Legalectric

The Public Utilities Commission hearing/meeting on the Certificate of Need (09-1186) and Siting Permit (08-1233) for Goodhue Wind went on until 10:30 last night, and many people still had not spoken.   It starts up again at3:00 p.m., again at the Goodhue school.

For the full record, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and “Search eDockets” for 08-1233 (siting) or 09-1186 (Certificate of Need).

And here is a small part of Goodhue Wind Truth’s filings:

Direct Testimony - Richard R. James, INCE

The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound

Wind Turbine Noise - What Audiologists Should Know

News coverage of yesterday’s shindig:

In the Beagle

Goodhue Wind releases detailed site plan

On MPR:

Wind turbine or the Foshay Tower: Which is taller?

At Finance & Commerce:

Goodhue Wind execs, opponents meet before administrative judge

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Wind buffer proposals from Zumbrota, Goodhue meet resistance

And at MinnPost:

Concerns about wind farms to be aired at Goodhue hearing

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Proponents and critics of proposed Goodhue County wind farm speak up

On KSTP - check the video!!!

Controversy brewing over wind mill farm

I’d guess there will be something in the News Record and the Beacon soon too…

In the STrib - info on capital funding for the Goodhue project and other National projects:

Deutsche Bank funding will give a push to local wind developer

National Wind will get help on 12 projects and a loan to expand.

By JENNIFER BJORHUS, Star Tribune

A Minneapolis-based wind developer is getting a lift from Deutsche Bank. The German investment bank will help finance 12 wind projects, including five slated for Minnesota, that National Wind has in various stages in the pipeline, National Wind said Thursday. The bank also gave the developer a senior secured loan for an undisclosed amount to finance an expansion to the West Coast and New England.

“We anticipate that Deutsche Bank will participate in financing those projects,” Leon Steinberg, National Wind’s chief executive, said in an interview Thursday.

The projects are still subject to underwriting, but it’s good news for the company at a time when many wind developers are struggling with tight financing.

Robert Martorano, managing director of Deutsche Bank’s asset finance and leasing group, said in a statement that Deutsche Bank is making renewable energy a priority.

National Wind, which employs about 42 people, develops relatively large wind farms with local land owners who maintain majority ownership when projects are done. It has sold three operational wind farms so far: one in Minnesota’s Cottonwood County and two in North Dakota. The 12 projects it is working on would generate 3,950 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power an estimated 1.6 million to 3.6 million homes, depending on weather and the sizes of the homes. The five slated for Minnesota would generate about 1,030 megawatts, or enough to power 412,000 to 927,000 homes.

National Wind made headlines in April with news that one of Texas oil magnate Boone Pickens’ companies is backing another National Wind project in the state, a 78-megawatt wind farm it’s developing around Goodhue, Minn., south of Red Wing. Pickens’ Mesa Power is helping finance that project and supplying about 52 1.5-megawatt GE wind turbines.

The state Public Utilities Commission has granted the Goodhue farm preliminary approval. A group called Goodhue Wind Truth has been opposing the project, which would span about 32,000 acres.

Really, this is their “site plan”

Remember LS Power’s proposal to build an 855MW gas plant by the Chisago County substation?  And Xcel’s Mikey Bull’s statement that Xcel isn’t going to be needing this power and isn’t going to be needing any power for a while?  There’s no Power Purchase Agreement in sight, no Certificate of Need application or Site Permit application to the PUC, but they do have a legislatively mandated utility personal property tax exemption thanks to Rep. Jeremy Kalin and Sen. Rick Olseen, and they do have a Development Agreement thanks to Lent Township and Chisago County, though they’ve yet to sign the Chisago County one…

And now they’ve got a lawsuit on their hands:

CRVC -Summons and Complaint

This was filed June 30 in Chisago County — Chisago County, Lent Townshiip and Sunrise River Energy, LLC have 20 days to file their Answer.

.

And the pitch?  Nothing new, just RE-AMP toadying for utilities, but I’m waiting for Howard “The Slow” Learner to prove me right, again… and to see how far they go to promote transmission.

