Overheard at PUC -- More Leaks Than We Can Report

Overheard from Robert Jones, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline VP, under oath before the PUC this morning: he says that TransCanada owns and operates over 36,000 miles of pipeline and it would be "unreasonable" to ask the company to turn over all of the leak reports for that huge network.

Oh, so is VP Jones saying there are so many leaks that they can't humanly produce or keep track of all the leak reports TransCanada has had to produce? Hmmm...

Pengitore Gets Indian Vote...

...too bad they're Indian Indians!

The indepedent Joe Pengitore for Senate campaign hasn't made much of a splash in the local media, but someone in India is paying attention. This morning in my SiteMeter stats, I found a referral from someone in Hyderabad, India, Googling "Joe Pengitore for Senate." Now there has to be a good story behind that one! Hyderabad, any comment?

But PUC on eminent domain... TransCanada gets partial ruling

The PUC has ruled to partially grant TransCanada's motion to exclude testimony on eminent domain. They find that the PUC is not in a position to rule on whether eminent domain is legal in this case. However, the PUC denies the general motion and will hear testimony in general about TransCanada's conduct in dealing with landowners. Says the PUC, testimony relative to company conduct in its dealing with landowners is "relevant to the social and economic impacts of the project." Of course, both TransCanada and the interveners can raise objections to specific questions and statements as the hearing goes on.

Below are my notes from the live broadcast of the discussion that eld to this partial ruling:

Oh no -- Kara Semmler of the PUC staff says she doesn't feel the eminent domain issues are relevant to this PUC hearing.

Curt Moeckly from Britton speaks up to say it is. He speaks of dealing with the TransCanada representatives, argues that the place of this hearing is to give the state chance to act in the interest of SOuth Dakota's landowners. "Everything is relevant in light of the fact that this foreign company attempts to come here and take our land." he argues that the PUC can make a valid decision only if it hears everything that TransCanada has attempted to do in this state. TransCanada has to be responsible for its actions, and the PUC needs to hear about it.

Curt Hohn of WEB Water District: four burdens of proof, one is socioeconomic, and having land taken is an impact on landowners. 18 landowners currently face condemnation, possibly hundreds will. PUC can level playing field and allow everyone to speak. We have to live with what's done for 50 years; you'd think we'd have a little time now to listen to everyone's concerns. Give a few minutes to the landowners.

Mr. Smith comment to TransCanada lawyer Koenecke: TransCanada must show that they won't cause significant harm to social and economic situation. To me at some level, I would think that those relationship probably have some relevance. Some testimony read so far on eminent domain perhaps just pure questions of law, not suitable for evidence here, but in terms of the actual landowner relationship, actions, in terms of speaking to how the company, the applicant does things, I might have to agree with the interveners.

Sounds like Commissioner Dusty Johnson: is there a way we can focus testimony toward the main issues of concern? Mr. Smith recommends making rulings on specific questions; applicant and interveners have right to raise objections to specific questions throughout the hearing; better than blanket ruling.

Johnson asks if there's any value in making some sort of opening directory ruling. Smith says this commission is not here to determine whether TransCanada is a common carrier... but in some other states, the law does not read that way. SD PUC just isn't involved in landowner acquisition, just in approving construction, moving dirt. It's up to the courts to determine whether the Legislature has given companies the authority to use eminent domain.

Smith suggests partial motion could exclude testimony about legality of eminent domain. However, with respect to the general subject of conduct of the company, that testimony "is at least relevant and we'll deal with it on a case by case basis."

Smith says will grant motion in limine with respect to availability of eminent domain but deny the motion with respect to general questions and testimony relative to company conduct in its dealing with landowners. "That's relevant to the social and economic impacts of the project."

Compensation? Smith says PUC doesn't have authority to deal with that issue. The court -- the jury -- will decide what constitutes sufficient compensation.

PUC Moves to Hear Rahn Testimony (Good!)

