Legalectric

It’s been a busy week.  First the release of the ALJ Recommendation for the Freeborn Wind Proect:

OAH+80-2500-34633+Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation

In the STrib today, on both Freeborn Wind and the Bent Tree project!:

Administrative Law Judge says PUC should reject Freeborn County wind project

A couple of choice snippets from STrib article:

Dan Litchfield, an Invenergy senior manager, objected to Schlatter’s interpretation of Minnesota’s noise regulations, saying it “is impossible to meet for a wind farm. … Every other wind farm in the state has not been subject to this interpretation.”

and:

“We are trying to understand the ALJ’s recommendation,” said Beth Soholt, executive director of St. Paul-based Wind on the Wires, a wind power advocacy group. “We are concerned about a new direction and what it would do to development.”

Methinks they’re getting the message that wind projects can no longer steamroll communities. It’s time for rulemaking, it’s time for revision of “standards” to something people can live with, it’s time to use proper, applicable, siting criteria, DOH!.

And today was yet another big day, because the Public Utilities Commission approved settlement agreements for two families who have been living under the Bent Tree wind project.  This is the first time in Minnesota that landowners within a wind project have been bought out.

FILED_Bent+Tree+WPL+Settlement+Agr+-+Hagen

FILED_Bent+Tree+WPL+Settlement+Agr+-+Langrud

It’s real.

Here are the Staff Briefing Papers:

Staff Briefing Papers – May 17th meeting

The room was packed, and I hope that the this “first” wasn’t lost on the audience.  Wind has shifted direction.  Are you paying attention?

Bottom line:

This was the first ever contested case for a wind permit in the state of Minnesota, which has sited many, many wind projects.  Finally they’re doing it right, under the Power Plant Siting Act.  AND in this first ever contested case in Minnesota, the Administrative Law Judge has just recommended that the permit be denied, or Freeborn Wind show how it would comply.  LIKE WOW!  Is this exciting or what!

Here’s the ALJ’s full Recommendation to the Public Utilities Commission:

OAH+80-2500-34633+Final+Order

Noise is real, and Minnesota has been lax about siting.  That will change!

Next stop, the Public Utilities Commission!  Can’t wait!

YEAAAAAAAA!

(viewable map linked below)

Red Wing has a email newsletter now, and it’s most helpful.  Here’s the poop on the upcoming elections, which is BIG news here, what with a bunch of resignations from City Council.  Cut and pasted from the RW “City Beat” newsletter:

This is your time. You can do this.

Interested candidates

must file between

May 22 – June 5, 2018

Today was the deadline for filing Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendation for Line 3 Certificate of Need and Route.  Here’s the ALJ’s Recommendation:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation

I quick filed an Exception on behalf of Association of Freeborn County Landowners, objecting to inclusion and objecting to any consideration of “System Alternative 04” or SA-04, because no notice was given to landowners in Freeborn County, and well, to any of the landowners along SA-04.

Association of Freeborn County Landowners_ Exceptions to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of ALJ

Friends of the Headwaters proposed SA-04, the only “System Alternative” proposed in the Certificate of Need proceeding.  … sigh…. foisting it elsewhere is not a good strategy.  Search their Exceptions for more info on their rationale – do a search for “SA-04” of this filing:

20185-142900-04_Exceptions – Friends Of The Headwaters

Are there others advocating for AS-04?  Looking… it’ll take a bit.

System Alternative SA-04 is noted 139 times in the ALJ’s Recommendation, and is first mentioned on p. 24:

And the Public Utilities Commission accepted it for further evaluation, but no notice was provided:

But no meetings in the area — and still no notice:

… sigh… on it goes…

And regarding the DNR’s take on SA-04 (will find DNR comment):

Here are all the other references to SA-04 in order — the ALJ does reject it, saying it is not a viable alternative:

And then the ALJ considers comments:

The DNR comments are troubling:

Here’s the actual DNR Comment:

201711-137640-01_DNR’s  Comment (SA-04)

The DNR said about SA-04:

And back to the ALJ’s mentions of SA-04: