Evidence is mounting that the Goodhue Wind Project, n/k/a New Era Wind Project, f/k/a AWA Goodhue, the little project that could, but assuredly is NOT, the project that has gone from something pretty much “shovel ready” and approved by the Public Utilities Commission to a project with nothing more than a P.O. Box:

… the evidence is indeed mounting that this wind project is going down, down down…

Join us at the Public Utilities Commission, Thursday June 20, 2013 “not to be decided before 10:30 a.m.” but be there early, 9:30 or so, just in case.

First, the Staff Briefing Papers:

Staff Briefing Papers-20136-88138-01

And just to make sure we understand, because “New Era” keeps stalling saying they’re trying to get something together for a Power Purchase Agreement, that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER happening with the PPAs, Xcel Energy filed an action to terminate the PPAs because nothing is happening, Xcel has had enough, DONE:

Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

What a hoot!  Read it and chortle!  You tell ‘em, Xcel!  errrr… NSP!

FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is at it again.  Join in on the free webcast, also no need to register, and it’s really stimulating stuff! “Reliability of the Bulk-Power System”  Doesn’t get much better than that!

FERC Webcast – Tuesday July 9 @ 9 a.m. EDT

This webcast could be useful, because we all know that Reliability and the Bulk-Power System are one of those conflated things, because the “Bulk-Power System” is about marketing and shipping everywhere and anywhere, and “Reliability” is more the inverse of these bul-power transfers, which can trigger instability by promoting such a high-capacity grid that the magnitude of the transfers, the long distance, and need for reactive power puts the system at risk.

Advisory Committee Contact List

Plus they’re not posting the drafts on the rulemaking site, so the public has no idea what’s being proposed:

7849 June 5 DRAFT New

And minutes from the first meeting:

Synopsis – May 29 meeting

To get to the docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “search eDockets” and search for 12-1246.

We’ll be talking about the Certificate of Need criteria next, and here’s what’s proposed:

7849.0120 CRITERIA CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIREMENTS.

   A certificate of need must be granted to the applicant on determining that:

  Subpart 1. Need Demonstration. An applicant for a certificate of need must demonstrate that the demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures.

Subpart 2. Renewable Resource Preferred. An applicant proposing an LEGF that uses a nonrenewable energy source must demonstrate that it has considered the use of renewable energy sources, as required under Minnesota Statutes section 216B.243, subd. 3a.

Subpart 3. Assessment of Need Criteria. In evaluating a certificate of need application, the

commission shall consider the criteria contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.243, subd. 3, as well as the following:

     A.  whether the probable result of denial would be an adverse effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy supply to the applicant, to the applicant’s customers, or to the people of Minnesota and neighboring states, considering: the region;

                (1)  the accuracy of the applicant’s forecast of demand for the type of energy that would be supplied by the proposed facility;

                  (2) the effects of the applicant’s existing or expected conservation programs and state and federal conservation programs;

      (3)  the effects of promotional practices of the applicant that may have given rise to the

increase in the energy demand, particularly promotional practices which have occurred since 1974;

      (4) B. the ability of current facilities and planned facilities not requiring certificates of need to meet the future demand; and

      (5)  the effect of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, in making efficient use of resources;

             B C.  whether a more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed facility has not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, considering:;

                (1)  D. the appropriateness of the size, the type, and the timing of the proposed facility compared to those of reasonable alternatives;

      (2) E. the cost of the proposed facility and the cost of energy to be supplied by the proposed facility compared to the costs of reasonable alternatives and the cost of energy that would be supplied by reasonable alternatives;

              (3) F. the effects of the proposed facility upon the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of reasonable alternatives; and

                (4) G.  the expected reliability of the proposed facility compared to the expected reliability of reasonable alternatives;

             C.   by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural and socioeconomic environments, including human health, considering:

                (1) the relationship of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, to overall state energy needs;

      (2) H. the effects of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, upon the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of not building the facility;

                (3) I.  the effects of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, in inducing future development; and

                (4) J. the socially beneficial uses of the output of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, including its uses to protect or enhance environmental quality; and.

