From New Era’s office, above, comes this letter, withdrawing its request for review of its Avian and Bat Protection Plan and requesting the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “terminate” the siting permit.

‘Bout time…

20139-91364-01 NEW ERA TERMINATION LETTER

This has been a LONG time in the making, it should have been shut down years ago.  What’s particularly disturbing, is that two areas are at issue, the C-BED qualification, because it is NOT a C-BED project under the Minn. Stat. 216B.1612, and environmental review, which is not required under Minnesota wind siting statutes and wind siting rules.

In the Rochester Post Bulletin:

POST BULLETIN New Era CEO pulls plug on Goodhue wind project 09 17 13

In the Beagle:

One more step closer to being DONE!  The Public Utilities Commission has issued its “Order Declining to Extend Certificate of Need, Finding Statutory Violatino, Requiring Further Filings, and Giving Notice of Intent to Revoke Site Permit” for all the world to see:

 July 26 2013 Order of the Public Utilities Commission

Here’s the upshot:

1) The Commission will require the project to make a filing within 14 days in which it either surrenders its site permit or states that it intends to begin construction by August 23. If the project states that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it must demonstrate its ability to do so.

If the project states that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it must also provide by that date a more comprehensive response to the Commission’s request in section IV of the March 20 order that it investigate and respond to comments by members of the public alleging deficiencies in its performance on wildlife monitoring and protection issues. It must also file a summary of the March 27, 2013 site visit, referred to in its April 17 letter, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Energy Facility Permitting Staff of the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

The Commission has declined to extend the certificate of need for this project for the reasons set forth above; therefore, any construction of the project must proceed under the exemption provisions of Minn. Stat. § 216B.243. The Commission hereby gives notice of its intent to revoke the site permit if the project has neither surrendered its site permit nor filed an exemption petition by August 23, 2013.

2) The Commission finds that the transfer of the project and its associated purchased power agreements to the current owner is prohibited under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 3 (c), which reads as follows:

The commission shall require that C-BED projects provide sufficient security to secure performance under the power purchase agreement, and shall prohibit transfer of a C-BED project during the initial term of a power purchase agreement if the transfer will result in the project no longer qualifying under subdivision 2, paragraph (h).

First, the ownership transfer violates the plain meaning of subdivision 3 (c) of the C-BED statute. It eliminated local ownership, apparently reducing the in-state economic benefits below the threshold required for the project to qualify under subdivision 2, paragraph (h)…

Subdivision 10 Does Not Make the Anti-Transfer Provision of Subdivision 3 (c) Inapplicable to New Era… This subdivision does not repeal subdivision 3, and its provisions do not conflict with the anti-transfer provision subdivision 3 contains. It does not invalidate or otherwise free existing C-BED projects from the statutory prohibition on ownership transfers that result in existing C-BED projects failing to qualify under the eligibility criteria of subdivision 2, paragraph (h).

BOTTOM LINE:

ORDER

1. The Commission denies the project’s April 17 request to hold the case in abeyance and its June 18 request for an extension of time.

2. The Commission finds that the project violated the anti-transfer provision of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 3 (c) and that the transfer of power purchase agreements that occurred is prohibited.

3. The Commission declines to recertify the certificate of need due to New Era’s failure to demonstrate that it will comply with the Commission’s orders and due to its failure to show that it is prepared to move forward with the project for which the certificate of need was obtained, including the failure to specify a current in-service date.

4. Within 14 days of the date of this order, New Era shall either surrender its site permit or show cause that it intends to begin construction by August 23 and that its site permit should not be revoked. If the project states that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it shall demonstrate that it is able to begin construction by that date.

5. If New Era makes a filing stating that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it shall provide by that date a more comprehensive response to the Commission’s request in section IV of the March 20 order that it investigate and respond to comments by members of the public alleging deficiencies in its performance on wildlife monitoring and protection issues.

6. If New Era makes a filing stating that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it shall provide by that date a summary of the March 27, 2013 site visit, referred to in its April 17 letter, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Energy Facility Permitting Staff of the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

7. The Commission gives notice of its intent to revoke the project’s site permit if it has neither surrendered its site permit nor filed a certificate of need exemption petition by August 23, 2013.

8. This Order shall become effective immediately.

YES!!!  ‘BOUT TIME!

PUC pulls plug on Goodhue Wind project!

PUC Webcast here

‘Bout time this project went down…  What a thorny long drawn-out heated and circular discussion, but after a long five years, the Public Utilities Commission said no to Peter Mastic’s New Era and its request for an extension of time to get the project in service and operational.  Did I mention this has been a long journey?  It took five long years of persistent work on so many fronts, dogged work on the part of so many people!  L-O-N-G!  I first met with Goodhue Wind Truth and started representing them in late 2008, early 2009.

Just from today I have 12 pages of notes, so here’s the nutshell version, from the two page Revised Decision Options:

Revised Decision Options 20136-88332-01

• After a protracted discussion, they first voted to DENY Todd Guererro’s Motion for another two weeks to prepare as he was just hired on.  Nope, says the Commission, we don’t buy it, New Era f/k/a/ f/k/a has had plenty of time.
• And after an even longer more protracted and circular discussion, the Commission voted UNANIMOUSLY decision options 2 I & J:

• Then came their vote on the Extension Request as a housekeeping matter:

• And then, at the bottom of page 2, adding “August 23, 2013” as the date certain for a response:

DONE!

GOOD RIDDANCE!

Todd Guererro, representing Peter Mastic f/k/a f/k/a, did a valiant job given what he had to work with, a client who didn’t bother to comply with PUC Orders, Information Requests, and laws — he deserves battle pay for  taking the hits hurled by the Commissioners, deserved, but he did the best job possible… well, except he apparently didn’t know that the Commission had made the determination that the project was a C-BED project many years ago, that it was not the Commissioner of Commerce.

