“I said, ‘Take a look around, hang out as long as you want and see if you want to live here.’ ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s the Bent Tree project – click for larger version:
Carol A. Overland, Overland Law Office — Utility Regulatory and Land Use Advocacy
Yes, Minnesota, impacts of wind turbines are real, and you’re going to have to deal with it.
“I want quiet and dark nights, not the noise and red flashing lights on top of wind towers,” she said. “We did not choose to live out here to be next to an industrial park.”
Here’s the proposal for Freeborn Wind with sound modeling (See Figure 6 Application, Siting_Initial Filng_Figures1-17_20176-132804-02), and consider, Minnesota standards for setbacks are that it much comply with MPCA noise standard PLUS 500 feet — the 500 feet is not built into this map (click for larger version):
Shadow flicker? Commerce admits in its Comments that there are homes affected beyond what is allowed by county ordinance (See Figure 8 Application, Siting_Initial Filng_Figures1-17_20176-132804-02) (click for larger version):
“I said, ‘Take a look around, hang out as long as you want and see if you want to live here.’ ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s the Bent Tree project – click for larger version:
These folks drive me crazy! Katherine Kersten has been on my list since the 80s when she wrote an editorial in the STrib about student loans, praising the Reagan cuts to student loans, and major decreases in income limits for “need based” student loans, just at the time I was winding up my BA and trying to get into law school. Who paid for her legal education? Anyway, yeah, obviously we don’t see eye to eye on anything, but this latest blather from them goes beyond a difference of opinion, to a too frequent spewing of conflatulence. And when I see this, yeah, I get on a rant too, it’s kind of disjointed, so I’ll be reworking soon. These claims are so insidious, because the facts do take some digging and some sifting. Add to that there is so much misinformation going on about transmission, about the Clean Power Plan… GRRRRRRRRRR…
Check this out:
Yeah, this CAE thing is going around, it’s arrived in my inbox via clients working on wind projects, it’s arrived via a transmission person from ND who put it on my facebook page via a WindAction post, which cut and pastes another “reporters” blog about the CAE “Report.” Playing “telephone” and we know how that goes… So let’s go straight to the horse’s … well, the other end.
This CAE “Report” is taking multiple things, trying to patch together an argument they want to make, but the patches aren’t holding. This comes on the heels of another report that found its way into my inbox with the claim that wind is very expensive, that it costs about 8 times the PPA cost because it’s intermittent, and because of that, they added in cost of power to cover when wind isn’t blowing (ummmm, you only pay for what you use, at the PPA price, DOH!).
Point by point in the “report” from CAE, they claim:
Minnesota has lost its advantage on electricity
That’s true! But sorry, CAE, it’s not because of wind. Rates have gone sky high in Minnesota for a couple of reasons. 1) Wholesale deregulation allowing sales from any Point A to any Point B, and 2) Transmission for coal and whatever else, from every Point A to every Point B. It is NOT 3) Wind is higher priced, because it is not.
Reason one that are rates are as high as Illinois rates? The economics of deregulation aren’t rocket science. When you have something to sell, you sell to the highest bidder. If someone else wants it, then they have to pay the going rate. A good resource on how we got to where we are is “The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions,” by Alfred E. Kahn. It’s a major tome, but hey, just read Chapter 2, the chapter on electricity, “The Traditional Issues in the Pricing of Public Utility Services. Then, go back and read the introduction, where it gets into building more capacity than is needed, and the burden on ratepayers when utilities go overboard, particularly relevant when we get to the next point, that of overbuilding, and also consider the 105+ coal plants proposed but not built, including many coal gasification plants (i.e., Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project here in Minnesota and the NRG plant in Delaware, both of which I helped tank. The Mesaba Project provided much needed details about the technical problems and economics of coal gasification and the impossibility of carbon capture and storage that doomed any project from the get-go. IGCC – Pipedreams of Green & Clean), and the economic and technological disasters of the new Vogtle and V.C. Summer nuclear plants, and two coal gasification plants in Edwardsport , Indiana (coal gasification off more than on, often down completely) and Kemper IGCC in Mississippi (over $7 billion and now burning natural gas) that got off the drawing board but are economic disasters with ratepayers holding the bag.
Take a look at the cost of electricity, in real time:
FYI, here’s some wallpaper for ya, with the MISO Market LMP price in real time (keep in mind, this is spot market, so prices higher than PPA prices):
https://www.misoenergy.org/MarketsOperations/RealTimeMarketData/Pages/LMPContourMap.aspx
Check this slide from FERC info on EIA page:
What? Delivery costs? Oh, TRANSMISSION!! (full story from EIA HERE)
Note also, from the same EIA post, the shift away from Power Purchase Agreements that came with the decrease in demand electricity glut:
Now, let’s move on to 2) Transmission for coal and whatever else may happen to be there, from every Point A to every Point B.
When you’re thinking about this, and about all the whining about shutting down coal plants, remember that the older very high priced to operate coal plants are being shut down. What about other plants? If all, if the majority, of coal plants were shut down, what would that mean for the transmission system? This is important — if those plants were shut down, there would be lots of room on the transmission system. But they didn’t. Instead, they built this huge transmission overlay called CapX 2020, at a cost of over $2 BILLION, and are now building the MISO 17 project MVP Portfolio (see MVP Dashboard — now up to $6.6 BILLION). MISO is now talking about a Regional Transmission Overlay above those (click on the maps in the link, AAACK!). Check the 20170131 EPUG Preliminary Overlay Ideas List. Get your pocketbook ready to pay for this. And for your nightmares, piece by piece:
In the process of getting from any Point A to any Point B, we’ve overbuilt transmission to the point that Xcel Energy is whining that the grid is only 55% utilized.
(N) Identify and develop opportunities to reduce customer costs by improving overall grid efficiency. In Minnesota, the total electric system utilization is approximately 55 percent (average demand divided by peak demand), thus providing an opportunity to reduce system costs by better utilizing existing system assets (e.g., generation, wires, etc.). (e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report, p. 11).
OK, let’s look at “any Point A to any Point B.” Where does this CapX 2020 that started the big transmission build-out start and where does it end (keeping in mind it began with WIREs and WRAO released in 1998, they’ve built almost all of those proposed then)?
Well, fancy that. It starts in the coal fields of the Dakotas, at the major coal plants fueled by the neighboring coal mines. Oh, and look, it goes east to the Madison ring and off to Illinois… huh… funny how that works… Now, think about what it means for “pass through” Minnesota!
How about the MISO 17 project MVP Portfolio, again, now priced at over $6.6 BILLION (it was $5.24 billion when approved by MISO):
And the addition of the capital costs of these projects to the rates has not been adequately considered. Xcel admits in its latest rate case initial filing (15-826), now water over the dam, that it’s transmission driven. In the CapX 2020 cases that No CapX 2020 intervened in, the Certificate of Need and multiple routing dockets, we were not able to raise rate issues, consistently and adamantly told that no, that can only be addressed in rate cases. Was Center of the American Experiment there? Nope. They were just agitating to get people to comment, but no substance. Maybe if they’d read the rate case dockets, they’d have some credibility, but nooooooo.
Look at PUC Rate Case Docket 15-826, and the one before it, 13-868. What is driving Minnesota’s price is not wind (it’s much lower PPA price than any other resource) but transmission. We’re now paying for CapX 2020 transmission and the MISO MVP 17 project portolio (an apportioned share). Transmission ROI is 12.38%, though it’s in a fight at FERC which will lower it to maybe 9+%, which is much more than they get on electricity because price is so low. We are also now paying for rebuilding the Sherco 3 coal plant which was down for two years after the turbine went wild and blew up, and that rehab was over budget (2 years that power wasn’t needed, but rebuilt it anyway and we’re paying!). And the Monticello nuclear plant rehab and uprate which cost twice as much as they thought (and so because of too high cost and lack of need, they started but then cancelled the same at Prairie Island here in Red Wing). (the electric market is so bad, prices so low, that Xcel is wrangling to have its “business plan” determine rates, not cost! And they want to focus on building things to get that ROI which is a lot higher.) Center of the American Experiment is not a credible source, they do this sort of thing all the time to advance their agenda, and don’t dig into the facts. WindAction latches on to this, without looking for details, facts. That comes out in the rate case.
I tried, both individually and on behalf of No CapX 2020 to intervene in the most recent rate case (15-826) because CapX and MISO MVP transmission is the driver, and got into quite a testy fight with the ALJ, Judge Oxley. He was so extreme in his resistance, worked so hard to exclude No CapX, beyond anything I’ve ever seen before. When I presented at the public hearing, he refused to allow cross examination of the witnesses, said he wouldn’t require their witnesses to be present at the hearing, and started yelling at me, all on the record, and it looked like he was about to start crying, eyes red and watery, shaking visibly. It was so bizarre. Details here – particularly the Denial #2_Overland-NoCapX Intervention where he declared NO, NO intervention in a very pissy way, and despite this being the rate case, and throughout the CapX 2020 dockets (all 5 of them over 8 years!) and ITC’s MISO MVP Line 3, where we were repeatedly prohibited from addressing rate impacts, nope, no intervention in the rate case:
Encourage public participation? Yeah, right…
February 10th, 2016
Public participation? Tough in Xcel rate case
July 14th, 2016
And here’s an interesting tidbit exposing Xcel’s failure to pay taxes, in essence a public subsidy of Xcel:
Xcel Energy Rate Case — taxes & xmsn rider
June 27th, 2016
From my NoCapX2020 site:
Xcel Rate Case in CapX territory
Well, look who’s intervened in the rate case!
Also, note how CAE goes into a spiel about wind “subsidies” but they don’t address that ALL forms of generation are subsidized, with nuclear getting the most expensive of all, coal second (and shall we get into subsidies for failed IGCC/coal gasification? OH MY DOG!). I have no time for these “subsidy” arguments when there’s no charge to remove ALL subsidies for energy across the board. They also talks about wind needing coal as “backstop.” Ummm, no, that’s natural gas. Coal can’t ramp up and shut down quickly. Natural gas can and does. Shame, they should know better… Coal as “backstop.” Good grief. And on top of that, they try to argue that the cost of backup power for intermittent should be considered as part of the cost of intermittent? Oh, right… tell that to the natural gas plant operators, tell that to those negotiating PPAs for intermittent power! What a hoot! FYI, no, it doesn’t work that way.
