Legalectric

Albert Lea, MN — Last night was the Dept. of Commerce information meeting where Commerce collected comments concerning (love alliteration, eh?) the Draft Site Permit it’s putting together for the Freeborn Wind Project.

For the Public Utilities Commission docket on this project, go HERE and then search for docket 17-410.

Before heading over to the meeting, I filed this Motion for Certification and Petition for Task Force and Scientific Advisory Task Force.  Because this is the first contested case for a wind project siting docket in Minnesota, and because we’re operating under Minn. R. ch. 1405 Power Plant Siting Act for procedure, and because the wind siting chapter, Minn. Stat. 216F, specifically exempts wind from MOST of the Power Plant Siting Act, but specifically not 216E.08 which authorizes Task Forces, and most importantly, because there are material issues of fact about which Task Forces could help build the record, this is oh-so-important.  Let’s get going on it!

The place was packed, and many more came in after I took this photo, it was standing room only.

And folks didn’t come only for the treats (great treats by the way, especially for this camper working in an office in the woods!).  One man was very upset early on, jumping in during Rich Davis’ presentation, riled because he did not get notice about this project until it had already been applied for.  This is a legitimate issue, and because there was no Certificate of Need, there was no legal requirement that notice be provided until after the application had been accepted as complete.  He stormed out, not wanting to sit through all the “blah-blah” at the front end of this meeting (it did go on and on and on).

Rich Davis’ presentation did include some process explanation that was more specific about what comprises a contested case than that provided by PUC’s Mike Kaluzniak (the latest “Public Advisor” quit, and they’re looking for someone again).  They never want to talk about “Intervention” and explain how people can become parties and when the deadline is to decide and file.  They didn’t talk about the public comment period after the public hearing or include that in the powerpoint.  They didn’t talk about the opportunity to file exceptions to the report of the Administrative Law Judge.  etc… GRRRRRRR. And because this case is an odd one, the first contested case for wind, we’re in need of procedural guidance, what there is, and there is much that is known and which needs to be disclosed.

The Association of Freeborn County Landowners was there, filled the room, and did a tremendous job.  Very specific comments, most with documents supporting their comments.  Like wow, for the first time out the gate, very impressive.  Keep up the good work!

Here’s the handout I’d passed around:

How 2 Comment on the Freeborn Wind Project

COMMENTS ARE DUE OCTOBER 9, 2017

Comments by mail or email – again, due by 4:30 October 9, 2017:

Richard Davis                     richard.davis@state.mn.us

MN Dept of Commerce

85 7^th Place East, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN 55101-2198

Or better yet, eFile in PUC’s eDockets system so everyone can see and consider your comment (otherwise they end up in a big long bundle of a pdf with everyone else’s comments), again, due 4:30 October 9, 2017:      

Register:  https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/  Registration is easy and fast. Then follow prompts to eFile!

What was best about last night’s meeting is that the comments were specific and on point.  I have 17 pages of notes, single spaced, and close to carpal tunnel from writing it all.  Way to go, folks!!  Meeting minutes will be posted on the Commerce site sometime soon, and I’ll post.

Also, soon the ALJ’s Scheduling Order/First Prehearing Order will be issued, and I’ll also post the official schedule here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Also, although in 1995 the legislature specifically exempted wind siting from the Power Plant Siting Act, some sections DO apply, including the criteria for siting, now Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 7:

Subd. 7.Considerations in designating sites and routes.

(a) The commission’s site and route permit determinations must be guided by the state’s goals to conserve resources, minimize environmental impacts, minimize human settlement and other land use conflicts, and ensure the state’s electric energy security through efficient, cost-effective power supply and electric transmission infrastructure.

(b) To facilitate the study, research, evaluation, and designation of sites and routes, the commission shall be guided by, but not limited to, the following considerations:

(1) evaluation of research and investigations relating to the effects on land, water and air resources of large electric power generating plants and high-voltage transmission lines and the effects of water and air discharges and electric and magnetic fields resulting from such facilities on public health and welfare, vegetation, animals, materials and aesthetic values, including baseline studies, predictive modeling, and evaluation of new or improved methods for minimizing adverse impacts of water and air discharges and other matters pertaining to the effects of power plants on the water and air environment;

(2) environmental evaluation of sites and routes proposed for future development and expansion and their relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the state;

(3) evaluation of the effects of new electric power generation and transmission technologies and systems related to power plants designed to minimize adverse environmental effects;

(4) evaluation of the potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed large electric power generating plants;

(5) analysis of the direct and indirect economic impact of proposed sites and routes including, but not limited to, productive agricultural land lost or impaired;

