Legalectric

Melville Nickerson, Invenergy, is Rep. Walz’ CONSTITUENT?  Nickerson lives and works in Chicago.  What is Walz thinking?  What about the 470+ people in the Freeborn Wind footprint who signed the opposition petition?  Association of Freeborn Landowners sure hasn’t heard from him.  WTF!?!?!

Here’s the pdf: 20182-139890-01_Walz Letter

And he thinks he’s up for being the Governor of Minnesota?  Good move, bubba…

Now, about PolyMet…

“January Pretzel” — a Bent Tree bent turbine blade 1/20/2018

Taken by the Hagens in the Bent Tree wind project

DOH!  The Bent Tree Phase II noise report is out and it confirms that the project is violating the siting permit.

Bent+Tree+08+573+PostConstNoiseMonPhase+II+Report+2+7+18

Bottom line:

Here’s the Phase I report:

Bent Tree_Noise Monitoring and Noise Monitoring Report_20179-135856-01

So now what are they going to do?

Tomorrow, the Big Blue wind project is at the PUC which is violating their permit too, and the PUC decision options are to revoke permit, suspend permit, or continue operations with compliance filings.

StaffBriefingPapers20182-139717-01

The process here is flawed (to put it mildly).  There is noise modeling required in wind project permitting, but clearly that isn’t sufficient to site them in a way that won’t steamroll the neighbors to the project.  The setbacks in MN aren’t adequately protective.  Deal with it, Public Utilities Commission!

Well, Association of Freeborn County Landowners got Subpoenas, served them, and for some reason, the Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of Health really don’t want to bring their reports into the Freeborn Wind docket:

Subpoena_OAH_Cover&Subpoenas

Here are the reports that really matter:

Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Dept of Health – Comment Pages 59-61 from Siting_InitialFiling_Appendix A_Agency Correspondence

Commerce – Bent Tree Noise Monitoring and Noise Report

Commerece – email_8-14-2017_Dokouzian-Miltich

One way or another, these reports WILL get in the record.  Why?  Well, look at the recommendations in the Dept. of Health comment:

Pretty specific? And the more general recommendations fro the “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” report:

The Dept. of Health report is part of Invenergy’s Roberts’ testimony, but it’s not entered in the record yet.  The Dept. of Health 5/2/2017 Comment was part of the Applicant’s Appendix A (pps. 59-61) and again, it’s not part of the record yet.  So just making sure it all gets in there one way or another.

Do tell — has the Applicant followed these recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Health in siting their project?  Has the Dept. of Commerce followed these recommendations in reviewing the project?  Has the Public Utilities Commission followed these recommendations in considering permitting the project?

And what about Commerce?  We have documentation that in the Bent Tree project, which had wind noise modeling performed as a part of the application and permitting process, noise modeling which said, “no problem,” and yet (click for larger version):

And the full Bent Tree Noise Monitoring and Noise Report ordered by the Public Utilities Commission.

Commerce filed a Motion to Quash:

17-410-Motion_to_Quash_Hearing_Subpoena

And we reached an agreement:

Commerce-AFCL_Agreement_20181-139130-01

Oh, but wait… they’re really not wanting that Bent Tree info to get in the record! So once more with feeling:

Motion To Exclude_Commerce_20181-139379-01

OK, whatever…

AFCL Response_Motion to Exclude_20181-139493-01

And then there’s the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and they also jumped on the bandwagon, clearly the Asst. Commissioner who signed the Dept of Health – Comment wasn’t the author and didn’t know much about it (!), so:

Letter and Stipulation for the Release of the Assistant Commissioner

Which leaves the DNR. Got a call from DNR Counsel Sherry Enzler, who clearly didn’t get that Commerce Motion to Quash had no bearing on DNR Subpoena, and that wed reached an agreement and Commerce had withdrawn their Motion, oh my… but anyway, we agreed that we’d set a time certain the last day of the hearing for the DNR staff.  No problem… though we’ll need an Order from the judge confirming that.

DNR_Time Certain

So on we go…

Oh, but wait, the Applicants, Invenergy, also got their $0.02 in, and filed a Motion:

20181-139400-02_Freeborn_Motion to Strike Hansen Testimony

… OK, again, whatever, gotta get response in on this one…

And may the ALJ decide!!!

The Administrative Law Judge in this case, and the Public Utilities Commission, the ultimate decider, need to recognize that the permitting system is fatally flawed.  Prevention, precaution, prudence…

Sustainable: Planners charting Minnesota’s energy future

Yes, we all know that Mike Bull wrote most of the energy law now in place!  But there’s no mention of those many years of work at House Regulated Industries Committee though…

And we all know that there are some big holes and problems with the wind siting statutes, rules, and standards.  What will it take to get some of the problems worked through, like some respectful wind siting standards?  We’re just starting to see, at long last, after years and years of complaints, some Public Utilities Commission action on wind noise issues.

Bent Tree_Noise Monitoring and Monitoring Report_20179-135856-01

Siting will have to be addressed, because despite sound modeling that says “no problem,” there are indeed problems.  Despite shadow flicker modeling that says “no problem,” there are indeed problems.

Preventative siting is long overdue and needs to start NOW!  And what about those already  affected?  “Buy the Farm” for wind?  It’s overdue.  Action after the fact is not the best of options, prevention is always the key, but for those now attempting to live in untenable circumstances, foisted on them by the nuisance moving into their community, and permitted by the Commission, what are the options?

Wind project in southern Minnesota gets pushback

Hey Mikey, how ’bout helping get to some solutions???

Map of transmission — click for larger view

Just filed, Association of Freeborn Landowner Scoping Comments for the Environmental Assessment for the transmission line for the Freeborn Wind Energy wind project:

EA Scoping Comments – Commerce_AFCL

And tomorrow, on the wind project side, the Commission is going to make decision on whether to issue the Draft Site Permit — we’re number 7 on the agenda: