Prairie Island Nuclear Plant & Prairie Island Indian Community

Here it is, I believe this is it, the “dream” bill that’s really a nightmare, Xcel Energy’s wish list, increasing “clean” energy generation, but what is regarded as clean, that’s the primary issue for me.  For you?  Check it out:

HF1956-0

OK, now, let’s read it and figure out what they’re up to!

And GO HERE to keep track of bill’s status.

House Energy Committee Hearings

Here are the House Energy Committee members – contact all of them with your concerns!

There’s no Senate companion bill yet, and it’s getting late.

And yet another year where Xcel, errrrrr, NSP, had a lackluster peak demand.  That’s a good thing, verification that we can get along with a lot less coal and nuclear.  And it’s also good as proof that of those Certificates of Need, based on their bogus “modeling” predicting 2.49% annual increase, we could jettison how many of those projects?  How much infrastructure was built that clearly wasn’t needed, at least by their justifications? Billions, right?  How much will ratepayers be refunded given all these unnecessary projects based on bogus projections?

Here are the details:

And looking at it another way:

Here’s the primary doc — Xcel’s 2018 10-K, just search for “peak demand” and there it is:

Xcel 2018_10-K

So now can we get all that unneeded transmission yanked up and hauled to the salvage yard?

Does this solar make my house look fat?!?! Soon… coming to a new white roof on West! It looks reasonable that we can cover our annual useage, average is 465 kWhr/mo., and if we can keep Alan’s air conditioner out of the window, and figure out a heater for the mudroom during polar vortices (?)(got a panel heater, should work), it’s even lower, so NO PROBLEM! Won’t be able to get out of the $8/mo to Xcel for the privilege of getting a low bill from them, drat!

We’ve got the new roof on, so we’re ready to rock! Just have to nail down the details!

THIS is how solar should be, on every rooftop. It’s SO easy, it’s at load, DOH!  Just do it!

And then there’s this: Build a Simple Solar Air Heater.

I want one on the south side of every building in Red Wing. How hard would that be?

GOOD!  Another incremental win for Association of Freeborn County Landowners.  That’s an interesting development!

County board opts not to vote on wind farm, will have further talks in March

After last Friday’s PUC meeting where Freeborn Wind’s siting permit was put on hold as they consider amendments:

Yesterday at PUC – Freeborn Wind TABLED!

… and today, at Freeborn County, when Motion was made to vote on the Freeborn Wind Development Agreement, and others, there was no 2nd!  Silence!!

Here’s the latest drafts of the agreements that I’ve been able to scrounge up:

Freeborn Development Agreement final January 2019

Freeborn Road Use Agreement final January 2019

Freeborn Public Drainage System Agreement final January 2019

How bad is this agreement?  Check this, on p. 8:

6.1. Amendments to Development Agreement. This Development Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties only if the amendment is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each Party. County authorized representative will be County Board Chair or County Administrator. Developer authorized representatives will be as designated by Article 9.4 of Development Agreement.

Ummmmm, no. Guess again…  Amendments must go to entire County Board. And there are additional changes you’ll need to make, Freeborn Wind!

Stay tuned.  Next meeting is mid-March.

Yesterday, Freeborn Wind, the Applicant, had its wind project permit tabled by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.  How’d that happen!?!  SNORT!  I heard there was an audible gasp from that side of the room when it happened.

This latest round started with a bizarrely attempt to get more than what they got:

20191-148986-02_Freeborn Wind’s Request4Clarification

Yeah, it sure got them more!!  Great idea, disclosing an “agreement” with Commerce and MPCA after being granted a permit by PUC after the ALJ Recommendation that the permit be denied (and in the alternative, that they be granted time to demonstrate that they COULD comply):

So what did Freeborn say in its Request4Clarification?

Freeborn Wind requests the Commission clarify its Site Permit to adopt Section 7.4, as
proposed by Freeborn Wind and agreed to by the Department and MPCA, in place of the current Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, to both ensure consistency with the Order and avoid ambiguity in permit compliance.

Freeborn Wind’s September 19, 2018, Late-Filed proposal for Special Conditions Related
to Noise outlines the agreement reached between Freeborn Wind, the Department and the MPCA on this issue.[fn omitted] The letter indicated that Freeborn Wind had carefully reviewed the proposed Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 from the Staff Briefing Papers, and was concerned they “create[d] ambiguity and would lead to significant compliance challenges.” [fn omitted] Instead, Freeborn Wind offered “proposed alternative language addressing pre-construction noise modeling and postconstruction noise monitoring special conditions” which is “specific to this case” and would “achieve a similar level of noise regulation, but in a manner that can actually be measured following the applicable rules and standards.”

p. 1-2, 20191-148986-02_Freeborn Wind’s Request4Clarification (emphasis added).

SNORT!  Really, they said that!  It was good to see confirmation of the orchestration I’d observed at the September 20 PUC agenda meeting, being in the middle of the full court press of  Freeborn Wind, Commerce and MPCA (why exactly was MPCA there, they have no jurisdiction).  Oh, about MPCA’s jurisdiction, the letter of Kohlasch explains that well:

Exhibit M_Kohlasch_Letter_20189-146351-01

So we responded to that Freeborn Wind Motion:

AFCL_ResponsetoFreebornMotion-ClarificationRequest

I’d sent Data Practices Act Requests to MPCA and Commerce:

MPCA-Agreement_Data Practices Act Request

Exhibit C_Commerce-Agreement_Data Practices Act Request

And on receiving Data Practices Act Requests from MPCA, which showed some of the behind-the-scenes going on, filed this:

20192-150272-01-1_AFCL Motion to Remand to ALJ

And the moment I filed it, and went to email to check filing status, get confirmation, and I see an email from Wachtler, Commerce-EERA, which is included in this, filed the following day:

AFCL_Motion-Addendum to Remand to ALJ_FINAL FULL PACKET

They produced NON-O-T-H-I-N-G!  Nothing at all!

So off we went to the PUC, and the meeting was bizarre.  The Commission did not take up the Many Motions, Motions to Strike, Motions for Reconsideration, Motions for Remand, Motion after Motion, it was dizzying.  Admissions of “confusion” were heard, and can’t have Commissioner confusion.  Methinks that there was confusion at the September 20, 2018 meeting, which was why the permit was approved with the conditions offered and haggled over just a bit.  The video, do check it out, scroll down to #3 at link, starting at 16:43:

TABLED!  We have 14 days to provide language for the permit conditions, 7.4; 7.4.1; 7.4.2.  Then another Agenda meeting date will be set, ostensibly to deal with Motions, language, etc.