Oh yeah, it’s ramping up. Freeborn Wind hearing soon!
February 9th, 2018
Freeborn Wind Project is ramping up.
Photo taken by moi. This is the bald eagle that flew up from the 120th St. ditch as I approached the Hansen home in the Freeborn Wind permit footprint. There’s a nest just a bit to the west, just south of 120th. Guess they don’t want me posting any more eagle photos on their fb page:
And in the news:
Albert Lea City Council Hears Economic Benefits Freeborn Wind Farm
Wind Farm Proposal in Freeborn County
Today, the Department of Natural Resources filed a Motion to Quash so its employees wouldn’t have to appear, filed February 9 regarding Subpoenas that were served December 11 and 18, 2017. Roughly two months ago. After a conversation with DNR Counsel Sherry Enzler where she didn’t want her people sitting around all day so we agreed to a 3 p.m. time, which would need to be locked in with the judge. Now this. Good grief. But our conversation that day was so bizarre that I memorialized it with a letter to the judge, though not in technicolor.
OK, fine, whatever… here we go!
Invenergy is Rep. Walz’ CONSTITUENT?!?!?
February 8th, 2018
Melville Nickerson, Invenergy, is Rep. Walz’ CONSTITUENT? Nickerson lives and works in Chicago. What is Walz thinking? What about the 470+ people in the Freeborn Wind footprint who signed the opposition petition? Association of Freeborn Landowners sure hasn’t heard from him. WTF!?!?!
Here’s the pdf: 20182-139890-01_Walz Letter
And he thinks he’s up for being the Governor of Minnesota? Good move, bubba…
Now, about PolyMet…
Bent Tree Noise report confirms permit violations!
February 7th, 2018
“January Pretzel” — a Bent Tree bent turbine blade 1/20/2018
Taken by the Hagens in the Bent Tree wind project
DOH! The Bent Tree Phase II noise report is out and it confirms that the project is violating the siting permit.
Bottom line:
Here’s the Phase I report:
Bent Tree_Noise Monitoring and Noise Monitoring Report_20179-135856-01
So now what are they going to do?
Tomorrow, the Big Blue wind project is at the PUC which is violating their permit too, and the PUC decision options are to revoke permit, suspend permit, or continue operations with compliance filings.
The process here is flawed (to put it mildly). There is noise modeling required in wind project permitting, but clearly that isn’t sufficient to site them in a way that won’t steamroll the neighbors to the project. The setbacks in MN aren’t adequately protective. Deal with it, Public Utilities Commission!
Subpoenas ‘R Us! Association of Freeborn Co. Landowners
February 1st, 2018
Well, Association of Freeborn County Landowners got Subpoenas, served them, and for some reason, the Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of Health really don’t want to bring their reports into the Freeborn Wind docket:
Here are the reports that really matter:
Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines
Dept of Health – Comment Pages 59-61 from Siting_InitialFiling_Appendix A_Agency Correspondence
One way or another, these reports WILL get in the record. Why? Well, look at the recommendations in the Dept. of Health comment:
Pretty specific? And the more general recommendations fro the “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” report:
The Dept. of Health report is part of Invenergy’s Roberts’ testimony, but it’s not entered in the record yet. The Dept. of Health 5/2/2017 Comment was part of the Applicant’s Appendix A (pps. 59-61) and again, it’s not part of the record yet. So just making sure it all gets in there one way or another.
Do tell — has the Applicant followed these recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Health in siting their project? Has the Dept. of Commerce followed these recommendations in reviewing the project? Has the Public Utilities Commission followed these recommendations in considering permitting the project?
And what about Commerce? We have documentation that in the Bent Tree project, which had wind noise modeling performed as a part of the application and permitting process, noise modeling which said, “no problem,” and yet (click for larger version):
And the full Bent Tree Noise Monitoring and Noise Report ordered by the Public Utilities Commission.
