.E.E.), but then says he is only speaking for himself. In a loud voice bordering on hysterics, he says he just doesn't see what the issue is here. Coal is bad. Nuclear is bad. Manitoba Hydro, which has destroyed large areas of indigenous people's land in Canada by building huge hydro dams, and who sells much (most?) of their power to the USA, and most of that to Minnesota, is also bad. But this project is good! It looks like all benefits and no risks to him. He seems to imply the problem is simply NIMBYism, but of course, it's impossible to judge what a person really thinks or means. [On the scale of Bad to Good, I definitely agree with Ken that coal, nukes and large hydro dams are mostly on the Bad side. But given his ridiculous approach to arguing for Crown Hydro and his apparent ignorance of the facts, I'm tempted to cancel my Sierra Club membership tomorrow.] Mr. Bradley is FOR the project.
3. Gary Smaby of the Washburn Lofts stars by giving his qualifications for being an expert on the financial aspects of this project. His credentials (venture capitalist, business instructor, etc.) are extensive and impressive. [A brief bio can be found here: http://www.quatrisfund.com/principals.html] Mr. Smaby makes a couple of points: a. This project is not financially viable without a large infusion of Public Subsidy. [Here's yet another one for you, Victoria Heller.] b. This project claims to generate enough power for 2,700 homes [I've seen a variety of figures as high as 3,000 homes, e.g. recent Skyway News article]. Mr. Smaby points out that this figure uses a per-home number widely discredited by energy experts. c. Xcel Energy can produce the power much cheaper in their own existing hydro plant. Mr. Smaby is OPPOSED to this project.
4. Michelle Swanson, of 414 Nicollet Mall, a representative of the Xcel Energy Renewable Energy Fund. She gives a long winded description of the fund, then says it is managed by a 5 person board. 2 members of the board are from Xcel, 1 is from the Prairie Island Indian community and 2 are from the "environmental community" -- she quickly blurts out a couple of names, which I wish I had caught so I could research them, as she does not give any evidence these 2 people are really environmentalists you or I might support as such. She says Xcel is very in favor of this project, and implies the board thought it was great, but of course, does not tell us what the details of the vote (if any) on the project was. She also mentions that Crown Hydro has already spent over a million dollars of the $5.1 million the Xcel Energy Renewable Energy Fund awarded them in the 2001-2002 cycle. As I mentioned before, you have to ask, why in the world would Xcel support this?
5. Ralph Swenson, former Park Board commissioner, who does not state his name or his address, gives a professional speech supporting the project. Other audience members and I theorize he must be Crown Hydro's paid lobbyist. [I checked the state's website, and he's not listed as their official lobbyist, but I guess that doesn't mean he can't be on their payroll.] Mr. Swenson says this is "a cheap project" and it is the "first hydro plant in the western hemisphere on this spot." [$10 million is cheap? Compared to what? The latter remark about the western hemisphere vies with some the non-sequitors for which Yogi Berra was famous.]
6. Alan Shelepsky, of 1st Street downtown for 20 years. Mr. Shelepsky gives a poetic and vivid description of why Minneapolis was built on the river and how we owe it all to the Falls of St. Anthony. His two minute history of the development of the city is interesting and informative. He pleads passionately and persuasively for the board to respect the river and the history in making their decision. It is unclear whether he is for, opposed, undecided or just not saying. Still, a great 3 minute speech.
7. Diane Fitzgerald, a downtown resident, is in favor of "taking responsibility for our energy needs" and is under the [mistaken] impression that this project will contribute in a cost-effective way to doing so. She is in FOR the project.
8. Brian Anderson, of 117 Portland, is a former board member of the Greater Minneapolis Convention and Visitors Association. He is convinced that the development of the Stone Arch Bridge, and later the Mill Ruins Park and Museum contributed significantly to changing outsiders view of Minneapolis as being Murderapolis to being a place they want to visit and spend money. He acknowledges that resident opinion and well-being should take precedent over the opinion of visitors, but clearly this change is beneficial to the residents. Mr. Anderson is also the editor of the Minneapolis / St. Paul Magazine which did an extensive study on the 100 best things, places, people, etc. of the greater metro area. Six of the top eleven things were related to the Minneapolis park system and the St. Anthony Falls. It would be foolish to risk the Stone Arch Bridge and the Falls for so little return. Mr. Anderson is OPPOSED to this project.
9. Sheldon Strom/Strong(?), of Colfax Avenue South, and associated with the Center for Energy and Environment(?), says he has followed this project for about 10 years. He advocates taking no vote tonight, and believes the issues can be resolved with more time. He believes it is fairer to Crown Hydro that way. [Crown Hydro has been negotiating with, or snubbing, depending, the Park Board for more than 2 years now. Just how much time do they need?]
10. Dean Thorp, of Stillwater Road in the St. Croix River valley, has water front property there. Mr. Thorp was the author of a 1976 monograph on hydro policy. He wants the board to take the "wider view" and seems to imply that those opposed to this project are just the neighbors who are only thinking about their "backyards." He says "parks and power are compatible." He rambles about the smoke stack of the coal powered plant in Bayport near his home, as well as other changes in the St. Croix valley he doesn't like but has to live with. He claims is is the largest renewable energy site in the state. He is FOR the project. [He is obviously a friend of someone involved, or uninformed. I bet the former.]
11. Steven Deruyter, of 600 South 2nd Street, points out that an environmental review is required by law, and such a thing costs money, and further lack thereof prevents the board from legally voting yes to accept a lease until it is done. He further points out that the land to be leased is not surplus park property, and again, law constrains the Park Board on what they can do with land which is not surplus. Mr. Deruyter also states that all of the valuable artifacts at this site are underground, precisely where Crown Hydro intends to put their power plant. The loss of those objects would be impossible to quantify but expensive. He also points out the expense of the court time and lawsuits to which the Park Board would be subjected if they vote yes. He is still OPPOSED to this project. [Sounds to me like Mr. Deruyter is going to file one such suit himself. I'm sure this will make Park Board attorney Brian Rice even wealthier, allowing him to donate even more money to future commissioner election campaigns.]
+ + + See next posting for rest of message + + +
Chris Johnson / Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
