Legalectric

It’s been a busy couple of weeks in wind in Goodhue County.

It’s all about whether there is indeed anything more than vaporware to the Goodhue Wind Project.  And there’s also that pesky little Community Based Energy Development statute, and whether this project is a C-BED project.

T. Boone Pickens has waved goodbye to the Goodhue Wind Project.

Pickens exits Minnesota project for undisc fee

And in the STrib, some interesting details:

T. Boone Pickens departs state wind project

Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens has sold his stake in a controversial wind farm proposed in Goodhue County, Minn., but its new owner says the project is going ahead.

Dallas-based American Wind Alliance, founded by Pickens in 2009, said Friday that it has sold 100 percent of the company behind the Minnesota project, whose name has been changed to New Era Wind Farm LLC. The financial terms were not disclosed.

The proposed 50-turbine wind farm, once estimated to cost $180 million, would be located west of the city of Goodhue, about 60 miles southeast of the Twin Cities. Citizens have fought the project because of concerns about potential noise and unpleasant shadows from spinning blades and about threats to protected eagles and bats that might hit the blades.

Peter Mastic, who formerly headed a Minneapolis wind development firm that worked on the project, said in an interview Friday that he is the sole employee and owner of New Era Wind Farm.

Mastic said he intends to pursue the project with the help of a local advisory board and, eventually, local investors. The advisory board of local farmers decided on the new company name, he added.

“They wanted something that signified a re-engagement with the community and a new beginning,” said Mastic, who indicated that the board members’ names will be disclosed later.

Although the project has a site permit from the state Public Utilities Commission, its avian and bat protection plan is pending. Mastic said the company will submit a revised plan and will seek a federal permit for the “incidental take” or killing of protected species.

Pickens’ company, Mesa Power, said it believes the Goodhue project will be built. “For strategic reasons, Mesa Power is redeploying its wind development efforts,” the company said in a statement.

Mastic said he will go ahead with the project even if the federal production tax credit for wind farms is allowed to expire on Dec. 31. The fate of many wind energy projects hinges on whether the subsidy is extended by Congress, which won’t consider the matter before the elections.

Xcel Energy, based in Minneapolis, would buy electricity from the wind farm as part of a commitment under a state law to purchase energy from community-based producers.

Until July, Mastic was the CEO of Minneapolis-based National Wind, which launched the Goodhue project, but ended its role as developer in August. National Wind recently was acquired by Trishe Wind Energy Inc., a wind development group based in India.

Pickens, a Texas oil and gas entrepreneur, was recently listed by Forbes magazine as the 360th richest American, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.

But before the Pickens announcement, we got word that December of 2011, LAST YEAR, National Wind was sold to Trishe Wind, a company in India.  Then we learn that Trishe Wind doesn’t want to take on the Goodhue Wind project!  Check the “Portfolio of Projects” on their site.  Posted September 26, 2012, reporting a December 2011 sale:

National Wind Acquired by Trishe Wind Energy

Minneapolis, MN – September 26, 2012: National Wind LLC has been acquired by Trishe Wind Energy Inc. Trishe Wind Energy is part of Trishe Energy Group, founded in India. Trishe Energy Group is an international developer of wind energy with over 4000 MW of wind projects completed or under development in the U.S. and India. For additional information go to www.trishe.com.

Under its new ownership, National Wind—A Trishe Group Company continues to develop community-partnered wind projects in the U.S. Since the beginning of 2012, National Wind has added five members to its Minneapolis-based workforce. For additional information go to www.nationalwind.com.
The development agreement between National Wind and the American Wind Alliance (the equity owners of AWA Goodhue) with respect to the Goodhue project has been terminated as of the end of August 2012.

Vivek Mittal, President of Trishe Wind Energy and President of National Wind, is serving as acting CEO of National Wind. He replaces Peter Mastic, who is no longer employed by National Wind.

“AWA Goodhue” Compliance Filing, September 17, 2012

PUC Burl Haar’s Letter, September 20, 2012

Which was followed up by an Information Request from Tricia DeBleekere:

PUC’s Information Request, October 11, 2012

SNORT!  Let’s see them answer that!

And Mastic sent in another Compliance Filing that must have crossed in the mail with the PUC’s IR like two ships passing in the night:

New Era Wind Farm Compliance Filing, October 12, 2012

The Secretary of State reports that a New Era Wind Farm LLC was born on December 14, 2009, and was amended October 8th and 10th, 2012.

Now we find out…

CT Corporation System, at 100 So. 5th Str #1075, Mpls, is one of those mail-order incorporators that provide a “Registered Office Address” for service in Minnesota.  Note the mailing address!

Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, the coal gasification plant that will not die, is returning to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on August 14, 2012.

Notice – August 14, 2012 PUC Meeting

At that time, they’ll address whether the original project’s permits apply to this project, and whether this one, under Minn. Stat. 216B. 1694, requires additional environmental review:

**6.     E6472/GS-06-668 Excelsior Energy, Inc.
In the Matter of the Joint LEPGP Site Permit, HVTL Route Permit and Pipeline (Partial
Exemption) Route Permit Application for the Mesaba Energy Project in Itasca County.
Should the Commission find, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 216B. 1694 subdivision 3, that the
site and route permits issued on March 12, 2010 for the Mesaba Energy Project are deemed valid
for a natural gas fired plant located at the same site and that no additional environmental review
is required under applicable state rules?

