Goodhue Comments in!
April 3rd, 2013
Today was the day that Comments were due on the Goodhue Wind Project based on the Public Utilities Commission’s very detailed and specific issues to address:
From Goodhue Wind Truth:
And Goodhue County:
And here’s a strange one from the project’s Applicant — no comments, just asking for a delayed deadline for Reply Comments:
Really, this is their request:
Accordingly, in recognition of the value of the time of the Commissioners, the Staff, the Respondents and all parties hereto, New Era respectfully requests that the deadline for reply comments and further action in these matters be delayed pending resolution of the New Era proposals.
New Era believes that an extension of 30 days may be adequate for resolution of this matter.
30 days? Sure… right… whatever you say…
And from Commerce:
Bottom line from Commerce is (p. 11 of pdf):
At the time the Commission approved a CN for the Project, the Department’s position was that the proposed Project did not meet the CN requirements without its C-BED status. Due to the Company’s own uncertainty and the fact of a current Commission Order on the issue of C-BED status, it would be premature at this time for the Department to address possible changes to the Commission’s Order on the C-BED status of the Project.
A proposed project’s financing, turbine purchase agreements, power purchase contracts, possession of leases, easements and wind rights are not required to be known at the time of a CN determination; therefore, changes in these areas are only required to be considered by the Commission to the extent that they result in the criteria found in Minnesota Rules 7849.0400.
While Minnesota Rules 7849.0400 sets forth the thresholds for Commission recertification of certificates of need , the Commission has broad authority to rescind or amend its past Orders at any time and for any reason.
Let’s just get it over with!
Flyway Rest Stop in Goodhue County
March 31st, 2013
Just yesterday, I went for a drive in Goodhue County, wanted to get an eyefull of the area of Significant Biodiversity on the north end of the Goodhue Wind Project footprint, the part they’ve left out of all their surveys so far — it’s the purple area on the map below, pretty much along White Rock Trail (this is two maps combined to show biodiversity areas within footprint). The blue stars are new nests, three of which could be new eagle nests):
Map above: The red line is the boundary of the Goodhue Wind Project footprint. The dashed line is the area that’s supposed to be included in their surveys, the green diagonal lines are the Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood Forest, and the purple are the areas of Significant Biodiversity.
When we were cruising around, we went into a little dip with running water on both sides in the ditch and lightly wooded, scruffy trees that were new growth, and along the ditches, in the trees, on the shoulder and even on the middle of the road were hundreds and hundreds of robins. I’ve never seen that many before, everywhere there were robins and they were singing up a storm.
Turns out Marie McNamara was driving around the same area, and found… are you ready?
YES!!! TRUMPETER OR TUNDRA SWANS!
With any luck, the DNR will get out there and figure it out!
Goodhue Order is OUT!
March 29th, 2013
The Public Utilities Commission Order on the Goodhue Wind Project is out, well, it came out a while ago and so much has been going on that I didn’t get it posted! But it’s sure worth the wait:
Just after the meeting, based on the comments, particularly of Chair Heydinger, regarding “parties” and that there were no parties, I sent in yet another Petition for Intervention — almost exactly three years after the first one, which was denied:
And that was granted earlier this week, no one objected:
Well, now there is at least ONE party. So back to the PUC’s Order… like wow… we’re supposed to address a few questions:
II. Issues to be Addressed
C-BED Status
• Has New Era Wind Farm, due to ownership changes or for any other reason, lost the C-BED status the Commission found to exist in its April 28, 2010 order?
• If New Era does not meet the criteria for C-BED status at this time, what is its factual basis for asserting that it will meet the standard by its proposed in-service date?
• Does the project meet the requirements of the certificate of need statute and certificate of need rules without C-BED status?
• Do the revisions to the C-BED statute enacted in 2010 affect the project’s ability to meet the requirements of the certificate of need statute and rules without current C-BED status?
• Did the change in ownership of the limited liability company that owns the project violate the anti-transfer provisions applicable to C-BED projects under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 3 (c)? If so, what action should the Commission take?
Other Changes in Circumstances
• Does the project’s loss of financing, the absence of turbine purchase agreements, or the unsettled status of the power purchase contracts affect the certificate of need determination?
• Does the project currently have in hand the land leases, easements, and wind rights required to construct the 78-megawatt wind farm for which it received a certificate of need? How does the answer to this question affect the certificate of need determination?
• If the project currently lacks the land leases, easements, and wind rights required to construct the wind farm as originally certificated, what alternatives are available for consideration? What is the likelihood of changes to the size of the wind farm or the size, type, or configuration of the turbines? What is the project’s projected time frame for making these determinations and then for proceeding? How do the answers to these questions affect the certificate of need determination?
• How would changes in the size of the wind farm or in the size, type, or configuration of the turbines affect the environmental and wildlife protection considerations made in the certificate of need determination? How would they affect the certificate of need determination itself?
• Would accommodating the concerns of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require changes in the size, type, or timing of the wind farm or in any of the substantive provisions of the certificate of need or the site permit? If so, does the project intend to make these accommodations? How do the answers to these questions affect the certificate of need determination?
• If changes in the size of the wind farm or in the size, type, or configuration of the turbines were proposed – raising new environmental considerations – how would the project engage and collaborate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
• What is the current in-service date for the project? What is the expected in-service date, or, if the date is not known, when do the parties anticipate the conclusion of the negotiations between the Applicant and Xcel regarding the power purchase agreements?
• Does the new project owner stand behind all representations made in the application for the certificate of need and in the application for the site permit? Is the new owner willing and able to comply with all terms and conditions in the certificate of need and the site permit?
