Photo from the Country News – Does MOES’ Larry Hartman have a headache? Is he dreaming of retirement? He IS holding on to the microphone, word has it that people such as the speaker here, Dean Bungum, weren’t given the microphone to speak. It was standing room only for the MOES public meeting for the wind project going up on Dexter.
On March 4, Thursday, it was the same scene in Mazeppa for the Goodhue Wind Project… Oh, the AVA Goodhue Wind Project, the names have been changed to protect … nevermind. We don’t know why the name was changed. But there are new people involved. How does that change in ownership affect the already questioned C-BED status of this project?
They held the Goodhue meeting in Mazeppa? Why? Why not in Goodhue County? Why not at the Goodhue Lions Club? Why not at the Zumbrota school? Or the Legion on 58 in the middle of town…
There are some significant deadlines in the Goodhue Wind Project. Oh, first, to look up the dockets on PUC site:
CLICK HERE FOR PUC DOCKET SEARCH
Search for 09-1186 (Certificate of Need); 08-1233 (Siting) and 09-1349 & 09-1350 (Power Purchase Agmts)
IMPORTANT DATES:
March 15 – Comments in PPA Dockets on Xcel’s request for amendment – send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.
March 26 – Comments for scope of Environmental Report for Siting & Certificate of Need – send to larry.hartman@state.mn.us
March 29 – Reply Comments in PPA Dockets about others comments on Xcel’s request for amendment – send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.
Holler if questions!
PJM State of Market release 3/11
March 1st, 2010
This is one of those reports that I’m really looking forward to…
Getting railroaded?
February 2nd, 2010
We all know what a pain in the patoot siting transmission is (particularly when it’s not needed). And now for something completely different — an interesting and seemingly probable theory:
ARE Y’ALL PAYIN’ ATTENTION??!!!?!?!?!
This is one of those pieces that I want to preserve to take out and reread in the not too distant future:
Buffett’s Semaphore Signal: Should Burlington Northern Shareholders Think Again Before Saying ‘Yes’ To Berkshire Hathaway?
Author: Daniel Sinclair
Reasons commentators ascribe to Buffett’s offer to acquire one of North America’s largestrail networks, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) are now familiar. Growing global trade, continued reliance on (especially low sulphur) coal, a resurgent and growing US economy (without needing to pick product ‘winners’ and ‘losers’), a low risk way to gain exposure to any rising process for commodities, a hedge against inflation given rail’s pricing power, a competitive advantage in rail’s oligopoly and high barriers to entry, more productive rail with more efficient and technologically advanced operations and a rise double-decker railway carriages, a way to play higher oil prices and cap and trade or carbon tax laws given that rail is 3 to 4 times more fuel efficient than trucks.
Those reasons are all good, and they have been part of the core investment thesis for rail. But, it is submitted, there may be something extra that offers compelling upside to rail that has Buffett excited. Think about all the land that rail owns. BNSF, for example, operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America with about 32,000 route miles of track plus an additional 23,000 miles for other rail related infrastructure and property. Much of this land is of relatively little value beyond the use of rail. No one is going to build condos or hotels or new subdivisions along side railways.
Now think again. You think Boone Pickens has an ambitious plan for wind farms? Wait until you see what Buffett could do right across the US with his investment in BNSF. This land might become prime property for alternative energy generation including from wind and solar farms either side of rail tracks. With much of rail land in the middle of nowhere, there are few worries about the ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ crowd and more difficult regulatory approvals. Small wind mills and solar panels might be placed on the trains themselves to generate energy.
Live from the PUC!
February 1st, 2010
Except that now there’s a delayed start, we’re missing a Commissioner…
Here’s some notes, we’re taking a break — I’m missing some parts, but here we go:
OK, the “ROUGH notes” are their in toto, but hey, I’ve got something better:
HERE’S THE MEETING – February 1 Agenda Meeting
You may have to download “Silverlight” to view the meeting.
PUC’s Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Docket
January 26th, 2010
9:30 a.m. on February 1, 2010
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Large Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place E., 3rd Floor
St. Paul, MN 55101
Remember the PUC’s docket that they opened after release of:
Apparently they’re looking at doing something — and here’s what the staff Briefing Papers say:
Here’s how staff defines the issue before the PUC:
Should the Commission find that current permit conditions regarding setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable in light of recent concern and the Minnesota Department of Health’s White Paper, Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines?
And here’s the bottom line, what staff thinks should happen:
Staff recommends that the best approach to mitigate the issues discussed above would be comprised of two modifications to our current process.
1) Increase setbacks from non-participating landowner residences
a. Continue to use the existing 500-foot or noise standard residential setback (whichever is greater) to allow participating landowners to maximum their land use.
b. Increase the setback required from non-participating landowner residences to 1,000 feet or the state noise standard (whichever is greater) or some other number deemed appropriate by the Commission.
2) Require additional information from developers during the siting process to provide accurate and specific information to the Commission on the impacts of the project. Staff will continue to work on refining the specifics of these requests, additional information is anticipated to be (at a minimum, but could be subject to change):
a. During the application process:
I. noise modeling report (at different frequencies and at various distances from the turbines at various wind directions and speeds) throughout the project area;
II. if flicker is to occur on non-participating residences, shadow flicker modeling report, indicating anticipated maximum;
b. Preconstruction (submitted at time of final site layout):
I. final noise modeling report of final layout and noise monitoring proposal (both at different frequencies and at various distances from the turbines at various wind directions and speeds) throughout the project area;
II. final shadow flicker modeling report;
c. Post construction:
I. noise monitoring reports of the development (at different frequencies and at various distances from the turbines at various wind directions and speeds) throughout the project area.
To check out the whole docket and look at the various comments, CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH PAGE , then scroll down a bit to the “Search” button and below that enter 09-845 and then click “Search.” Voila, there it all is!
So, be there or be square.