Legalectric

Today was the day that Comments were due on the Goodhue Wind Project based on the Public Utilities Commission’s very detailed and specific issues to address:

PUC Order in Goodhue Certificate of Need docket

From Goodhue Wind Truth:

GWT Comments

And Goodhue County:

Goodhue County Comment – Revisit C-BED Determination

And here’s a strange one from the project’s Applicant — no comments, just asking for a delayed deadline for Reply Comments:

New Era – Request for Delay of Reply Deadline

Really, this is their request:

Accordingly, in recognition of the value of the time of the Commissioners, the Staff, the Respondents and all parties hereto, New Era respectfully requests that the deadline for reply comments and further action in these matters be delayed pending resolution of the New Era proposals.

30 days?  Sure… right… whatever you say…

And from Commerce:

Commerce DER – Comments

Bottom line from Commerce is (p. 11 of pdf):

At the time the Commission approved a CN for the Project, the Department’s position was that the proposed Project did not meet the CN requirements without its C-BED status. Due to the Company’s own uncertainty and the fact of a current Commission Order on the issue of C-BED status, it would be premature at this time for the Department to address possible changes to the Commission’s Order on the C-BED status of the Project.

A proposed project’s financing, turbine purchase agreements, power purchase contracts, possession of leases, easements and wind rights are not required to be known at the time of a CN determination; therefore, changes in these areas are only required to be considered by the Commission to the extent that they result in the criteria found in Minnesota Rules 7849.0400.

While Minnesota Rules 7849.0400 sets forth the thresholds for Commission recertification of certificates of need , the Commission has broad authority to rescind or amend its past Orders at any time and for any reason.

Let’s just get it over with!

Bubble in the natural gas fracking world?  Is the fracking boom about to go BOOM?  From AlterNet:

Is Natural Gas the Next Bubble? Has Fracking Promised More Than It Can Deliver?

In this weekend’s Red Wing Republican Eagle — they edited my headline, this is the original, because my view of this is that those writing about how he is being abused, it’s a lynching, etc. are ignoring the crucial fact that he had the choice to disclose but he did not.  Let’s see what happens today:

It’s about disclosure!

It’s almost April Fools’ Day, the day Mayor Dennis Egan said he’d resign. Just last week, he was very visible, advocating for frac sand mining at the Rochester Chamber of Commerce’s “Public Affairs Series: Mining in Minnesota,” appearing on MPR’s Daily Circuit — and who knows what else – perfect examples of what the mayor of Red Wing should not be doing.

Meanwhile, there have been a number of painfully contorted letters to the editor, a comment at a City Council meeting supporting Egan and his actions, even a statement reported by a council member, saying “There are ways to recuse ourselves and move past that.”

Mayor Dennis Egan had his chance to disclose. He made his choice, and his choice was to be silent, his choice not to inform the Council or citizens of Red Wing. We learned about his employment as a frac sand lobbyist by reading about it in a Politics in Minnesota report.

Egan’s problem is magnified by number of people who condone his failure to disclose, his deception by omission and his steadfast failure to acknowledge the impropriety of his ethical breaches and the incompetence at conducting an internal examination of the situation. What does this say about our community’s moral base?

On with the special election. Hopefully we can find a mayor with a grounded sense of ethics who takes the oath of office seriously, understands the obligation to disclose, and respects those who trusted with their vote.

Carol A. Overland

Red Wing

Just yesterday, I went for a drive in Goodhue County, wanted to get an eyefull of the area of Significant Biodiversity on the north end of the Goodhue Wind Project footprint, the part they’ve left out of all their surveys so far — it’s the purple area on the map below, pretty much along White Rock Trail (this is two maps combined to show biodiversity areas within footprint).  The blue stars are new nests, three of which could be new eagle nests):

Map above: The red line is the boundary of the Goodhue Wind Project footprint.  The dashed line is the area that’s supposed to be included in their surveys, the green diagonal lines are the Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood Forest, and the purple are the areas of Significant Biodiversity.

When we were cruising around, we went into a little dip with running water on both sides in the ditch and lightly wooded, scruffy trees that were new growth, and along the ditches, in the trees, on the shoulder and even on the middle of the road were hundreds and hundreds of robins.  I’ve never seen that many before, everywhere there were robins and they were singing up a storm.

Turns out Marie McNamara was driving around the same area, and found… are you ready?

YES!!! TRUMPETER OR TUNDRA SWANS!

With any luck, the DNR will get out there and figure it out!

The Public Utilities Commission Order on the Goodhue Wind Project is out, well, it came out a while ago and so much has been going on that I didn’t get it posted!  But it’s sure worth the wait:

PUC Order in Goodhue Certificate of Need docket

Just after the meeting, based on the comments, particularly of Chair Heydinger, regarding “parties” and that there were no parties, I sent in yet another Petition for Intervention — almost exactly three years after the first one, which was denied:

GoodhueWindTruth-Intervention

And that was granted earlier this week, no one objected:

PUC-Order Granting Intervention

Well, now there is at least ONE party.  So back to the PUC’s Order… like wow… we’re supposed to address a few questions:

 II. Issues to be Addressed

C-BED Status

• Has New Era Wind Farm, due to ownership changes or for any other reason, lost the C-BED status the Commission found to exist in its April 28, 2010 order?

• If New Era does not meet the criteria for C-BED status at this time, what is its factual basis for asserting that it will meet the standard by its proposed in-service date?

• Does the project meet the requirements of the certificate of need statute and certificate of need rules without C-BED status?

• Do the revisions to the C-BED statute enacted in 2010 affect the project’s ability to meet the requirements of the certificate of need statute and rules without current C-BED status?

• Did the change in ownership of the limited liability company that owns the project violate the anti-transfer provisions applicable to C-BED projects under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 3 (c)? If so, what action should the Commission take?

Other Changes in Circumstances

• Does the project’s loss of financing, the absence of turbine purchase agreements, or the unsettled status of the power purchase contracts affect the certificate of need determination?

• Does the project currently have in hand the land leases, easements, and wind rights required to construct the 78-megawatt wind farm for which it received a certificate of need? How does the answer to this question affect the certificate of need determination?

• If the project currently lacks the land leases, easements, and wind rights required to construct the wind farm as originally certificated, what alternatives are available for consideration? What is the likelihood of changes to the size of the wind farm or the size, type, or configuration of the turbines? What is the project’s projected time frame for making these determinations and then for proceeding? How do the answers to these questions affect the certificate of need determination?

• How would changes in the size of the wind farm or in the size, type, or configuration of the turbines affect the environmental and wildlife protection considerations made in the certificate of need determination? How would they affect the certificate of need determination itself?

• • Would accommodating the concerns of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require changes in the size, type, or timing of the wind farm or in any of the substantive provisions of the certificate of need or the site permit? If so, does the project intend to make these accommodations? How do the answers to these questions affect the certificate of need determination?

• If changes in the size of the wind farm or in the size, type, or configuration of the turbines were proposed – raising new environmental considerations – how would the project engage and collaborate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

• What is the current in-service date for the project? What is the expected in-service date, or, if the date is not known, when do the parties anticipate the conclusion of the negotiations between the Applicant and Xcel regarding the power purchase agreements?

• Does the new project owner stand behind all representations made in the application for the certificate of need and in the application for the site permit? Is the new owner willing and able to comply with all terms and conditions in the certificate of need and the site permit?

Other Issues

The list above does not include every issue that could affect this certificate of need decision, and the Commission invites parties, participants, and members of the public to raise any other issues they consider material during the initial comment period established below. Newly raised issues will then be addressed during the reply comment period.

Finally, the Commission requests comments on what process it should use going forward to resolve the issues identified above and any additional issues raised in the course of this proceeding

Wow, that does go on.  Could it get any better than that?  Well, yes, it could.  It’s about time the Public Utilities Commission said “ENOUGH” and pulled the plug on this vaporware project.  Oh well, on to writing comments, due within 14 days.

If you have Comments, there are 14 days to file them, so April 3, 2013.  Reply Comments are due 14 days after, that, on April 17th, so Monday April 18, 2013.  Either eFile Comments to eDockets (eDocket 09-1185; 09-1349 and 09-1350), or email them to ???  I guess burl.haar@state.mn.us with the docket numbers (09-1185; 09-1349 and 09-1350) in the subject line and in the body of the email.  KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES RAISED ABOVE.  I’d quite the issue you want to comment on, and then elaborate as best you can, and attach any documentation to support your comment.  Have at it!

Calling all shep nuts!  There’s a shep mix in Minot, North Dakota who needs a home, and if we can find one soon, there’s transport available and we can get here, to Minnesota.  She’s in the pound up there and has not been claimed.  She’s 2 or younger, and as a stray, we don’t know much about her at all.  But a picture says a thousand words — she looks liver colored, and a bit worried,who wouldn’t be, but she appears calm and gentle, not bouncing off the walls.

We’re full and can’t take her.  Can you?!?!?!

If you’re interested in this grrrrrrrrl, QUICK, contact the Goodhue County Humane Society, info@hsgcpets.org , and make sure to state “Minot, ND Shep Mix” so they’ll know which dog you’re referring to.