Other Issues
The list above does not include every issue that could affect this certificate of need decision, and the Commission invites parties, participants, and members of the public to raise any other issues they consider material during the initial comment period established below. Newly raised issues will then be addressed during the reply comment period.
Finally, the Commission requests comments on what process it should use going forward to resolve the issues identified above and any additional issues raised in the course of this proceeding
Wow, that does go on. Could it get any better than that? Well, yes, it could. It’s about time the Public Utilities Commission said “ENOUGH” and pulled the plug on this vaporware project. Oh well, on to writing comments, due within 14 days.
If you have Comments, there are 14 days to file them, so April 3, 2013. Reply Comments are due 14 days after, that, on April 17th, so Monday April 18, 2013. Either eFile Comments to eDockets (eDocket 09-1185; 09-1349 and 09-1350), or email them to ??? I guess burl.haar@state.mn.us with the docket numbers (09-1185; 09-1349 and 09-1350) in the subject line and in the body of the email. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES RAISED ABOVE. I’d quite the issue you want to comment on, and then elaborate as best you can, and attach any documentation to support your comment. Have at it!
Another cut to Excelsior Energy
March 12th, 2013
Dying the death of a thousand cuts, here’s one more paper cut for our good friends at Excelsior Energy.
Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, the creme-de-la-creme of vaporware projects, was slashed again by a Midwest Independent System Operator filing with FERC that the project had breached its transmission interconnection agreement and was in default. MISO has asked FERC to terminate the agreement:
The state has been unreasonably and inexplicably reluctant to kill this non-project. Maybe the feds are willing?
Dayton’s “Environmental Review”
December 1st, 2012
Gov. Mark Dayton rolled out the plan early in his term — GUT environmental review and protection. What do Minnesotans think? This week we got a chance to tell him.
Surprise! The first meeting about the state’s environmental review was standing room only, when we got there a line started at the door going back and winding in. They’d supposedly expected 30-40 but got about 200, 175 signed in and I’d bet quite a few didn’t. Keep in mind that this was a meeting held at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday. Suzanne found a spot with just enough room for us to stand. As it was getting started, I noticed, DUH, that there was a white board behind me, so because there was no designated way to make comments other than holler, well, of course I did that too, particularly regarding FUNDING, because there was no mention of funding and how all the agencies are hurting to the point of being unable to regulate, anyway, a few of my comments (click photo for larger view):
There were meetings this week, and there are more the week of December 10 — SHOW UP AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATE’S JOB ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
December 10 – Worthington, Worthington High School 3:30pm – 6:00pm
I’ve posted before about Gov. Dayton’s brown environmental initiatives — right off the bat he muzzled and prodded MPCA and DNR to ram permits through:
And then he announced plans to “streamline” environmental review, and we all know what “streamline” means”
So at these meetings ostensibly about “environmental review” we were funneled into a “multiple guess” exercise about the “Environmental Report Card” and nothing about “Improvement of Environmental Review” or “EQB Governance and Coordination” which were reports that, in addition to the “Environmental Report Card” were approved by the EQB on November 14, 2012. There was a “comment” opportunity at the EQB, but there were maybe 5 people who commented, utterly ineffective solicitation.
EARTH TO MARS! With the EQB approving those reports November 14, BEFORE the public meetings, there was pretty much ZERO input into those reports. Although it’s heartening to see that there’s been some pull-back from the overt gutting of the EQB laid out in the draft report, and maybe, MAYBE, pull back from reframing the whole intent of environmental review, it’s a problem where the fix is in and where the important policy documents are done before we’re invited to join the game. Thanks, guys…
Here are the reports:
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
- Minnesota Environment and Energy Report Card
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, someone like Bill Grant, formerly Izaak Walton League, now Dayton’s Deputy Commissioner in charge of Energy Facility Permitting, the guy who facilitated the CapX 2020 transmission buildout, and who promoted coal gasification, he has no business being involved in siting of utility permits. He has an egregious conflict of interest, having been part of energy project promotional efforts, and needs to be fired. Here’s Grant eing interviewed before the program started:
At two recent frac sand mining meetings in Red Wing and Wabasha, I handed out at least 270 flyers, , posted info on this blog and sent info out on lists. I’m hoping that had something to do with so many turning out. Frac sand was a major topic, I really stressed the need to fund the state’s regulatory agencies so they can do their job, and others way over across the room were not happy with how the discussion was an exercise in control of discussion. It’s safe to say that they got an earful.
Rep. Denny McNamara came in and worked his way back to a tiny open spot by us, he ended up next to Alan, and Alan quietly said hello and noted that they’d first met at a meeting in Cottage Grove regarding the 3M incinerator, and he gives Alan a nasty look and makes a gratuitous snide comment about “Oh, did you get a haircut?” and looks at the back of his head. EH? Alan said something in his oh so nice way, and I piped up from behind, “At least he doesn’t dye his!”
Denny McNamara’s trainer better put a muzzle on him. That guy is supposed to be representing the people in his district, and in that case he represented the interests of 3M, notorious polluter of the water and air, and he has the nerve to be a defensive jerk when there’s no need to be. If mere mention of meeting him at a hearing regarding the 3M incinerator elicits that brand of obnoxiousness, oh my, he must be guilty of more offensive rolling to corporate interests than suspected!
A google pops up this article right at the top:
Rep. Denny McNamara tonight plans to take an axe to a swath of proposed environmental projects that are paid for by Minnesota Lottery money.
McNamara, R-Hastings, is planning to initiate a challenge to about $8 million worth of projects that were previously recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). The total bill recommends $52 million in projects that are paid over a two-year period out of the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, which is built up by Lottery proceeds.
Check out that post… Hey Denny, how about addressing the extreme environmental issues around Hastings? So glad he’s been ousted as Chair of the House Environment Committee.