April 20 & 21st is Learner’s/Environmental Law & Policy Center’s and RE-AMP’s “invitation only” transmission strategy workshop, at their office in Chicago, and I surmise much about their goal and strategy based on my many past experiences with transmission promoters.  This meeting is very unlike the Sierra Club transmission strategy meeting in West Virginia last spring, a great group of people who understand the purpose of transmission, were actively engaged in fighting it and who have been successful in slowing down that big web of 500kV/765kV lines known as Project Mountaineer.   Here in the Midwest, it’s a little different.  An example:

The ELPC has also been working with the South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority to develop and expand transmission lines across South Dakota. They will also work with neighboring states to develop new approaches for more transmission. The available wind energy in South Dakota is far greater than the state’s electricity needs, so the ability to move this power out of the state is crucial.

What is ELPC doing to develop and expand transmission?  Transmission lines across South Dakota moving this power out of state means it comes into Minnesota — funny how that works.  What is ELPC doing about the coal plants in queue in the Dakotas?

What is the goal of ELPC’s invitation-only Transmission Strategy Meeting?

Anyway, it was no surprise to me — Learner saw I was on the list and has slammed the door in my face!  Imagine that!  SNORT!  It seems that people with a lot of working knowledge of transmission, knowledge of history, and knowledge of the parties involved are not welcome.  Specifics on this meeting are below.

Don’t drop the ball, Howard!  Will Howard Learner and ELPC be the utilities’ water boy for transmission that’s planned stretching from the Midwest to the East Coast or acknowledge that more big transmission is not needed or wanted?  And why would anyone want to advocate for transmission to the East Coast if the East Coast doesn’t want it?  Will they respect the East Coast’s solid “NO!” to Midwest transmission?  How ethno-geo-centric will they be?

Here are a few posts with links to the primary documents of NYISO & ISO-NE, NY’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, the 10 Mid-Atlantic Governors letter, etc.

DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission

Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from Midwest

Eastern Governors stand up against Transmission!!!

The windup?  Today’s Chicago Tribune has a disturbing article about transmission, foreshadowing the meeting three weeks from now:

Putting wind generated power where it’s needed

For example, from the article:

In order to integrate and move that alternative power east through Illinois, the grid would have to be expanded and upgraded, say transmission experts and utility companies.

The estimated cost to move that wind power east could range from $64 billion to $93 billion in 2009 dollars and would require 17,000 to 22,000 miles of transmission lines to be built in the eastern half of the country alone, according to the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) published in January and prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Just a reminder, Matt Schuerger who worked on this EWITS (or “nitwits”) study is the same one who, together with Beth Soholt, asked me to sell out on the SW MN 345kV line.  At that time, he was at ME3 (after a stint at District Energy) and is listed as a consultant on Izaak Walton 990s, and Beth Soholt, Izaak Walton League (formerly of MAPP).  FYI - Wind on the Wires is a GRANT, not an organization — it’s listed on the Izaak Walton 990s as a “program” despite having a Minnesota non-profit established (CLICK HERE for Secretary of State link)

2008-Izaak Walton League 990

2007-Izaak Walton League 990

2006-Izaak Walton League 990

2005-Izaak Walton League 990

2004-Izaak Walton League 990

Color me naive, I really didn’t have a clue (other than the enviros’ obscene deal on Prairie Island in 1994) until that meeting in question, it was on or about Sept. 8, 2001, when Beth and Matt asked about 6-7 of us who were likely intervenors in that docket to sell out.   “What would you need to approve of this line?” (the SW MN 345kV line, PUC Docket 01-1958).  I asked what they were getting and what they’d share, and what they were getting was pissy and they got pissier the more questions I asked, particularly Matt, who made empty threats about walking out — DUH, please, leave!  The most important question they didn’t address was, “What about the big long list of coal in queue on p. 29 of the study, waiting for the transmission that they were promoting?”  Defensive pissyness, unwillingness to address the big picture, and silence.  Schuerger and Soholt, they were so B Squad about it that afternoon at the Loring Cafe, Dinkytown, in 2001.  That was the year that “Wind on the Wires” got $4.5 million to promote transmission.  That amount was ramped up for the next grant, and the focus of their deal became clear when one agreement was posted on the TRANSLink docket.  A o coupfle days later, “Wind on the Wires“  got an Energy Foundation/McKnight grant of $8.1 million.  $8.1 MILLION! Hmmmmm…

The Energy Foundation/McKnight funded and orchestrated promotion of transmission has been shameless, as bad as the enviro support for coal gasification, their transmission efforts ranging from attempts to gain endorsement of the regional SEED group (organizations that as a whole knew nothing about transmission) to legislative “it’s a deal, a package deal and it’s a good deal” changes desired by utilities, to NWCC “concensus building” to supportive intervention in transmission dockets.  That agenda continues despite clear evidence that midwest transmission supports coal, our RES that does not link an increase in renewables with a decrease in coal, MISO policy that has a goal of displacing natural gas with coal (see “Conclusions” in ICF - Midwest ISO Benefits Analysis) , and decreased demand and a conservation mandate, such that transmission is not needed now and probably not needed ever.  Whose interests are these organizations acting in?  Their interests, their funders’ interests.  Where’s consideration of the public interest?

What did they agree to back then?  Here’s one example that’s public:

Settlement Agreement - ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, North American Water Office

Take a closer look at “Wind on the Wires” that is a subset of the Izaak Walton League.  Do members and chapters of the Izaak Walton League have a clue what this organization is advocating?  Though there is a Minnesota “non-profit” registered, as above, it remains a “program” on the Izaak Walton League IRS 990s and Beth Soholt is an employee of the Waltons.  From the website, here’s the address, same as the Waltons:

Office Location

Wind on the Wires
1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite 203
St Paul, MN 55104
(651) 644-3400

Their list of  WOW Staff and Consultants:

Beth Soholt
Director, Wind on the Wires

Linda Brewster
Administrative Associate, Wind on the Wires

Matthew Schuerger, P.E.
Technical Consultant

Natalie McIntire
Technical/Policy Consultant

And take a look at who is on the board of “Wind on the Wires”, why the whole family is there:

Board Members
R.T. “Hap” Boyd
GE Energy

Hans Detweiler
American Wind Energy Association

Joe DeVito
RES – Americas

Tom Feiler
Clipper Windpower

Richard Free
John Deere Wind Energy

Bob Gough
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

Ian Krygowski
enXco

Howard Learner
Environmental Law and Policy Center

Kevin Lynch
IBERDROLA RENEWABLES

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin

(And would you look at that, Rick Free?!?!  Too funny — I’ve got to tell Nancy Prehn what Rick Free is up to since we killed his Simon Industries gas plant in Waseca!)

And the pitch:

The ELPC Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting.  The shameless Energy Foundation funded (and is this also McKnight Foundation funded?)  and orchestrated promotion of transmission continues.  First, on March 5th this appeared in my inbox:

Colleagues -

1.  We appreciate the Energy Foundation’s grant support to cover reasonable travel/hotel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance in order to attend this important regional meeting.

2.  Please call/email Kay Tamillow at ELPC (312-795-3709, ktamillow@elpc.org) for information on the favorable hotel rate that ELPC has obtained and to make reservations.

3.  Please RSVP to attend if you’re interested and have not yet done so.

Best wishes,

Howard
———————————

Midwest/Great Plains Environmental, Clean Energy and Consumer Colleagues,

Please join us for a Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20 (dinner) and April 21 (full day), 2010 in Chicagoat the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s conference space, 35 East Wacker Drive.  New major interstate transmission lines in the Midwest/Great Plains are a double-edged sword:  On the one hand, they can provide additional needed delivery capacity for wind power and other new renewable energy development; on the other hand, they can provide enabling delivery capacity and lifelines of support for the continued operation of old highly-polluting coal plants.  We will be developing strategies to advance the former and avoid the latter.  We will also address important cost-allocation issues for new transmission.  Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc.

The purposes of the strategy meeting are to: (1) Bring together Midwest environmental, clean energy and consumer leaders to learn together and get up-to-speed on key transmission strategy and policy issues, (2) Set the strategic framework for what types of transmission lines we will support and which not, and what we can and should do through advocacy; and (3) Initiate strategic discussions and actions on high-leverage transmission advocacy targets in the Midwest/Great Plains states.

The importance of new transmission capacity to support wind power development is relatively clear. There is a less obvious and equally important goal of relating transmission advocacy to spur the retirement of old, highly-polluting coal plants in the Midwest/Great Plains states. There is a very important set of strategic leverage points because of the structure of the Midwest/Great Plains power market in 2010 – 2020.

The framework for the agenda is as follows below. We will distribute a final agenda closer to the meeting date.

April 20th, 5:30 pm. - 8:30 pm:
Dinner Meeting and Briefing with wind industry and transmission line developers presenting.

April 21st, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm:
Morning: Strategy briefing and short course on key transmission issues and opportunities for environmental, clean energy and consumer advocates.

Afternoon: Strategy planning and discussion on: (1) Engagement/intervention in key policymaking forums: FERC, MISO, State PUCs, Public Outreach; and (2) Focus on Pros/Cons and potential challenges to particular transmission line proposals in Midwest/Great Plains region.

The agenda planning group includes:

Citizens Utility Board (Illinois) – David Kolata
Energy Foundation – David Wooley and Ben Paulos
Environmental Law & Policy Center – Howard Learner and John Moore
Fresh Energy – Michael Noble
Kresge Foundation – Lois DeBacker
Michigan Environmental Council – James Clift
Wind on the Wires – Beth Soholt

Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc. ELPC is working to obtain foundation support to cover reasonable travel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance.  Please indicate in your response if you will need reimbursement of reasonable travel costs.

We all understand the strategic importance of this meeting and the issues to be discussed. Thank you in advance for you participation and engagement. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email:  HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

And of course knowing what they’re up to, I signed right up right after I got it, and Alan did too.   We’re all set!  Then, on the 16th, I get this, from Howard Learner:

Howard Learner wrote:

Carol and Alan,

I’m writing to let you know that the Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20-21 is a “by invitation only” strategy session among a group of directly invited environmental - clean energy - consumer colleagues, rather than an open conference or seminar event.  Members of the planning group for this particular strategy session have asked that we limit attendees to those directly invited.  Although my assistant Kay Tamillow did receive your RSVP, we’ll ask that you not plan to attend.

Thank you for understanding,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email: HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

So here’s my response to Howard’s email:

Howard -

Interesting — I  think I understand some things and don’t understand others. I do know that I am thinking that the “plan” is getting more and more interesting…

The Sierra Club had an excellent transmission strategy planning meeting in West Virginia last spring of those intervening in transmission dockets, attorneys, expert witnesses, and advocates from both coasts regarding their focused and effective efforts. I think I shall regard your missive as confirmation that your strategic plan and goal is quite different from that of Sierra.

But many questions remain…

Carol A. Overland
Attorney representing clients in transmission cases across the country for 15 years now

We’ll see how this goes!

This is one of those things that’s been bugging me for a long time, and I’m finally getting around to looking it up.  There are a few twists and turns, and this is a long post, with a lot of links and a lot of audio listening for you to dig in if you’re interested.  If you’re a landowner, you sure better be!  If you’re a landowner affected by utility infrastructure, this is required reading and listening!

Here we go!

History of Minn. Stat. 117.189

Here’s the statute (the specific statutory cites below are linked):

117.189 PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTIONS.

Sections 117.031; 117.036; 117.055, subdivision 2, paragraph (b); 117.186; 117.187; 117.188; and 117.52, subdivisions 1a and 4, do not apply to public service corporations. For purposes of an award of appraisal fees under section 117.085, the fees awarded may not exceed $500 for all types of property.
History:

2006 c 214 s 14

Short version - this bill was a bipartisan sell-out that exempted CapX 2020 and any other public service corporation project from eminent domain that every other entity must comply with.  Why on earth would they do this… or rather, what innocent explaination is there for this 117.189 section of the bill?

So far that I’ve heard (only ~6 hours thus far), Sen. Scott Dibble is the only one asking “Why exempt public service corporations?”

The only Senators who voted against this were:

Anderson, Cohen, Dibble, Hottinger, Marko, Moua, Pappas, Ranum, Skoglund

The only Reps who voted against this were:

Davnie, Ellison, Goodwin, Hausman, Hornstein, Huntley, Johnson, S., Kahn, Lanning, Lenczewski, Mahoney, Mariani, Mullery, Paymar, Thao, Wagenius, Walker

Please take a few minutes and send them a thank you note!  Here’s a link to their emails:

House Members

Senate Members

*****************************************************

First, some more history, going back to my all time favorite bill:

2005 TRANSMISSION OMNIBUS BILL FROM HELL

Remember, this was the bill that grew from the deal the enviros did in 2003, incorporating the material terms of that deal into the 2005 Omnibus bill.

ME3, MCEA, Waltons, NAWO -TRANSLink deal

And… why… look, there’s language in the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell mandating an “Eminent Domain Landowner Compensation — Landowner Payments Working Group!”