This docket has been one of the longest strangest trips ever, a coal gasification plant that wasn’t needed yet fed by state and federal money, using CO2 capture and storage that does not, can not, and will not exist.  Here’s some history:

Health Benefits of Coal (ya gotta read this one, HILARIOUS!)

Mesaba – Extend the Hearing! (the hearing was a farce)

And why are we here on the 14th?  The PUC granted a Site Permit to the project f/k/a Mesaba Project, the coal gasification plant:

ALJ Recommendation – Mesaba Site Permit

PUC Order and Site Permit – March 2010

Then it starts getting complicated, Excelsior sends PUC letter saying it wants confirmation that the permits issued for the Mesaba Project coal gasification plant are valid for a natural gas plant, and that it would require no further environmental review:

Excelsior Energy Request – May 31, 2012

Notice of Comment Period

Comment – mncoalgasplant.com

Commerce CommentsSierra Club Comment

And then Excelsior chimes again disclosing not much of anything about their “plan” for this gas plant:

Excelsior’s Response to Commerce IRs June 26, 2012

And then the Comment period is extended and we get another bite:

MCGP Reply Comment

And now we’re off to the races…

In the Duluth News Tribune:

Feds say no more money for Iron Range Excelsior Power Plant

OAH Rulemaking Request for Comments

OAH Rulemaking Draft Changes

Well, folks, here we go, just got notice TODAY from Judge Lipman of the rulemaking at Office Administrative Hearings. Send Comments to:

Honorable Eric L. Lipman, Assistant Chief ALJ

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, Minnesota   55164-0620,

Electronic Mail: eric.lipman@state.mn.us

Here’s the “purpose” according to OAH (listed in numbers, not letters):

The purpose of these draft revisions to Parts 1400 and 1405 is to:

1. streamline hearing procedures across different types of administrative proceedings;
2. leverage the broader familiarity with contested case procedures to improve predictability in the hearing process for other types of cases;
3. better reflect contemporary hearing practice and the technological changes occurring since September of 2001 (when the last revision of OAH’s procedural rules was completed); and
   
4. improve predictability in the hearing process by more closely aligning OAH’s procedures with the General Rules of Practice of the District Courts.

I have a vested interest in this because I’d filed a Rulemaking Petition ages ago:

Overland – Petition for Rulemaking – OAH

That was March, 2011, IT TOOK A YEAR AND A HALF!

Here are a few things I hope you’ll look at — the parts cited with a page number are from the OAH Rulemaking Draft Changes:

• Draft Changes, p. 2, definitions of Participant and Person – narrowing definition of person:

As proposed, on p. 4:

20   Subp. 6a. Participant. “Participant” means a nonparty who:
21
22  A. files comments or makes a formal appearance in a
23   proceeding authorized by the Minnesota Public Utilities
24   Commission, other than those commission proceedings that
25   are conducted to receive general public comments; or,
26
27   B. with the approval of judge, offers testimony or
28   evidence pursuant to part 1400.7150 or 1400.8605.

37  Subp. 8. Person. “Person” means any individual, business,
38   nonprofit association or society, or governmental entity.

As found in the PUC’s Rules, Minn. R. 7829.0100, Subp. 13 and 15:

Another in a trend of limiting participation by the public, QUESTIONING WITNESSES IS OUT – SAY WHAT????  See Draft Changes, p. 14-15 (see also p. 59-60):

45   Subp. 5. Participation by public. The judge may, in the
46  absence of a petition to intervene, nevertheless hear the

1    testimony and receive exhibits from any person at the
2    hearing, or allow a person to note that person’s appearance,
3    or allow a person to question witnesses, but no person shall
4    become, or be deemed to have become, a party by reason
5     of such participation. Persons offering testimony or exhibits
6    may be questioned by parties to the proceeding.

Where then PUC’s rules provide for much more — check out current Minn. R. 1405.0800, which they want to just ELIMINATE!  It starts here:

Somebody kill this thing!!!  It just won’t die…

So here we go again — check out our exhibits:

Comment – mncoalgasplant.com

So what were we commenting on this time?  Excelsior Energy says it wants to build a gas plant, and use all the permits and perks it got as a “coal gasification” project.  Over my dead polar bear!

Initial Excelsior Request – May 31, 2012

Commerce Comments

Excelsior’s Response to Commerce IRs June 26, 2012

Can’t we just shut the door on this, lock it tight, and GO HOME?

… and what a downer it is:

Opinion – Unpublished

Question – given this is the first ever ruling about Minn. Stat.216F.081, why is this unpublished?

And, as I commented on the STrib site, what struck me was the court’s misplaced reliance on the Renewable Energy Standard as energy policy in MN.  Xcel holds the 2 PPAs for this project.  Whether they build this 78MW project does not make or break Xcel Energy’s compliance with the RES, Xcel is already ahead of the game, in compliance for years into the future.  Compliance with the state’s RES is not at issue here!  That’s a red herring.

Here’s the Coalition for Sensible Siting’s take:

CSS Appellate Decision Press Release

Here are some articles:

StPPP – Minnesota court of appeals throws out county obstacles to Goodhue wind project

STrib – Wind farm doesn’t have to follow setback rules

RochPB – Appellate court rules in favor of AWA Goodhue wind project

MPR – Court ruling green lights Goodhue County wind turbines

KSTP – Wind Turbine Project in Goodhue County Will Move Forward