I kept my trap shut, thinking “less is more.”

IT’S DONE!

IT’S REALLY DONE!

And an interesting sidebar, NSP had its crew there to monitor its interests (Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, and what a delightful Complaint it is!), and I learned that my arch-nemesis Mike Krikava is a horn player, has a big band of reknown, Nova Contemporary Jazz Orchestra (not Les Brown, perhaps Minnesota’s Toshiko Akiyoshi??), and even played with Ed Berger.  Mike brought it up, wondering how I knew the “real outside” Ed, but folks, it’s a small, small world… who knew?!?

And that after he ruins his reputation with his “heart-shaped” dot in his signature as noted by at least two of my GWT client’s cohorts:

Kinda skews my view, though the blustery honking of Bari fits him well.  It’s sort of like Mark Dayton being a shep nut — I will have higher expectations — we shall see… but if Krikava were a trumpet player, well, that’d be another matter entirely.

In the Rochester Post Bulletin tonight:

PUC commissioner:  It’s time to pull the plug on New Era project

By Brett Boese —  POST BULLETIN

June 20, 2013

 

ST. PAUL — After nearly five years in the permitting process, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission might have finally pulled the plug on the controversial New Era wind project.

After lengthy discussion during Thursday’s PUC hearing — including a few testy exchanges between commissioners and New Era attorney Todd Guerrero — the PUC unanimously approved five motions that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the project to move forward in its current form.

“I think this is definitely a David and Goliath story,” said rural Goodhue farmer Ann Buck, one of the project’s critics, who have spent six figures battling the project over health, environmental and aesthetic concerns. “But I don’t think it was one rock that got the giant. It was many over the last four, five years.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Evidence is mounting that the Goodhue Wind Project, n/k/a New Era Wind Project, f/k/a AWA Goodhue, the little project that could, but assuredly is NOT, the project that has gone from something pretty much “shovel ready” and approved by the Public Utilities Commission to a project with nothing more than a P.O. Box:

… the evidence is indeed mounting that this wind project is going down, down down…

Join us at the Public Utilities Commission, Thursday June 20, 2013 “not to be decided before 10:30 a.m.” but be there early, 9:30 or so, just in case.

First, the Staff Briefing Papers:

Staff Briefing Papers-20136-88138-01

And just to make sure we understand, because “New Era” keeps stalling saying they’re trying to get something together for a Power Purchase Agreement, that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER happening with the PPAs, Xcel Energy filed an action to terminate the PPAs because nothing is happening, Xcel has had enough, DONE:

Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

What a hoot!  Read it and chortle!  You tell ’em, Xcel!  errrr… NSP!

How to work up excitement about the Certificate of Need rulemaking???  On its own, it’s dry, detailed, wonkish stuff, thrilling only to those of us who live and breathe need decisions and utility infrastructure siting and routing… but may there’s some pizazz in the machinations surrounding input, like lack of public representation on the Advisory Committee such that even my tremendous bulk doesn’t even it out.  Does Xcel deserve THREE representatives? ITC two?  “Participating Utilities” two, “Wind Coalition” one and none for Goodhue Wind Truth?  Here’s the list:

Advisory Committee Contact List

Plus they’re not posting the drafts on the rulemaking site, so the public has no idea what’s being proposed:

7849 June 5 DRAFT New

And minutes from the first meeting:

Synopsis – May 29 meeting

To get to the docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “search eDockets” and search for 12-1246.

We’ll be talking about the Certificate of Need criteria next, and here’s what’s proposed:

7849.0120 CRITERIA CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIREMENTS.

   A certificate of need must be granted to the applicant on determining that:

  Subpart 1. Need Demonstration. An applicant for a certificate of need must demonstrate that the demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures.

Subpart 2. Renewable Resource Preferred. An applicant proposing an LEGF that uses a nonrenewable energy source must demonstrate that it has considered the use of renewable energy sources, as required under Minnesota Statutes section 216B.243, subd. 3a.

Subpart 3. Assessment of Need Criteria. In evaluating a certificate of need application, the

commission shall consider the criteria contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.243, subd. 3, as well as the following:

     A.  whether the probable result of denial would be an adverse effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy supply to the applicant, to the applicant’s customers, or to the people of Minnesota and neighboring states, considering: the region;

                (1)  the accuracy of the applicant’s forecast of demand for the type of energy that would be supplied by the proposed facility;

                  (2) the effects of the applicant’s existing or expected conservation programs and state and federal conservation programs;

      (3)  the effects of promotional practices of the applicant that may have given rise to the

increase in the energy demand, particularly promotional practices which have occurred since 1974;

      (4) B. the ability of current facilities and planned facilities not requiring certificates of need to meet the future demand; and

      (5)  the effect of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, in making efficient use of resources;

             B C.  whether a more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed facility has not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, considering:;

                (1)  D. the appropriateness of the size, the type, and the timing of the proposed facility compared to those of reasonable alternatives;

      (2) E. the cost of the proposed facility and the cost of energy to be supplied by the proposed facility compared to the costs of reasonable alternatives and the cost of energy that would be supplied by reasonable alternatives;

              (3) F. the effects of the proposed facility upon the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of reasonable alternatives; and

                (4) G.  the expected reliability of the proposed facility compared to the expected reliability of reasonable alternatives;

             C.   by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural and socioeconomic environments, including human health, considering:

                (1) the relationship of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, to overall state energy needs;

      (2) H. the effects of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, upon the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of not building the facility;

                (3) I.  the effects of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, in inducing future development; and

                (4) J. the socially beneficial uses of the output of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, including its uses to protect or enhance environmental quality; and.

             D.   the record does not demonstrate that the design, construction, or operation of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will fail to comply with relevant policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local governments.