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…

“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.

Bent+Tree+08+573+PostConstNoiseMonPhase+II+Report+2+7+18

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.

StaffBriefingPapers20182-139717-01

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!

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:

Subpoena_OAH_Cover&Subpoenas

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

Commerce – Bent Tree Noise Monitoring and Noise Report

Commerece – email_8-14-2017_Dokouzian-Miltich

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:

17-410-Motion_to_Quash_Hearing_Subpoena

And we reached an agreement:

Commerce-AFCL_Agreement_20181-139130-01

Oh, but wait… they’re really not wanting that Bent Tree info to get in the record! So once more with feeling:

Motion To Exclude_Commerce_20181-139379-01

OK, whatever…

AFCL Response_Motion to Exclude_20181-139493-01

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.

DNR_Time Certain

So on we go…

Oh, but wait, the Applicants, Invenergy, also got their $0.02 in, and filed a Motion:

20181-139400-02_Freeborn_Motion to Strike Hansen Testimony

… 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…

From Alison Milsaps and Dave Ulery, Block Plains and Eastern Clean Line:

To recap the events of recent weeks: Plains & Eastern, Clean Line’s regulatory crown jewel and the only of its projects to be fully (if questionably) permitted, is DEAD in Arkansas. Hallelujah. Don’t take our word for it, though. Let’s look at a little evidence:

Hubris: Clean Line’s Michael Skelly and the End of the Plains and Eastern Project…

You know, I love it when this happens.

• First, “Clean Line” sells the Oklahoma part of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project to NextEra:

Under the agreement, Clean Line Energy retains project assets east of Oklahoma, and NextEra Energy Resources owns only the project assets in Oklahoma.

Clean Line Energy added that the transaction will continue the project’s forward momentum and install a new sponsor to a transmission solution to the burgeoning wind sector in Oklahoma and the Southwest Power Pool.

A Clean Line Energy spokesperson on Dec. 22 told TransmissionHub of the deal, “We cannot disclose financial information.”

• TVA backs out of Memorandum of Understanding:

Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based developer of five major transmission lines for wind-generated electricity, has dropped its interconnection agreement with TVA for one of its most promising projects after the federal utility declined to buy what Clean Line officials said would be cheaper and cleaner power for TVA…

… But after years of study, TVA said the Clean Line project didn’t make economic sense for the nation’s biggest government-owned utility, since TVA already has enough power-generating capacity and is on path to get more than half of its power from carbon-free sources. TVA President Bill Johnson said the intermittent nature of wind power would require TVA to build other backup power generators, including natural gas plants, that would offset the promised savings from the wind-generated power sources alone.

“We’re looking at a power demand in the future that is flat, or declining slightly, so we don’t anticipate needing major additions to power generation for a decade or more,” Johnson said.

• Clean Line withdraws the project from the MISO interconnection queue;

“We all are wondering at this point” what is going on, said Julie Morton, of Van Buren. “We are disconnected on the western end now. The TVA was going to take 3,500 of the 4,000 megawatts it was going to generate, but now it is disconnected on that end.

“We are stuck in the middle, unplugged at both ends, and the only way out for us is if Clean Line completely implodes, which I think is happening, and the Department of Energy withdraws from the project.”

and now…

• Arkansas delegation says “STOP THIS LINE!“

Using powers contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the department moved the project forward over the objections of Arkansas leaders.

Among other things, the law would enable the use of eminent domain to obtain property from unwilling sellers.

But the participation agreement allows the department to back out of the deal if “the Commencement Date has not occurred by December 31, 2018.”

In the letter, delegation members urged Perry to “pause the Project to either study or terminate its participation before the deadline.”

Since it was unveiled, the power line project has generated controversy.

Arkansas lawmakers ask DOE to block Clean Line transmission project

Don’t know what more we could possibly need to show that this project is O. V. E. R.  I do wonder if the appellate case was dismissed so there would be no precedent, and then, immediately after it was dismissed, all this happens.  Then, if they or someone else wants to try a Section 1222 project, the door remains open????

Good try, DOE Secretary Perry, but you’re outta here!  Yes, it’s true, a tRump stacked FERC said “NO!” to a proposed rule to subsidize coal and nuclear plants, generation with 90+ days of fuel on hand, outmoded generation plants that are oh-so-suffering while they try to compete in the wholesale “free market” and sinking south fast because costs of production are high and market prices are higher.  I’m shocked, utterly shocked, and very pleasantly surprised!

What did Perry ask for?  Here’s the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Secretary Rick Perry’s Letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Bottom line?  Gotta snort, “Now that a quorum has been restored at the Commission, I am confident…” (click for larger version):

SOL!!! 

That’s SNORT out loud… how’s that workin’ for ya, Secretary Perry?

What he thought was a slam dunk was a 5-0 rejection of preferential “out of market” treatment for certain generators.  Nope, ain’t gonna happen.

Here’s the FERC Order, straight from the horse’s mouth.  I’m most appreciative of the many articles and posts that include the primary document.  It’s crucial to be able to read the FERC Order.  This is REAL NEWS!

FERC-20180108-3061(32617655)_No2CoalNukeSubsidy

There are a lot of people railing and wailing about subsidies these days, but it’s very lopsided, and I’m not hearing the complaints about all the subsidies of coal and nuclear.  If you want to complain about subsidies, slash them across the board.  “Free market” right, the essence of capitalism, right?