             D.   the record does not demonstrate that the design, construction, or operation of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will fail to comply with relevant policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local governments.

Photo: A January RW Beagle photo of Dan Bender being recognized as he left the City Council after not running last November.

Dan Bender is now Mayor.  I don’t know much about him and so don’t have a clue how he’ll do as Mayor.  We shall see how it goes.  A couple of the candidates in this 6 candidate race were not credible or substantive.  He seemed a solid option, with experience in city government, and noticeably lacking in the slick oily veneer of his predecessor — that difference shows in the photo!

We shall see…

So it turns out the Public Utilities Commission has had a rulemaking going on Minn. Rules Chapter 7829, which is the PUC’s “Utility Proceeding, Practice, and Procedure” and runs alongside the Office of Administrative Hearings rules in 1400 and 1405.  I discovered this by accident when looking for the PUC’s Web Archive.

The 7829 Rules are something that I’ve been fuming about, that and the 1400 and 1405, for YEARS, like 17 years or so, and they start up a rulemaking docket and don’t give me notice?  Feels real personal, particularly after all the trouble I had with the Post Office and my P.O. Box, trying to change the address, and making sure the PUC had the right address on things, getting phone calls from the keeper of the list that mail was being returned.  But here they use an old address?

Plus the Comment period ended in April.  I am NOT happy…

Here are the rules:

7829 Utility Proceeding, Practice, Procedure

Here’s the notice and proposed changes:

Request for Comments_20132-83863-02

Proposed Rules

… and check the service list — proof they had the wrong address for me and yes, I didn’t get notice.  And I”m not on any of the other lists.

HELLO!  EARTH TO MARS!

Where did they get this service list?  They had a list called the PPSA list, that I was on, but wrong address, and several Telecom list and an “SPL_SL_ETCList-DOC-PUC” list and rulemaking lists, and somehow I’m not on any of them?  How can that be?  Shouldn’t they at least have noticed this when mail was returned?

And look at the notice, the email for comments is “christopher-moseng@state.mn.us,” but that bounces, his email is “christopher.moseng@state.mn.us” — shouldn’t that be corrected?

So, for any of you who did not get notice on this, it’s time to file some comments, file on eDockets, file 13-24. It’s important, because the only ones filing are a couple of state agencies and utility toadies.

And as Suzanne noted, use their proposed procedure to assure they are not excluded as “late” — can’t have that now, can we:

Tippecanoe died this morning.  She was a very old, old cat found by Marlene Halverson way back in 1997 wandering alone a parking lot on a rainy day.  Marlene brought her to the office, where she stayed a day or so, and she roamed the hallway crying so loudly for such a little beast, going around the upstairs hallway on the second floor of the Nasby Building in Northfield where we both had offices.  I had Tyler then, deemed by Bob Jacobsen as “a fish,” because he didn’t allow cats in his apartments above the store, so in joining Tyler, she naturally became Tippecanoe.

A haunting song for Tippe:

I’d had to “rehome” her, Steiner too, when Krie tried to eat them (with Katze, she lived for about 6 months on top of the refrigerator, bookcases, anywhere to stay away from her, except for those few times when she’d leap from the fridge and ride Katze around the kitchen).  We got them back last November, and for a while, they lived in the old house in Red Wing, and after we got back from December’s trip to Delaware, we brought them over and integrated them in, first in the basement, and rather quickly Tippe joined the rest of us upstairs, followed by Steiner.  She was always small, but was pit bull muscular, and never liked to be held, just always wanted to be nearby.  She had a spot on Alan’s desk where she spent her days, or the futon in the office, and she liked the window in the office where I set her up with a pillow in a couple of file boxes so she could lounge in comfort and stare out the window and lay in it when it was open.  Both of the cats were skin and bones when I got them back, and Steiner gained her weight back, but Tippe didn’t, and she continued to lose weight from the 5 pounds she weighed when we took them to the vet.

Tips in the front yard:

Lately, she’s been having a more difficult time getting up the stairs, and had taken to lying on the hard but cool floors rather than on her catbeds scattered around the house.  Every time we feed the dogs, she cries and cries for treats, and we gave her yogurt, sour cream, chicken, something she’d enjoy, but her cries were softer and sometimes she didn’t bother. The night before last, she didn’t eat her chicken, and I figured the end was near.  She spent the last two days in the kitchen, so I put another cat box in there, and she was doing well on output, but I wondered if she’d be alive in the morning.  She made it, and yesterday ate her treats, though she had trouble with the chicken, but when broken up, she ate it.  Then late yesterday afternoon, I found her in the upstairs bathroom, on the cool tile, and she stayed there the rest of the day, had her chicken up there, but again, I doubted she’d make it through the night.

Early this morning, I found her on the floor, having petit mal seizures, and she was not conscious and I remembered with Krie, when her liver gave out, she started with petit mal and by the time we got to the vet, grand mal, and the same thing happened with Isabelle, roommate Peter Allen’s cat when he was in China, and those seizures were awful. I didn’t want her to go through that. Then it seemed she started to relax, her legs visibly straightening out, less tense, and fewer twitches.  It was still an hour and a half before the vet opened, but they’re an hour away, so we lined a box with a towel and put her in it, just in case she started grand mal seizures, her breaths were weird, uneven and long spaces and she was clearly dying though not in distress.  I went to get dressed to go to Kenyon Vet Clinic. but as I was finding my shoes, Alan said he thought she’d died.  Sure enough, that was it, no big seizures, no agony, a fairly quick not-so-bad death. 

Tippecanoe will take up residence in a corner of the back yard and we’ll find a plant to put there and think of her as it grows.

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion – Court File A11-1116

It really doesn’t get much better than this.

Buy the Farm Briefs

Bottom line on minimum compensation?  Landowners are entitled to minimum compensation:

Appellants who elected to require utilities to condemn their entire properties in fee pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 216E.12 (2012) are entitled to minimum compensation under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2012) as owners who “must relocate” because on the date of the taking, the utilities took title to and possession of appellants’ entire properties.

… and …

Accordingly, we must determine whether appellants were required to relocate at the time their properties were taken. Because NSP initiated quick-take condemnation proceedings, the time of the takings with respect to appellants’ properties was when title to and possession of the property passed to NSP. See Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth., 789 N.W.2d at 874 (explaining that “the date of the taking” in a quick-take condemnation proceeding is when “the transfer of title and possession” occurs, which is “well before the commissioners file their award”). It is undisputed that by the time title to and possession of appellants’ properties passed to NSP, appellants had made their elections under Minn. Stat. § 216E.12, subd. 4, which by operation of the statute, automatically converted the easements sought into fee takings. See Minn. Stat. § 216E.12, subd. 4 (explaining that at the time the property owner makes an election, “the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee . . . shall automatically be converted into a fee taking”). It follows that, at the time of the takings, NSP took title to and possession of appellants’ entire properties in fee. Therefore, we conclude that appellants were owners under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 who, at the time the takings occurred, “must relocate.” Accordingly, they are entitled to minimum compensation.

Bottom line on relocation benefits?  Landowners are entitled to relocation benefits:

Because appellants are “displaced persons” under federal law, they are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56 (2012).

… and…

Because appellants are required to relocate permanently, they do not fall within the exemption in 49 C.F.R. § 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D). Therefore, because we conclude that appellants satisfy the definition of “displaced persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 4601(6)(A)(i)(I) and do not fall within any exemptions to that definition, we hold that appellants are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56.

The decision was written by Justice Alan Page (photo from StarTribune www.startribune.com):

Yes, when he’s not wearing a football uniform, he’s the guy who is ALWAYS seen wearing one of his many classic “Jacobsen” bow ties, standing up for the public interest and the people of Minnesota.  For him to be in the spot where he is, to do the work he’s doing, a long strange trip for a football player (sort of like it was for a truckdriver, eh?), with some good mentoring along the way.

This decision is something I’ve been working for, and toward, since I first got involved with the Chisago Transmission Project so long ago, and folks, that’s 17 years now…

Now and then, some event rates an “OH HAPPY DAY!” and this is the best of all, so this time from Aretha… OH HAPPY DAY!!!

From the St. Cloud Times:

ST. PAUL – The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that landowners who had their property taken as part of the CapX2020 high-voltage transmission line construction are entitled to relocation costs and minimum compensation.

The Supreme Court decision overturned that decision and echoed what Cleary said in his Court of Appeals dissent.

There’s a meeting, the first meeting, this week of the Advisory Committee for the Public Utilities Commission’s rulemaking, Chapters 7849 Certificate of Need, and 7850 Routing.

Rule changes are something I’ve been trying to make happen for what, decades?!?!?!  I’d finally begun filing rulemaking petitions back in 2010, note what I’d suggested for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 back then — NOTHING — I didn’t get Ch. 7849 done!  Well, drat, 1400, 1405, 7829 and 7850 but no 7849:

OverlandComments-2010

So back to the meeting.  Look who all is on the committee, and look who is not:

Advisory Committee Contact List

And here’s what the Commission is proposing for Minn. Rules Ch. 7849, be sure to check carefully to get a handle on what they’re adding and what they’re taking out:

7849 DRAFT – PUC proposal

And then be sure to compare the 7849 with the Certificate of Need statute to make sure it’s consistent with black letter and intent:

Certificate of Need statutes

Where’s their proposal for 7850, Routing?

Yesterday was a meeting of the Delaware Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee at Kitts Hummock, by Dover.  Their charge is broad:

The Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee is comprised of a representative from each State of Delaware cabinet-level department and representatives from municipal governments, business advocacy organizations and citizen advocacy organizations. Each representative to the Advisory Committee will consult with their agencies and constituent groups regarding sea level rise issues and bring their concerns and needs to the table for discussion and action. The Advisory Committee will ensure that the Adaptation Plan reflects a wide-range of potential solutions to reduce risk to sea level rise impacts, and will ensure that the plan will be useful to their organization’s mission. Members of the Advisory Committee will be strongly encouraged to help implement the recommendations in the Adaptation Plan by continued collaboration with Advisory Committee organizations and others.

“…potential solutions to reduce risk to sea level rise impacts…” but they’re missing the boat in at least one obvious area…

The reality of sea level rise is apparent every time I head up to Delaware City, because Route 9 is underwater, from 1/3 to 2/3 of the southbound lane.  When we headed to Kitts Hummuck (what’s a hummuck?  “It’s like a tussock, but bigger,” Alan says.) and there was water on Route 9 south of Port Penn, too.  Delaware is SO flat, and Port Penn’s development has moved back from water’s edge:

In looking at the draft report, the first thing I noticed was that there was nothing about preparation about how sea level rise would affect utility infrastructure (the love of my life!).  During a break, the DOT rep at the meeting let me know that they’d done a “Vulnerability Study” that addresses that, and here it is:

Delaware Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment

.. and no, there’s nothing about electrical infrastructure, ranging from generation, to transmission, to distribution.  A search shows only one reference to electrical:

Data Collection

In order to conduct an in-depth vulnerability assessment, geographic datasets are necessary. Geographic datasets are a special type of dataset that contains information so that it can be placed on a map. Delaware Coastal Programs staff spent considerable time and effort compiling geographic datasets that could be utilized
with the sea level rise scenario maps to determine the location and numbers of resources at risk from sea
level rise. Datasets like roads, railways and public safety facilities were relatively easy to obtain as they are
maintained and routinely updated by a state or county agency. Many datasets were out of date or lacked
appropriate documentation as to when the data was collected or how it was collected (metadata). A few
datasets were unable to be used for this assessment due to privacy or homeland security concerns (electrical
substations for example). In many other cases, the desired data did not exist or was so out of date that it could
not be used.