Commerce filed a Motion to Quash:
And we reached an agreement:
Oh, but wait… they’re really not wanting that Bent Tree info to get in the record! So once more with feeling:
OK, whatever…
And then there’s the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and they also jumped on the bandwagon, clearly the Asst. Commissioner who signed the Dept of Health – Comment wasn’t the author and didn’t know much about it (!), so:
Letter and Stipulation for the Release of the Assistant Commissioner
Which leaves the DNR. Got a call from DNR Counsel Sherry Enzler, who clearly didn’t get that Commerce Motion to Quash had no bearing on DNR Subpoena, and that wed reached an agreement and Commerce had withdrawn their Motion, oh my… but anyway, we agreed that we’d set a time certain the last day of the hearing for the DNR staff. No problem… though we’ll need an Order from the judge confirming that.
So on we go…
Oh, but wait, the Applicants, Invenergy, also got their $0.02 in, and filed a Motion:
… OK, again, whatever, gotta get response in on this one…
And may the ALJ decide!!!
The Administrative Law Judge in this case, and the Public Utilities Commission, the ultimate decider, need to recognize that the permitting system is fatally flawed. Prevention, precaution, prudence…
Red Wing City Council Workshop
January 27th, 2018
Today the Red Wing City Council started its Day 2 of the Council Workshop, and it was worth going to, but too early o’clock. Getting the last Icelandic Almond Roll was some consolation!
Here is what was part of yesterday’s discussion… really…
What’s that? It’s a shield, under the bench, one for each of the City Council members and staff , to pull out in case of terrorist attack.
Oh well, they already did it, and this was mostly a report on what had been done. Rumor has it that these were about $8,000 each, or $50K+ total… Oh my…
Onward… today first was a discussion of painting on Barn Bluff. I rather enjoy the painting cropping up on the outcrop. But I also hear that this bluff is a sacred Dakota area. I’ve seen the flag on the bluff, it hasn’t been there all that long, and to me, that flag there is inconsistent with respect for Dakota tradition. Flagpole and flag here in upper right hand corner of this borrowed photo:
Today, from the discussion, I learn that the flag was sited right in the midst of a burial area! WHAT?!?! And this is not the first time siting is an issue, probably this happens a lot here, but I do know it was also an issue with the siting of the Red Wing lay down yard, where that Lot and building and storage area was right within the Water Tank Mounds area and that was not fully disclosed during that permitting, nor was the timing of agency involvement and review correctly disclosed during the Ash Mine permitting proceeding. Looks to me like the City has a pattern of inadequate investigation of and respect for Dakota sacred and burial areas. Falling through the holes, being pushed through, how do we fix this, assure it doesn’t keep happening, and make amends?
And then on to the “Public Hearing Process Discussion.” Oh my… Here’s the background from the workshop packet:
Overland’s $0.02: The discussion of civic engagement and “Public Hearing Process Discussion” morphed into a “no public comments on agenda items where there has been a Public Hearing at Planning Commission” as a council policy and taking it off the Council President. NO, not OK. The “No public comments” is bad policy. I note that 2-3 council members felt it was important for the public to be able to address, face to face, the decision makers. YES, it is. And when that is not allowed, it is the job of those council members to stand up for the public!
Today’s discussion, from the packet, was framed in binary, either Option A, where board/commission brings recommendation to Council, “No public input would occur at the Council meeting.” Option B, Boards and commissions have a lesser role in government decisions. Public input often happens at both the board/commission meetings and the City Council meetings.
Note the framing — problematic, as Option A would as policy eliminate public comment at CC meetings on agenda items. NOT OK! Option B frames it as allowing public comment at meetings means “boards and commission have a lesser role in government decision.” NOT OK! The notion that allowing public comment means undermining the Planning Commission is absurd. If there’s crucial determinative “new information,” then it should go back to the Planning Commission with a clear directive, and mindful that the Planning Commission is an “Advisory” Planning Commission, they are NOT the decision makers.
The framing of the options was off, and impact of this framing was to guide toward making it Council policy not to allow comment. NOT OK! Was that intended or not? Who knows… The framing was NOT OK for two reasons, first, public comment should as policy be allowed and encouraged. Second, the decision not to allow public comment has been a decision of the Council President, and he’s accountable for that. NOT OK! I do think that bullet was dodged, and instead a more reasonable Option C, that public comment WILL be allowed, and if Council has issues about what’s proposed, it will go back to Board/Commission. It took a lot of objecting and targeted statements to pull this into encouraging public participation, and not further limiting it as a matter of policy. We shall see…