Legalectric

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!