(6) evaluation of adverse direct and indirect environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed site and route be accepted;

(7) evaluation of alternatives to the applicant’s proposed site or route proposed pursuant to subdivisions 1 and 2;

(8) evaluation of potential routes that would use or parallel existing railroad and highway rights-of-way;

(9) evaluation of governmental survey lines and other natural division lines of agricultural land so as to minimize interference with agricultural operations;

(10) evaluation of the future needs for additional high-voltage transmission lines in the same general area as any proposed route, and the advisability of ordering the construction of structures capable of expansion in transmission capacity through multiple circuiting or design modifications;

(11) evaluation of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should the proposed site or route be approved; and

(12) when appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other state and federal agencies and local entities.

(c) If the commission’s rules are substantially similar to existing regulations of a federal agency to which the utility in the state is subject, the federal regulations must be applied by the commission.

(d) No site or route shall be designated which violates state agency rules.

(e) The commission must make specific findings that it has considered locating a route for a high-voltage transmission line on an existing high-voltage transmission route and the use of parallel existing highway right-of-way and, to the extent those are not used for the route, the commission must state the reasons.

This is the criteria that we need to focus on when presenting issues, testimony, comments, briefs and exceptions to the ALJ’s report.

More coming soon!  In the meantime, it’s time to break camp and head out!  Myre-Big Island is a great park. Though the bathroom/showers at the Big Island campground suck, they’re superb at the other campground in the park (White Fox). Yes, posted a campground review, inquiring minds need to know where the good state park bathrooms are!

Here’s the view right across the road night before last, the site is fronting the lake:

I found my notes!!  On August 29, 2017, Alan and I went to the Goodhue County Courthouse for the GreenMark Solar v. Wacouta Township (Court Case No. 25-CV-17-1462) festivities — a Summary Judgment hearing.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m not a fan of any of the principals of GreenMark, Mark Andrew, Dennis Egan, and Julie Jorgensen.  Mark Andrew is a former Hennepin County Commissioner and a fan of burning garbage. Here’s a thread from the Mpls yak-yak list about Andrew when he was running for Mayor.  Dennis Egan, well, we had a few go rounds when he was Mayor of Red Wing AND was executive director of Minnesota Industrial Sand Council, and at the time silica sand mining issue was on agenda for City of Red Wing. Julie Jorgensen? Her Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project coal gasification plant took up 5 years of my full-time labor before it went to part-time and intermittent, and still just won’t fully go away! Minn. Stat. 216B.1694, Subd. 3(b)(1)(ii).

That said, I’m also a big fan of solar, from way, way back when my father designed the solar on the Minnesota Zoo (that was later taken down, it was hot water! Not quite what was most needed, and they didn’t know much about solar back then).

Here’s the GreenMark Complaint — couldn’t find the Wacouta Answer or the cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The Wacouta Township website is years out of date — what’s up with that?  (2014 is most current minutes, plus a notice of the May 2017 meeting about the solar project. ???)

Greenmark Solar v. Wacouta Township_Complaint 25-CV-17-1462

Here are a couple articles:

GreenMark Solar challenges Wacouta Township | Republican Eagle

Minnesota Developer Sues for Solar Garden Permit

The oral argument started with Greenmark.  Some points (not all inclusive):

Focus on Minn. Stat. 394.33, Subd. 1, that the township decision violates Town Powers Act. It’s inconsistent with their zoning. They can enact more restrictive zoning, but they didn’t, township has no solar ordinance.2

Township ordinance is ambiguous.  Frank’s Nursery case — if ambiguous, allow property owner to do what they want with the property.

“Agricultural community” — Planning Commission and Board selected different definitions.  Current use, peat mining and hay.  Pollinator scale 45, and 85 with solar.  Wetlands. Reduce carbon emissions.

Township argument:

Town Power Act does not restrict township actions. Bergen defines inconsistent, it’s not different.
Township Ordinance, Art. 3, Subd. 10, limits industrial uses that do not support agricultural. Solar is an industrial use. Twp. does allow solar in ag, BUT, it’s more restrictive, and it’s not inconsistnet.

The standard is whether down decision was rational, i.e., legally sufficient, supported by record.

Reasonable — inconsistent with agriculture, exported to the grid. CUP – exported, GreenMark takes issue with def of ag use, but see “Hubbard Broadcasting” denial of Conditional Use.  Review is deferential.  Mandamus (GreenMark’s action) review not to challenge discretionary decisions of local government.

Frank’s Nursery re: ambiguous ordinance, doesn’t require ordinance to be construed to support use. Court still needs to determine rationality.

