GWT Rulemaking Reconsideration is 12/6
November 21st, 2018
I often use this photo, because it represents one simple fact: Sometimes things go off the rails. Wind siting in Minnesota is one of those things, we have no wind specific siting criteria!
Thursday, December 6th, we’re back at the Commission, where they’ll address Goodhue Wind Truth’s Petition for Reconsideration, or not (and toss it in the circular file).
Here’s some background:
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
October 16th, 2018
Today’s Wind Rulemaking Comments
August 24th, 2018
Lots of filing in Wisconsin
November 20th, 2018
Apparently Invenergy doesn’t like the idea that we’re intervening in their Wisconsin dockets. I guess after Freeborn Wind, it’s not hard to understand why.
Intervention in Badger Hollow HUGE 300 MW solar project docket — approved by the Administrative Law Judge (Docket 9697-CE-100):
And then the related dockets, the transmission line and the acquisition docket, appropriately known as the BS docket, our intervention, their objection, and our response. The transmission docket (Docket 9697-CE-101):
Jewell Jinkins_101_Intervention_FINAL
9697-CE-101 Badger Hollow – Response to Request for Intervention (Objection!)
And the acquisition BS docket (Docket 5-BS-228):
Jewell Jinkins_228_Intervention_CORRECTED
Oh, and the Cardinal Hickory Creek 345 kV Transmission Line! Docket 5-CE-146.
Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_Cardinal-Hickory Creek_Intervention
To look up any of these dockets, go to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s Search site, and plug in the numbers.
Meanwhile, we’re waiting on the Minnesota Commission meeting on Reconsideration for our Rulemaking Petition, and waiting on two orders, project and transmission, for Freeborn Wind.
And around all these filings, I’ve been to band practice, made wild rice and garbanzo salad, and I hear a Ferndale Market turkey calling…
What a long week it’s been! WHAT? Tuesday?!?! No, really?!?!
Freeborn Wind’s Transmission
October 26th, 2018
It’s worth taking a look at the Freeborn Wind transmission docket (PUC Docket 17-322). To check it out, go to eDockets and search for 17 (year) 322 (docket number). Obviously the Commission’s decision is a problem here, and as we’re awaiting the written order, I’m pondering.
There’s a statute that applies to wind proceedings, specified expressly in the “Exemptions” statute as part of the Power Plant Siting Act that DOES apply. That’s found here:
216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.
Note the seafoam green Minn. Stat. 216E.08:
Subd. 2.Other public participation.
The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.
Check out the first and only Prehearing Order issued by the ALJ:
To call it “minimalist” is too generous… What does it say about public participation? Where’s the boilerplate information about intervention, about participation and being a “participant,” etc? M-I-S-S-I-N-G…
Here’s the siting docket’s Prehearing Order #1 as an example – see the difference?
Association of Freeborn County Landowners showed up on September 20, and let the ALJ know in technicolor what we thought, raised many issues in detail, and later submitted written comments, together with the written comments from many members, including information about land where Freeborn Wind was attempting to route over non-participants!
Before the hearing started, I’d approached the ALJ and requested that he swear people on oath or affirm, and he said something to the order of “I remember you” having requested that before. He didn’t want to put people under oath. I reiterated that I’d been present, twice, at Commission meetings where Commissioners asked if specific testimony had been provided under oath, and that the rules provide it as an option, so I want to assure that’s not an issue. The ALJ was not happy but essentially agreed to swear people in if so requested. AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
Minnesota Rules include swearing in as a duty of the ALJ:
1400.5500 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
Consistent with law, the judge shall perform the following duties:
… F. administer oaths and affirmations;
That’s a “shall.”
Minnesota Rules have many provisions regarding being sworn in, and regarding testimony regarding “a fact at issue” in a contested case hearing:
Minn. R. 1400.7800(g). That’s a “shall.” Here are a few citations regarding witnesses, oath/affirmation, and facts:
Oath? Affirmation? This is not something anyone should have to push about…
Every Association of Freeborn County Landowner participant requested to be sworn on oath and was. Not one of the witnesses speaking in support of the project requested to be sworn on oath.
AFCL also filed extensive written comments:
Here’s the ALJ’s Recommendation, filed July 26, 2018:
Looking at this recommendation, how are comments from the public laid out? How are the many substantive comments of AFCL members and project opponents positioned against the few, and with few exceptions, the comments of supports that had no content? Search the Recommendation for “AFCL” and/or “Association of Freeborn County Landowners” and what do ya get?
Another point — do you see anywhere the boilerplate language regarding opportunity for any affected party to file Exceptions? Yeah, this language (example from Docket 17-568):
Notice is hereby given that exceptions to this Report, if any, by any partyadversely affected must be filed under the time frames established in the Commission’srules of practice and procedure, Minn. R. 7829.2700, .3100 (2017), unless otherwisedirected by the Commission. Exceptions should be specific and stated and numberedseparately. Oral argument before a majority of the Commission will be permittedpursuant to Minn. R. 7829.2700, subp. 3. The Commission will make the finaldetermination of the matter after the expiration of the period for filing exceptions, or after oral argument, if an oral argument is held.
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2018/10/RelevantDocs.jpg)
File #: | Details 2018-190 Version: 1 | Name: |
Type: | M – Miscellaneous | Status: | Agenda Ready |
File created: | 8/30/2018 | In control: | PUC Agenda Meeting |
On agenda: | 9/20/2018 | Final action: |
Title: | * IP6946/TL-17-322 Freeborn Wind Energy LLC In the Matter of the Application of Freeborn Wind Energy LLC for a Route Permit for the Freeborn Wind Transmission Line in Freeborn County. 1. Should the Commission adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation? 2. Should the Commission find that the environmental assessment and the record created at the public hearing adequately address the issues identified in the scoping decision? 3. Should the Commission issue a route permit identifying a specific route and permit conditions for the Freeborn Wind 115 kV Transmission Line Project? (PUC: Kaluzniak) |
Nov. 14th – PPSA Annual Hearing!
October 22nd, 2018
It’s that time of year again, and for a change, no reminder necessary, AND it’s in 2018, not crammed in at the very end of year or beginning of next!
It’s the POWER PLANT SITING ACT ANNUAL HEARING!
This is our opportunity, as those wrestling with the state’s siting laws and rules, and absence thereof, to tell them what does and doesn’t work. Then the Administrative Law Judge files the report and it’s ignored for another year.
Frustration with lack of response was what triggered the multiple rulemaking petitions I’ve filed, on my own as individual, and representing Goodhue Wind Truth, most recently:
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
We used to have a pot-luck for the PPSA Annual Hearing, until the PUC put the kibosh on that. GRRRRRR! Treats is the best way to get people to show up.
Now’s the time, show up, spout off, and tell them what works and what does not. And note that aspects of the Power Plant Siting Act DO apply to wind:
216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
October 16th, 2018
Remember when AWA Goodhue and Pickens were pushing that wind project in Goodhue County and accused the local folks of “promiscuous ice fishing” and baiting eagles? Well, above is what Goodhue Wind Truth’s Marie McNamara had to say about that… and we’re still at it.
A couple months ago, we filed yet another rulemaking petition, this one was the 2nd for wind rulemaking in Minnesota, to address the big holes in Minn. R. Ch. 7854, the wind siting rules.
The Commission wasn’t thrilled, and denied the petition:
DENY THE PETITION? WHEN THERE ARE NO WIND SITING RULES? Yeah, right… so here’s what we filed today: