Legalectric

Big solar projects, utility scale projects taking up 2,500-3,500 acres of prime farmland, are an issue here in the midwest. There are legitimate problems, primarily runoff and erosion necessitating drainage mitigation and large ponds; and the problem of fencing around the project funneling wildlife onto the roads and highways.

Anyway, there’s been some attention paid to these issues, in one case by none other than my “friends” at Great Plains Institute, who were part of a federal study on stormwater management:

That’s good, an admission that there are problems with water draining off all these acres of impervious surface.

And this just came through today from the Environmental Quality Board:

The guidance has a link to a way to find “high value” resources:

Most high value resources described in this guidance document can be identified using Minnesota
Conservation Explorer (MCE).

Last night’s Red Wing City Council meeting (here on youtube, (Agenda Item 10C starts ~2:22) was a display of Council President Biese, Council members Kliewer and Farrar, and Mayor Wilson’s inability to “read the room” in putting forth a proposal to eliminate public comment for those participating virtually, people like MOI who often comment and show up virtually, and to make the “Statement of Intent” optional.

In the bEagle:

Virtual public comment discussion divided council

What these folks did was meet in secret, a meeting with no notice, not public, and developed Resolution 7852. They tried to claim that it was an Agenda Committee meeting, FALSE! It was NOT an Agenda meeting. Thankfully Kay Kuhlman, Council Admin, did correct that false statement for the record, noting it was separate from the properly noticed “Agenda Committee” meeting, it was NOT an “Agenda Committee” meeting. GOOD, except Kuhlman DID participate in that private, secret, meeting. And nevermind that the purpose of an “Agenda Meeting” is to set the agenda, not to go over Council Rules & Procedures and rewrite them!

Here’s the “Statement of Intent” that they want to make optional:

Apparently some have a problem with, and do not “agree to treat everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect.” And that they “will listen to all sides of an issue, encourage participation…” yeah, obviously some have a problem with that…

Big thanks to, in order of appearance, Patricia Allende De Jung, Martha Harris, Alan Muller, Terri Cook, and MOI, who spoke against adoption of these changes.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK, Agenda Item 10C begins at ~2:23. Oh, great… the video is screwed up on the City’s page. Until then, this youtube.

Yes, Xcel Energy’s 2022 10-K is out, below, and as always, the numbers are interesting. That peak demand number above is an important number — note that 16 years later, we’ve not reached that 2006 peak of 9,859 MW:

Here are the peak demand numbers over the years:

And here it is — Xcel Energy’s 2022 10-K:

And don’t forget about Xcel’s “EXCESS CAPACITY” that they’re selling over all this transmission we’ve had to pay for, the massive billions and billions of transmission build-out, and yes the generation that’s generating all this excess capacity:

This is not rocket science, there’s a lot more generation than what’s needed. If “we’d” do a better job of peak shaving, and utilization of storage, there’d be even more.

What are “we” waiting for?

The blue/purple area is the rough footprint of Magic Valley (subsidiary of LS Power) Lava Ridge wind project, by Twin Falls, Idaho. It’s even closer to the Minidoka National Historic Site, the location of a Japenese internment camp during WWII.

Friends of Minidoka have taken an interest and are posting great info on how to write comments, how to participate, because of course participation is where it’s at. Here’s their “Call to Action” page.

The applicants for Lava Ridge propose several alternate footprints:

Zoom about this on NOW.

The Lava Ridge EIS is out and open for comments, and it’s a LOT to review.

COMMENTS DUE BY MARCH 21, 2023

Here are links, starting with the Executive Summary and in order of appearance (there’s really no easy way to do this, and be prepared, just that first one with the narrative, it’s 578 pages long):

• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072054/250078236/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V1_ExecSum-Chapters.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072051/250078233/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2a_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072053/250078235/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2b_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072055/250078237/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V3_Apps2-4_and_6-11.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072050/250078232/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4a_App5_(1%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072052/250078234/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4b_App5_(2%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072056/250078238/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4c_App5_(3%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072057/250078239/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4d_App5_(4%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072061/250078243/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4e_App5_(5%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072058/250078240/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4f_App5_(6%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072059/250078241/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4g_App5_(7%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072060/250078242/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4h_App5_(8%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072062/250078244/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4i_App5_(9%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072063/250078245/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4j_App5_(10%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072064/250078246/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4k_App5_(11%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072065/250078247/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4l_App5_(12%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072101/250078283/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4m_App5_(13%20of%2013).pdf

Of course, the Applicant’s Noise study/report is of great interest to me:

The good news, the BEST news, is that they did use the correct ground factor, 0.0, for their modeling, but wait, that’s not correct. They used a factor of 1.0 and a factor of 0.6 in places:

That’s a map we need to see!!

It sure looks like some folks are too close, or surrounded:

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Lava Ridge wind project, proposed by Magic Valley Wind, is now available — get it here:

BLM page for Lava Ridge

I’d first learned about this when we were on the way from Craters of the Moon National Monument …

… to our next stop, which took us through Jerome, Idaho, and to the Minidoka National Historic Site.

That’s a “new” historical site, where a Japanese internment camp was located. And as we were learning about it online between the two sites, the Lava Ridge wind project popped up — turns out that the wind project as proposed would be adjacent to the historical site! Check the first map above, hunt for “Hunt” Idaho, and here’s Minidoka in relation to “Hunt.”

And from there, Friends of Minidoka popped up, and their advocacy to protect the site, so we’d learned some before we got there:

Friends of Minidoka has an excellent “Comments” page — written suggestions for EFFECTIVE and SUBSTANTIVE comments, and scroll down for a youtube (see also National Trust for Historic Preservation Action campaign), as does the linked BLM pate. From that Friends of Minidoka page:

How to Submit Effective Comments

Effective comments will produce actionable items for BLM. How to Write Substantive Comments provides tips and examples. As per Kasey Prestwich of the BLM, it is important to:

* Focus your comments on the proposed project and what is being analyzed.

* *Describe the significance of the potential impacts and how they affect you, others, places, and activities.

* Provide any new information that is relevant to the project (e.g., potential affected resources).

* Discuss modifications to existing alternatives or suggest other reasonable alternatives with justification.

* Provide detailed information and references to back up your comment.

If your comment includes a statement that describes your opposition or support for the project, ensure you describe specific elements of the project or specific potential impacts that are influencing your position. Position statements must include enough information to help the BLM inform reasonable changes to the alternatives or revisions to the assessment of potential impacts. Avoid comments like “I don’t like this” or “I do like this.”

Identical comments are treated as one comment, including form letters.

Get to work on comments!