Greenmark Rebuttal

Mandamus – this is about building permit, a ministerial act, not discretionary.

Does township even have jurisdiction/authority.

Purpose of project — Goodhue County, that’s the area.

Altenberg (?) – Town Powers Act – Twp didn’t adopt a more restrictive ordinance.

Bergum (?) – legislative intent of Town Powers Act.

Township Rebuttal

Cases of Mandamus for building permits

Goodhue – zoned agricultural, township couldn’t zone industrial, that would be inconsistent with county zoning.

__________________________

Judge Bayley said he has a lot of homework to do, and will do it and issue Order.

Get to it, folks.  Comments are due TODAY! Here’s mine, and Alan’s, just filed:

Overland Legalectric Comment_HERC-Xcel 17-532

Muller Comments_20179-135413-01

in eDockets, go here to register, it’s quick, it’s easy, and you can post on Public Utilities Commission’s eDockets system.

Notice_20179-135289-01-1

On what? Xcel Energy’s latest plan (part of) to terminate and/or amend outrageously high priced Power Purchase Agreements on incinerators across Minnesota.

Comment period on HERC PPA Amendment

Just filed — hot off the press:

Commerce DER_20179-135384-01

Hennepin County_20179-135389-01

Xcel Energy_20179-135379-01

And check what Commerce DER is at long last admitting, that there’s a generation surplus and transmission is for export:

Not only is there no need, BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MINNESOTANS TO PAY FOR MORE TRANSMISSION! But that’s an argument for another day, another docket…

Here’s another snippet:

And check this conclusion reached by MN’s Dept of Commerce – DER in its first round of comments — that Xcel is double dipping:

Here are the DER Comments:

CommerceDER_20178-134456-02

And Comments of Hennepin County:

Hennepin County_20178-134679-01

Comments are due September 1, and Reply Comments are due September 15.

New law allows much of Minnesota’s biomass industry to be shut down

And it’s happening, and that’s a good thing — these plants that spew toxins and which have routinely violated their air permits should not have been built, permitted, and subsidized.  Shut down is going to happen:

Xcel, Benson agree on plan to mitigate power plant closure – MPR News

But is what they’ve agreed to in the public interest? Who all was a party to the negotiation? Are there other ways to deal with this?

Xcel Energy has asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to approve its request to terminate the Power Purchase Agreement for the Benson turkey shit burner.

Xcel_Initial+Filing+Benson+063017+NSP+PUBLIC

To review the full docket, E-002/M-17-530, go HERE, and search for “17” (year) and “530” (docket).

What’s at issue?

I need to find the older dockets, they’re not listed here…

That’s the HERC garbage burner, known to some as the “Hennepin Energy Recovery Center.” It’s right next to the new baseball field, so I made a “HERC Hanky” as schnozz cover in the stands.

Xcel now wants to revise the HERC Power Purchase Agreement and lower the price it pays HERC for electricity.

HERC+PPA+Petition+PUBLIC

Hmmmmm, changing the rules in the middle of the game. Burning garbage has never been an economically winning proposition. Cut the rate?  What will that mean for Hennepin County?  As of a few minutes ago, the Public Utilities Commission announced a comment period on this change:

17-532+NOTICE+OF+COMMENT+PERIOD+HERC+PPA

Comments?  About what?

Initial Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. on September 11, 2017.  eFiling is preferred.  To eFile comments, go HERE TO REGISTER.  It’s simple and fast.  When you file, file under docket number 17 – 532 (that’s 17 for “year” and 532 for “docket number”)

Note the Commission asks, “Are there other project-related issues or concerns?”  Well, what’s wrong with HERC and burning?  For a long time this has been an issue for Neighbors Organizing for Change, Neighbors Against the Burner, Minneapolis Neighbors for Clean Air (wayback version), and the Sierra Club and the push to increase tonnage burned was successfully brought to a screeching halt by these groups and the folks of Minneapolis!   You can find some general information at Alan Muller’s site.  Alan reports that the HERC air permit expired something like 8 years ago, not uncommon.  Most Minnesota air permits are expired and the MPCA isn’t doing much about it.

Some specifics on the tonnage burning increase request that was foiled:

Muller – Comment – Spreadsheet of Pollutants

Comment-Eureka Recycling, Institute for Local Self Reliance, Linden Hills Power & Light, Women’s Environmental Initiative, Will Steger Foundation

Remember this?  “The Burning Question” way back in 2013? Let’s get real, burning garbage isn’t a question!!!

Tuesday 9/17 – Dr. Paul Connett at Mayflower Church

Who is paying attention to this now?