55.35                             ARTICLE 1155.36               EMINENT DOMAIN LANDOWNER COMPENSATION56.1      Section. 1.  [LANDOWNER PAYMENTS WORKING GROUP.]56.2      Subdivision 1.  [MEMBERSHIP.] By June 15, 2005, the56.3   Legislative Electric Energy Task Force shall convene a landowner56.4   payments working group consisting of up to 12 members, including56.5   representatives from each of the following groups:56.6   transmission-owning investor-owned utilities, electric56.7   cooperatives, municipal power agencies, Farm Bureau, Farmers56.8   Union, county commissioners, real estate appraisers and others56.9   with an interest and expertise in landowner rights and the56.10  market value of rural property.56.11     Subd. 2.  [APPOINTMENT.] The chairs of the Legislative56.12  Electric Energy Task Force and the chairs of the senate and56.13  house committees with primary jurisdiction over energy policy56.14  shall jointly appoint the working group members.56.15     Subd. 3.  [CHARGE.] (a) The landowner payments working56.16  group shall research alternative methods of remunerating56.17  landowners on whose land high voltage transmission lines have56.18  been constructed.56.19     (b) In developing its recommendations, the working group56.20  shall:56.21     (1) examine different methods of landowner payments that56.22  operate in other states and countries;56.23     (2) consider innovative alternatives to lump-sum payments56.24  that extend payments over the life of the transmission line and56.25  that run with the land if the land is conveyed to another owner;56.26     (3) consider alternative ways of structuring payments that56.27  are equitable to landowners and utilities.56.28     Subd. 4.  [EXPENSES.] Members of the working group shall be56.29  reimbursed for expenses as provided in Minnesota Statutes,56.30  section 15.059, subdivision 6.  Expenses of the landowner56.31  payments working group shall not exceed $10,000 without the56.32  approval of the chairs of the Legislative Electric Energy Task56.33  Force.56.34     Subd. 5.  [REPORT.] The landowner payments working group56.35  shall present its findings and recommendations, including56.36  legislative recommendations and model legislation, if any, in a57.1   report to the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force by January57.2   15, 2006.

Now, let’s take a look at who was on that Committee:

REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS

1. Jim Musso (Xcel Energy) representing transmission owning investor-owned utilities
2. Bob Ambrose (Great River Energy) representing electric cooperatives
3. Mrg Simon (Missouri River Energy) representing municipal power agencies
4. Chris Radatz-representing the Minnesota Farm Bureau
5. Tim Henning (farmer) representing the Minnesota Farmers Union
6. Jack Keers (Pipestone County Commissioner) representing county commissioners
7. Robin Nesburg (Rural Appraisal Services) representing real estate appraisers

AT LARGE MEMBERS

8. Beth Soholt (Wind on the Wires)
9. John Nauerth III (farmer)
10. George Crocker (North American Water Office)
11. Bob Cupit (Public Utilities Commission)
12. Bill Blazar (Minnesota Chamber of Commerce)

Here’s the report of the Work Group:

LANDOWNERS’ PAYMENTS WORKING GROUP

REPORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY TASK FORCE  (LEETF)

Laws 2005, chapter 97, article 11, required the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force (LEETF) to create a landowners’ payments working group to study alternative methods of remunerating landowners on whose land high-voltage transmission lines have been constructed.

The group was created, met twice, and this is a report of its findings and recommendations.

LANDOWNER PAYMENTS GROUP FINDINGS

1.  Farm owners in southwestern Minnesota want compensation for high-voltage transmission line easements to be paid annually as a percentage of the current value of the land so that as land values rise or drop, the payments rise or drop accordingly.

2.  Easement acquiring utilities are not in favor of the proposal described in item #1 and do not want to fundamentally change the current method of payment for easements, which consists of a onetime payment based on a percentage value of the land over which the easement is acquired.

3.  The Legislature has the authority to mandate the payment system described in item #1.

4.  There are no jurisdictions that have the payment system described in item #1.

5.  The payment system described in item #1 would be more expensive than the current payment system, assuming the percentages proposed by the landowners with attendant upward pressure on rates.

6.  There is a social value to having a harmonious, nonadversarial process to acquire high-voltage transmission line easements that has an economic value that is hard to quantify.

7.  There is a sense that the process for negotiating an easement and/or contesting it by a landowner is too expensive and complicated and it may be helpful to search for legislative ways to ensure that all similarly situated landowners receive the same just compensation without being intimidated by the process or forced to great expense by the process.

8.  While this group was formed due to farm landowner concerns, the scope of the charge extends to all landowners.  Guidance from the task force is necessary as to the scope of the charge because the scale of the issue is altered if any easement over any land is the subject of the discussion.

9.  While the direct parties in interest–the landowners and utilities–are stalemated, the current push to acquire easements for new lines makes the issue one that should have a firm handle kept on it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.  If further work is to be done on this topic, the task force should provide the guidance described under finding #8.

2.  If the task force wants to continue work on this topic and wants more public input, it should consider utilizing the same persons who are on the current study group.

3.  The task force may wish to consider whether there are flaws in the current easement acquisition process related to its expense to landowners to contest and perceived intimidating qualities.

*****************************************************

Let’s look at the eminent domain bills the following session, Senate bill, SF 2750 and the House bill, HF 2846.

SF 2750

Senate Authors, none added after introduction:    Bakk ; Kiscaden ; Bachmann ; Chaudhary ; Kubly

Bill as introduced, had the Public Service Corporation exemption AND the appraisal fee limitation:

12.8        Sec. 14. [117.189] PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTIONS.
12.9    Sections 117.031; 117.036; 117.055, subdivision 2, paragraph (b); 117.186; 117.187;
12.10   117.188; and 117.52, subdivisions 1a and 4, do not apply to public service corporations.
12.11   For purposes of an award of appraisal fees under section 117.085, the fees awarded may
12.12   not exceed $500 for all types of property.

On the Senate side, there are some interesting statements in the first Committee hearing, Judiciary, discussion about limiting who can speak at county meetings about eminent domain (!!!), limitations of attorneys’ fees… and there’s a discussion that I’m trying to transcribe … will post soon…

Senate Judiciary - March 9, 2006 - PART I

Senate Judiciary - March 9, 2006 - PART II

Senate State and Local Government Operations - March 13, 2006 - Part I

Senate State and Local Government Operations - March 13, 2006 - Part II

Here’s Sen. Dibble questioning, in State and Local Government Operations - March 13, 2006 Part I (linked):

MARCH 13, 2009

Senate State and Local Operations Committee

Sen. Dibble: I guess I have a larger policy question, why we think that utilities should be exempted from the provisions of this bill when we think that eminent domain is such a problem that we need to address.

Chair: We’ll ask Senator Bakk to address this question.

Sen. Bakk:    I think  You can have that question, as far as this amendment is concerned, it wouldn’t change anything in the bill other than just referencing the statutes, that statutory definition of utility. So, so, if you don’t like what’s in the bill, that’s fine, but this amendment doesn’t change anything.

Dibble:  I think it is a subject of interest that we should have as a policy committee, and as a larger public discussion.

Sen. Bakk:  Well, Madam Chair, Mike Ahern was, this question was asked at the judiciary committee and Mike Ahern came to the table and gave a pretty good explanation to the Committee of why utilities aren’t included.  This isn’t new that utilities are not included, this bill has been floating around, I think this is its third session, they’ve always not been included for a number of reasons.  One, they’re regulated by the Public Utilities Commission already.  And there is the Energy Task Force that’s looking at all of these energy issues, so, there are also provisions in law where, for instance, when they’re siting transmission lines, that there is a special provision in law, that if you’re gonna go over a farm, in addition to buying the easement for the powerline, the property owner has the right to ask that the entire farm be bought, I believe it’s called the Buy the Farm provision, but there are a number provisions in law, and maybe a little later when Mr. Ahern gets here, oh, he is here, Madam Chair, if you’d like, maybe he can respond to Senator Dibble’s question.

Chair: Mr. Ahern?

Mike Ahern: Yes, good morning Madam Chair, members of the committee, I’m Michael Ahern, and I represent a variety of utilities, pipeline, telecommunications
The question is the reason for exclusion of public service corporations. … I got in a little late.  Senator Bakk did touch on a number of the reasons. The reasons are, frankly, that the, substantively, most of the law governing public service corporations are dealt with in other sections of the statute, for example, Chapter 116C, governs powerlines, and not only does it deal with the grants of eminent domain, it sets up quite elaborate processes for, which this legislation addresses, quite elaborate public input processes, such as sets up EQB staff as facilitator for how and why a pipeline or powerline gets established.  There are things, again, that also conflict, such as the going concern provision, which is a major issue in this bill.  Public utilities are subject to language that entitles a farmer or business owner to take the entire farm or business at their option, since 1977.  I could go on and there are a lot of distinctions between, and reasons why at least traditionally, the legislature has dealt with utilities separately.

Chair:  Any other questions?  Sen. Dibble?

Sen. Dibble:  Thank you.   I’m not prepared yet to have a huge debate on this, but I think the same arguments could be made for local governments that are subject to elaborate processes in state law, and we can certainly look to examples that, driving motive and intent behind this statute, similarly we see places where people complain bitterly about abuses at the hands of public utilities, you can drive down Hwy. 52 and stills see the signs in people’s front yards about how they felt they were treated when a large powerline was being rammed along that corridor.  So it’s interesting that we’re making a special exception essentially for private entities that have been identified as culprits of abuse of eminent domain authority.

*****************************************************

HF 2846

Introduced with these authors: House Authors    Johnson, J. ; Thissen ; Smith ; Davids ; Dill ; Paulsen
By the end, here is who signed on to this:
House Authors        Johnson, J. ; Thissen ; Smith ; Davids ; Dill ; Paulsen ; Penas ; Moe ; Garofalo ; Nelson, P. ; Wardlow ; Magnus ; Cybart ; Olson ; Westrom ; Erickson ; Klinzing ; Charron

As introduced it had the Public Service Corporation exemption:

5.25         Sec. 9. [117.189] PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTION.
5.26     Sections 117.031, 117.186, 117.187, and 117.188 do not apply to public service
5.27     corporations.

*** The sentence about appraisals did not appear in it as introduced or in the 5 engrossments online.

Here’s the House Research explanation of that paragraph:

12      Public service corporation exception. Provides that the provisions for attorneys’ fees (section 4 ), compensation for loss of going concern (section 8 ), minimum compensation (section 10 ), and limitations (section 11 ), do not apply to public service corporations.

*****************************************************

Conference Committee

04/12/2006      Senate conferees       Bakk, Murphy, Betzold, Higgins, Ortman
04/12/2006      House conferees       Johnson, J.; Abrams; Davids; Anderson, B.; Thissen

*****************************************************

Here are the reports of House and Senate adoption of Conference Committee Report, including votes:

Senate Adopted Conference Committee Report, bill repassed

House Adopted Conference Committee Report, bill repassed

It’s out today, Dan Gunderson at MPR has done an extensive piece on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “investigation” of wind turbine noise and health impacts, looking at, per the PUC:

The Commission is gathering information to determine if current permit conditions on setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable.

PUC - Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

Here’s the audio — full text is way below:

What concerns me is that, again, they only gave notice of this docket to the wind industry, and not the people intervening or commenting in PUC wind dockets who raised this issue in the first place, and my comment on that to the PUC, urging them t expand the Notice:

Overland Comments - Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

To see the PUC’s wind turbine setback docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click “eDockets” on lower right, and search for docket 09-845.

And here’s the MPR piece in writing:

Wind turbine noise concerns prompt investigation

by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio

August 4, 2009

Valley City, ND — Wind farms are rapidly expanding across the Midwest, and a growing number of residents who live near the wind turbines are complaining about noise.

In Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.

When Dennis and Cathryn Stillings chose a place to retire, they were looking for solitude and quiet. So a couple of years ago, they bought a farmstead in the rolling hills of eastern North Dakota.

Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor’s nearby field.

Dennis Stillings said he wasn’t bothered at first because he supported wind energy and he was told the turbines were quiet, no louder than 55 decibels.

“Which is about the same level as your refrigerator running, or the same level as my conversation right now,” Stillings said. “Well, if I was holding a conversation with someone in my living room and someone in the corner was sitting there going bop, bop, bop at 55 decibels, it would drive me nuts and I’d kick him out.”
Larger view
Wind turbines

The Stillings said what bothers them is the pulsating, low-frequency sound. They say it’s like a giant dishwasher, or a helicopter in the distance. Cathryn Stillings said there’s no escaping the sound and that she’s having trouble sleeping.

“It’s a duller sound in the house but it’s still out there,” she said. “You can hear it through the walls. It just kind of gets in your bones.”

The Stillings’ complaints are similar to cases popping up around the country in the past couple of years, as wind farm expansion moves closer to populated areas. Complaints include headaches, dizziness and trouble sleeping.

In Minnesota, a handful of groups have organized to demand tougher regulation. They want the state to require more distance between wind turbines and homes. A report by the Minnesota Department of Health concluded there are potential health concerns.

Read the rest of this entry »