I'm listening to the PUC broadcast -- already, we get one good vote! TransCanada moved to exclude testimony submitted by an expert names Rahn, since evidently the testimony didn't get filed in time. The explanation from the PUC: evidently the testimony got kicked out by the PUC website somehow, even though it's dated Nov. 13. One of the commissioners said that the PUC has traditionally erred on the side of allowing all parties to be heard, and the commission ruled it would allow the testimony! Yahoo! Let's hear it for hearing everything we can!

Serious About Affordable Housing? Try This...

Tonight after our man Hunter gets done with his 'splainin' to the City Commission, the LAIC will offer a little update on its doings. I see nothing good in the agenda packet for tonight's meeting detailing what the LAIC will present -- nuts! I always enjoy analyzing Mr. Chapel's writing.

Perhaps the LAIC will update the commission on its involvement with Randy Schaefer's new Tax Increment Finance District, which has stirred a bit of a buzz, at least among some of my readers and neighbors. The idea of taking some new development off the tax rolls too help ease a private developer's debt burden has certainly raised eyebrows among the patrons of the school district. Superintendent Vince Schaefer was down at the courthouse last week Friday looking for answers on the TID and how it will impact the school's finances.

The LAIC prepared a presentation advocating the TID at the commission meeting two weeks ago that approved the effort. The LAIC also has evidently used its money to acquire some of the land in the TID. Such involvement fits with the LAIC's stated concern about supporting economic development with affordable housing for workers.

However, if there is a proper role for government (city tax dollars pay Dwaine Chapel and fund LAIC operations) in providing affordable housing, maybe there's a slightly better model than declaring a tax increment district for $110K-150K homes. To the folks in suits, $110K may sound small, but for workers making $27K a year, or maybe a family of four just cracking $40K, even that may be too much. Perhaps we should look at putting up even cheaper houses where typical workers can do more than just scrape together enough to make the payments each month. Let's look at some genuine starter housing that lets young working families get ahead, build equity and savings, and work up to a bigger purchase when they are ready.

Let's talk numbers, provided by an eager reader:

Suppose the LAIC concentrated on affordable housing for the blue-collar workers their manufacturing plants bring in. The LAIC could apply for a TID on undeveloped land out by Baughman Park or even up around the new elementary (young families right next to parks and schools -- perfect!). The city runs the infrastructure out there, then parcels up the land into modest lots just right for Governor's Houses. LAIC could even just buy and install some Governor's Houses themselves, like MCCR over in Howard has done. (Those forward thinkers over in Howard will outdo us yet!) $33K for a house, LAIC absorbs what costs it can for basement and other work... we could crank out a lot of decent housing for $60K a pop.

The city could arrange special low-interest/no-interest loans with the buyers, Maybe giving owners an introductory period during which they could just pay principal (there's an incentive for cutting down interest payment that might kick in later!). They could do something like Habitat for Humanity, where owners could pay down their debt up front with a little sweat equity. Maybe we could even arrange for something with TID money where instead of paying off some private developer, that TID money helps each individual homeowner cover the monthly payments, or even the utilities.

You want to involve the government (LAIC, city, county, whoever) in housing? Remember your Adam Smith: the proper role of government is to do those things that the free market can't or won't do on its own. The free market will build houses in the $110K-$150K range -- maybe not on Randy Schaefer's preferred plot of ground, but those houses are going up. It's the really affordable housing that the free market won't touch. Custom Touch Homes won't show you a standard house design that costs less than $60K (and that's the house alone; expect the total cost to shoot right on up to $100K). The local banks hesitate to float loans for houses much smaller than that -- to banks, a house is only worth its value as a fungible asset, not its status as someone's home.

If the free market won't provide enough affordable houses for workers at the wages the free market is willing to pay in this community, then the government of this community has every right to step in and do what it can to make such housing a reality. $110K-$150K? A little work by LAIC and the city can cut that cost in half and turn the TID money away from boosting private developer profits and toward more direct assistance to the actual homeowners who would love some genuinely affordable options.

PUC Begins TransCanada Pipeline Hearings Today

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission begins ten days of public hearings on the proposed TransCanada Keystone pipeline today at 9:30 a.m. in Pierre. You can listen to the hearing live online (*.rm -- Real Media format). For the less multimedia inclined, you can read the filed testimony on the PUC docket and see if TransCanada gets its way on its request to stifle any mention of eminent domain or other landowner issues from the discussion.

By the way, on that motion in limine, that Sioux Falls paper reports that the PUC should rule right off the bat this morning on whether it will limit the scope of the hearing to what TransCanada wants. (Sure, let's let foreign corporations define the scope of our public legal inquiries.) The paper notes that back in June, our man Dusty offered a pretty clear picture of the PUC's authority:

At one of its public meetings in Yankton in June, PUC Chairman Dusty Johnson outlined the commission's authority. He said its grounds for deciding to issue or withhold a permit for Keystone are based on environmental impacts, whether Keystone would adversely affect the orderly development of the region through which it passes and whether it would create undue safety and welfare hazards [Peter Harriman, "PUC Opens Pipeline Hearings Monday," that Sioux Falls paper, 2007.12.02].

Orderly development, public welfare... hmmm, sounds like eminent domain is perfectly relevant. If the land deals TransCanada is trying to force on some landowners would inhibit their economic development, then those dealings are within the scope of the hearing.

But that's my totally unprofessional, grossly biased opinion. I'm only friends with landowners, not lawyers and foreign corporate executives.

When Did Republicans Fall in Love with Eminent Domain?

Also online at KELOLand.com!

SD Straight Talk's recitation of the TransCanada brochure sounds nice, but I'm still boggled that Republicans -- that any defenders of genuine free market principles and South Dakotans' rights -- would support a project that uses eminent domain for one corporation's private profit maximization. Higher tax revenues don't justify condemning one man's land and handing it to another for some more profitable use.

Of course, SDST's Joel doesn't even mention eminent domain, doesn't explain how eminent domain is "Good for America, good for South Dakota." Again, SDST follows the TransCanada playbook to a tee, trying to stifle any mention of TransCanada's clearly unneighborly behavior.

SDST's Joel tries to straw-man pipeline opponents as emotional, fearful reactionaries. Sorry, Joel, but you don't get to argue against the opponents you imagine. You have to argue against real people. And some of us opponents have a genuine political position, one based on defending the rights of small South Dakota landowners against the legal machinations of billion-dollar corporations. (And SDST has the temerity to suggest that pipeline opponents will use all sorts of legal trickery? Hmph -- TransCanada is the one with all the fancy lawyers strongarming landowners, serving them papers, and playing games with the PUC.)

SDST also deems it ironic that "At a time when farmers and politicians are screaming for transmission lines for wind produced electricity... there is opposition to petroleum transportation that is safe and willingly being funded by private rather than public interests." No irony there: some of us want wind power capacity expanded as fast as possible precisely so we do not have to give in the strong-arm tactics of TransCanada and the rest of the Big Oil interests.

Conservatives used to be about protecting individual rights and limiting eminent domain (which is a violation of free market principles... remember them? conservatives used to love them, too). Theoretically, conservatives ought to favor energy conservation (same etymology, right?). Somewhere along the way, conservative straight talk must have taken a sharp turn or two from its original principles.

Alexa Rankings: Madville Times Is Voice of Madison

Crass self-promotion? On a Sunday? For shame! ;-)

Here's some news that will matter absolutely no one... except maybe my advertisers and the Madison Chamber of Commerce. Alexa produces the following Web-wide rankings for some key Internet portals where the rest of the world can come Discover the Unexpected™ (remember, the smaller the number, the better the ranking):

1. MadisonDailyLeader.com: 10,705,531
2. KJAMRadio.com: 9,888,365
3. City of Madison official government site: 9,353,765
   
4. MadisonSD.com (chamber promotional website): 7,532,355
5. Madville Times: 2,576,119

The City, the Chamber, and the Leader still kick my butt on Google search results. So folks just browsing around will bump into the official organs of the community before they reach the Madville Times. And all of these Madison-based websites are very small potatoes bobbing in a very small pot of local stew. (Compare Dakota War College's ranking of 566,352 -- I'm coming for you, PP! Oh, and KELOLand.com, probably the busiest website in the state, is at 99,920.)

But when it comes to people consistently checking in on our fair community, the Alexa numbers suggest that online, the Madville Times is the loudest voice of Madison. And all with a staff of one, no budget, and no formal web training. Vive la révolution numéric!

And in Weather... Welcome to December

The Lake Herman Meteorological Station reports moderate snow, southeast wind 10-15 mph (but I can hear it starting to gust harder), visibility 1/4 to 1/2 mile. Stay home, stay warm, and stay tuned!

And in Sports... Who Worked This Schedule?

Headline this morning in that Sioux Falls paper:

USD Men's Basketball Beats Regis

Coyotes now rest up for big game Monday against Oprah.

Hyperion Better Neighbor than TransCanada?

Don't think the Madville Times is turning pro-corporate or pro-Big-Oil. We simply note with interest this morning that Houston-based Hyperion appears to be showing a little more neighborly respect for South Dakotans -- or at least a little more PR sensibility -- than TransCanada, a foreign corporation that presumes to tell us what's "good for America, good for South Dakota."

That Sioux Falls paper reports this morning that Hyperion plans to seek a public vote its proposed Elk Point refinery. Hyperion will present a rezoning request to the Union County Commission on Tuesday. If the commission approves that request, Hyperion project executive Preston Philips the company will seek a referendum, an honest public vote in which everyone in the county can decide whether they want to host the refinery.

Phillips said officials with the company are confident that a referendum would be successful, but they won't hesitate to pull up stakes and look for another site if an election doesn't swing their way. Hyperion officials have said there are other sites in contention for the refinery, although they have not revealed alternate locations.

"With the depth of support in the community for the project, we believe the Energy Center will fare well in a referendum," Phillips said. "However, if the majority of voters in Union County do not want us here, then we will surely find a home where we are welcome." [Melanie Brandert, "Refinery Will Be up to Voters," that Sioux Falls paper, 2007.12.01]

Hyperion probably has plenty of corporate scheming up its sleeve, and I'll probably get some cranky e-mails from folks in Elk Point who may be able to point to less cordial actions on the part of the company. But compare Hyperion's approach to TransCanada's "We're coming through, like it or not, and we'll steal your land in court." Hyperion hasn't sworn off eminent domain, but at least they're turning first to a democratic process that involves all citizens rather than legal machinations to get their way. Let's see if Hyperion's relative respectfulness pays off... and whether it continues.

Senator Thune and Wind Power -- Read the Blog

Senator Thune was in town Thursday night for the Salute to Industry banquet. We'd have loved to have been there, but my wife and I couldn't swing $15 apiece to the Chamber for a meal.

Probably no big loss -- we would have heard the same lines about windpower in South Dakota that we've already blogged about frequently. Senator Thune gave the assembled saluters the standard spiel on how South Dakota has lots of wind power potential -- 55% of the nation's electricity demands was the familiar number of the evening -- but needs more transmission capacity to get the power where it's needed.

We've covered this: let's quit wringing our hands over transmission lines. Let's promote local power self-sufficiency projects. Let's shake loose some grant money, re-allocate some capital outlay and other school funds (maybe those drug, alcohol, and tobacco funds that Dr. Newquist and Harrisburg superintendent Jim Holbeck say don't do much good anyway), and raise a windmill next to every school in the state. Get that student team from SDSU to design windfarms for every county, university campus, and other large government facility where there's enough wind to make the turbines work. Build the turbines, build the expertise, build the future.