Legalectric

Longstanding problems at the Public Utilities Commission, no need to look further than the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing dockets to get the specifics:

Thursday - Annual Power Plant Siting Act Hearing

And it seems the PUC is now trying to get a handle on it!  In a transmission docket, where Xcel requested “alternative review” which is short, 6 months, with only cursory environmental review (see Minn. Stat. 216E.04, subd.2(3)).

Staff Briefing Papers - 11-948

The main recommendations of the Staff Briefing Papers are these doozies:

But wait… there’s more!

In light of the way Xcel has been inserting new routes at the tail end of the process, and noting that Commerce has been allowing that despite objections from parties and landowners alike, that paragraph just makes my day!  Look at the “Myrick Route” in the CapX Brookings-Hampton route docket, added during the evidentiary hearing after all but the New Prague “blizzard make-up” hearings were held?

That trick was repeated in the CapX Hampton-LaCrosse route docket, where a route was added near Cannon Falls when, as Applicants admit, their Preferred route was not feasible, so at the last minute, the day before the public hearings were to begin, or the day of, depending on which document you’re referencing, they sent notice to landowners that they may be affected, and called them too!  This came out at the Cannon Falls hearing, at which point I quickly filed a Motion to extend the deadline to intervene for the people who didn’t get notice until then, oh well, that went over like a lead balloon…  Here’s the route they proposed:

So we’ll see what these changes really mean…

Note this is an old map - I pulled it up at the Windfinder site and this is what it looks like today:

Anyway, the news from Friday is that the Obama Administration and some, but NOT all, of the Great Lakes States signed a Memorandum of Understanding, oh, also many federal agencies, like U.S. Fish & Wildlife.

I think this is an important step.  Lake Superior is too deep, but Lake Michigan and Lake Erie are the ones I’ve heard most often discussed as having high potential, and what’s particularly good about it is that they’re right near load centers.  Offshore would remove the “too close to neighbors” health concerns that are a significant issue.  But as with the Delaware Bluewater project, the environmental work needs to be done, and I hope it’s done more thoroughly than for on-shore wind.  What are infrasound impacts on marine life?  I’d asked Rick James, I.N.C.E., about this when he was here a couple years ago, and he hadn’t heard of any research on this point.  Hmmmmmm… big gap.

Google of  “impacts of infrasound on marine life”

So there’s a start… An interesting one is “The effects of human-generated sound on fish” which among other thing notes that it’s been suggested that birds use infrasound for migration, the waves bouncing of geological features!

Anyway, here’s the Memorandum of Understanding:

Great Lakes Offshore Wind Energy Consortium Memorandum of Understanding

And the Press Release:

Press Release (cut & pasted!)

Note that Wisconsin did NOT sign, which is consistent with WPPI’s testimony in the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse docket that they want to get their RPS wind from outside WI, despite the fact that the model assumptions include an estimated 103,757 MW of wind generation potential at or above 30% capacity and 20,741 MW at or above 35% capacity, not including any Lake Michigan development.  Despite this potential in Wisconsin, his testimony was that he had his heart set on getting their RPS from west of Wisconsin!  His own Burns & McDonnell study, Exhibit 2, said:

If our understanding of current transmission planning results is correct, it is generally more expensive (than this breakeven indication) to build additional power transfer capability over such a long distance.  There may be other reasons that could justify such a build0out, but capacity factor differential alone does not.

Well DUH!

Here’s his testimony and Exhibits, worth a look:

Noeldner WPPI Direct Testimony

Noeldner - Exhibit 2 - Wind Economics Study & Model Produced for WPPI Energy

Noeldner - Exhibit 3 - Wind Assessment Model Results (see fn. 6)

It’s been so long since I’ve been on the road that I forgot where Jubitz is!  Oh, that is a sorry state of affairs…

Eugene, Oregon

Public Interest and Environmental Law Conference

Before our Transmission panel today was Alan Mitchell, Fredrickson & Byron, and Shruti Suresh, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, all about wind projects and birds!

There’s more going on tomorrow, but I’ve got to get back, and head out the other way to Madison.

… first it’s Alan’s Birthday, now officially an old fart and then some.  And then it’s Valentine’s Day, and he just gave me the bestest gift of all:

… a succinct analysis of WI Public Service Commission staff Neumeyer’s testimony!!!

AWWWWWWWWW, what a guy, it’s just what I wanted!!!

Seems that they’re making an effort in Hungary to design industrial edifices more user-friendly…  from the Telegraph.  Couldn’t they just use a big eagle nest as a hat?