Oh my… ummmmmmm… what a bunch ‘o crap!  They need to look at this stuff, and for sure they have access.  They are a government entity doing planning.  EARTH TO MARS — all they have to do is sign a form, and if they don’t want to do that, they can look at google maps.  THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS.

Why does it matter whether they consider electrical infrastructure?  Well, electricity is deemed an essential service, and if it’s underwater, they’re gonna have problems, to put it mildly.  Power plants are typically located on water, Indian River is a perfect example, sited on the Indian River Bay, just off the ocean, and about a foot above the water level:

What do they say about the Indian River power plant?  This is it:

The Indian River power plant is the only heavy industrial facility permitted by the Coastal Zone Act in Sussex
County. This facility’s disposal area, shoreline, and intake structures are within areas that will be inundated by sea level rise, but the power plant itself is not within a potential inundation area.

Otherwise, power plants are addressed only in terms of impact of loss of rail service.  Great…

Here’s a photo I took of one of the substations they’re ignoring — took this photo while flying by on Route 9, close to Kitts Hummock.  I saw this substation, there’s no reason they can’t, and when this substation goes underwater, then what?  A state with homes as old as ours should have an understanding of long-term planning (it looks to me that this was built in anticipation of MAPP, it’s huge and has a lot of empty positions:

The only transmission considered is disease transmission.  An example of transmission facilities at issue is the one along Hwy. 1, by Indian River, pictured here where the Bay is on the west (left), the transmission line is immediately adjacent to the southbound lane of Hwy. 1, and the ocean is east of Hwy. 1:

Nuclear is not mentioned, despite the three reactor Salem and Hope Creek plant just across the Delaware Bay.  With sea level rise, it will soon look like Ft. Calhoun:

Here’s what they have to say about pipelines, p. 101 of Vulnerability Assessment — they’re not concerned:

 Underground Pipeline Utilities: This resource includes natural gas and petroleum pipelines. Workgroup
members also initially considered water and sewer pipelines; however, data was unavailable due to privacy and homeland security concerns. Between 4% and 6% of pipeline utilities throughout the state are within an area that could be inundated by sea level rise by the year 2100. While sections of pipeline are exposed in all three counties, the highest concentration is found in New Castle County. The results from the analysis showed that major supply lines will not be affected; however, distribution along with pipeline corrosion may become issues in the future. Due to these considerations, inundation of underground pipeline utilities is of low concern at this time.

Despite the significant omissions, look at all the Delaware organizations that supported it:

Sign on letter of Delaware Enviros

Anyway, then yesterday, they approved the recommendations, with a few minor changes. And those recommendations are not posted — the most recent minutes are from March… sigh…

So rough and quick and dirty review of what they did:

• Approved the lion’s share of the recommendations;
• Deleted #17, which was focused on financial assurance to minimize the state’s liability.  GRRRRRR!
• Approved #35 which shifts the burden of notice/disclosure to a home buyer, rather than on a seller and/or realtor.  This is SO WRONG!
• Sussex County rep was worthless, sat there silently except to abstain from voting.  ?????

From the News Journal:

Saving Delaware’s coast from sea-level rise

Sussex declines to vote on proposed sea-level rise responses

In a symbolic blow to state climate change adaption efforts, the Delaware county with most at stake in future sea-level rise forecasts abruptly declined to take any stand on the issue Thursday as a state panel approved dozens of recommendations for dealing with the threat.

Jeff Shockley, Sussex County delegate to the state’s Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee, said local officials instructed him to abstain from voting on any of the roughly 60 options developed by the group over a 2½-year period. That move followed a skeptical response to the state effort by some County Council members during a briefing in Georgetown this month.

Despite the county abstentions, committee members completed recommendations that will go to Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Secretary Collin P. O’Mara after a final report-signing meeting in August.

The options range from broad directions to improve coordination among federal, state, county and local agencies and include sea-level rise in growth plans to a call for expanded public education and better collection of data on climate change indicators and sea-level changes.

Hours later, Delaware’s congressional delegation announced $20 million in National Science Foundation grants for science education and research at four Delaware higher education centers, emphasizing the effect of sea-level rise and soil contamination consequences.

“This is another good step in understanding how the changing climate and human impacts on the land affect our environment now and for many years to come,” Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said in a statement.

Renewable energy technologies, such as offshore wind, and workforce development also will be targeted in the research, along with the development of new sensors for environmental monitoring. The grants will support collaborations involving the University of Delaware, Delaware State University, Wesley College and Delaware Technical Community College.

O’Mara commissioned a study in 2010 of the state’s vulnerability to climate change and adaptation options. The initiative followed a court ruling that DNREC lacked authority to consider sea-level rise in the denial of a wastewater permit in a flood-prone area near Leipsic and the Delaware Bay.

The vulnerability report, released last year, was based on a projected 3- to 5-foot rise in sea levels if pollution-driven climate change continues, a prospect that would permanently flood 11 percent of the state’s land area by 2100, from Wilmington to Fenwick Island.

Some 20,000 dwellings, nearly all of the state’s tidal wetlands, whole bayside communities as well as roads, important public resources and some industrial areas could face permanent inundation, according to predictions based on national and international studies. Sussex County, with its heavy ocean and bayside development, would be hit hardest.

Chip Guy, spokesman for Sussex County, said afterward the county government was nevertheless unprepared to vote on the options Thursday and could not provide an estimate for when it would be prepared to vote.

“While there may be individual concerns among some members of council, the body as a whole has not taken a position,” Guy said. “Because of the scope and number of recommendations being made, the county needs more time to thoroughly review those options being discussed and voted on.”

O’Mara issued a statement Thursday night in response to the county’s decision.

“The science is extremely compelling and we have many vulnerabilities that need to be addressed in the years ahead,” he said. “We look forward to continuing to work with Sussex County to help improve community resiliency to extreme storms and sea-level rise to prevent millions of dollars in future damage to infrastructure, private property and businesses.”

Until Thursday, Shockley had been an active participant, attending public comment sessions held in each county as the group’s recommendations began to take shape. Guy said Thursday the council received a presentation on the recommendations earlier this month and “simply wants more time to digest and review the vast number of recommendations made by the committee.”

In a recording of that council briefing earlier this month, some members were plainly skeptical of the risk and questioned DNREC’s success in bringing landowners into the process. Council member Sam Wilson, R-Georgetown, said those predicting sea-level rise “have no facts … no science. It’s almost B.S., to be honest with you.”

Councilwoman Joan Deaver, D-Lewes, whose district takes in a large swath of coastal area, disagreed and said residents and land buyers need to be told about risks.

“Sam, you don’t have to worry about it in Georgetown. My district might be concerned about it,” Deaver said.

The state panel voted to scale back one controversial proposal – to require seller disclosure of a property’s sea-level rise vulnerability – last month, choosing instead to make more information available to buyers.

Arrowhead Appellate Decision

Arrowhead was exempted, and hence Buy the Farm doesn’t apply, so that went to the Appellate Court, which tossed it out.  And the 2001 statutory changes, which defined “high voltage transmission lines” as anything over 100 kV, meaning Buy the Farm would apply to 115 kV lines like SE Metro, and Chisago, but nooooo, can’t have that, so Sen. Metzen then amended in 2002 so that it only applies to lines 200 kV or over.  GRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Here’s the update in the Belle Plaine Herald (why is there nothing whatsoever in the STrib?).  GRE’s Randy Fordice claims it’s vaguely worded, but I think it’s pretty specific:

All rights and protections provided to an owner under chapter 117 apply to acquisition of land or an interest in land under this section.

DOH!  Vague my ass…