And here’s a simple way to clairfy — think about what it would mean if they shut down the coal plants, as we keep hearing about… would we need ANY new transmission? And think about what we’re paying in our utility bills to shuffle this power eastward. Which we’ll get back to further down, and now, on to the next point:
Minnesota’s energy policy primarily promotes wind power.
Yeah, that’s true, wind and solar. For years wind has been a “least cost” option, as declared by the Dept. of Commerce and the Public Utilities Commission, as they do the Integrated Resource Planning and review of Power Purchase Agreements. But don’t forget when talking about energy policy, the massive promotion and subsidization of coal gasification, which even with all the push, couldn’t make it. It was tossed out of the PUC based on the outrageous costs, despite the state subsidies from several sources, and federal bankrolling, grants, and subsidies (for more info, search here for “Mesaba” and “IRRB,” “Mesaba” and “DOE” and just “Mesaba” and scroll through. There’s a lot, that was a 5+ year fight.).
CAE states that there will be only “modest increases in solar,” and that’s way off, both for commercial and residential. Watch! FULL DISCLOSURE: My father designed the solar at the Minnesota Zoo (which was hot water, they didn’t know much about that in early-mid ’70s and produced way too much, was taken down, and the pieces parted out across Minnesota — Ralph Jacobson, IPS knows more about that.). Solar is best because it produces on peak, is storable, particularly at a residential level, and it’s right where load is. Why isn’t every big box in Minnesota covered with solar?
Minnesota has also policy-wise, or unwise, pushed biomass, which has been an economic disaster and Xcel Energy has cut the “biomass mandate,” and is trying to get out of the PPAs for biomass plants that they don’t own, and working to slash the price at the HERC garbage incinerator. Biomass, high priced as it is, however, is a very small percentage of total generation.
Minnesota energy policy also focuses on conservation and efficiency. Conservation is by far the cheapest, because if you don’t use it, it doesn’t cost a thing!
And look at Xcel Energy demand over the years:
It’s Xcel Energy’s, and the utility industry world’s, “new normal,” as Xcel’s CEO Ben Fowkes calls it. Here’s their 2017 3Q powerpoint that came out with their 3Q investors call: CLICK HERE! New capital investment of $1.5 billion and “Targeted ownership” = “Steel for Fuel” plan, making money off capital costs, and significant decrease in fuel costs. Base capital plan of $19 billion = ~5.5% rate base growth — that’s the point! Making money in a way that’s not dependent on selling electricity. And slide 10, Minnesota’s 0.5% DECREASE in sales, overall Xcel 0.2% growth. The “new normal.”
Minnesota’s energy policy is falling on its own terms, as it has not achieved a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
True, but… This is an area of conflatulence. State policy promoting wind DOES NOT EQUAL reduction of CO2 — it only equals building wind. Building billions of MW of wind will not decrease CO2 emissions. Closing coal plants will. Stopping burning will. That’s the only way.
Minnesota has not closed all, or even most, its coal plant generation. We have only closed some of the older coal plants that are not economical to run. Look at Sherco 3, a plant that had a major turbine failure and fire and was off line for nearly two years and was rehabbed to the tune of over $200 million. With that plant off line, CO2 emissions would have been greatly reduced, were in fact greatly reduced, but the Clean Power added those emissions back in for their modeling! WHAT? Here’s the poop on that:
Look at how the “adjusted” Minnesota’s baseline levels due to Sherco 3 being out for nearly 2 years:
The EPA examined units nationwide with 2012 outages to determine where an individual unit-level outage might yield a significant difference in state goal computation. When applying this test to all of the units informing the computation of the BSER, emission performance rates, and statewide goals, the EPA determined that the only unit with a 2012 outage that 1) decreased its output relative to preceding and subsequent years by 75 percent or more (signifying an outage), and 2) could potentially impact the state’s goal as it constituted more than 10 percent of the state’s generation was the Sherburne County Unit 3 in Minnesota. The EPA therefore adjusted this state’s baseline coal steam generation upwards to reflect a more representative year for the state in which this 900 MW unit operates.
Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF p. 796 of 1560).
… sigh… much ado about nothing. But remember, it’s not binary. Wind isn’t “replacing” anything. Wind is added on top of the existing generation, of which we have a surplus before it’s even added. Once more with feeling, WIND ISN’T REPLACING ANYTHING! We could shut down those coal plants now and wouldn’t miss them, but then the utilities couldn’t sell the surplus generation, couldn’t make money providing transmission service from Point A to Point B, and couldn’t make money on capital costs of transmission with a much higher return for building transmission than for selling electricity.
Here’s more on that, from a study released when they were working to get the transmission scheme rolling. The purpose of MISO Midwest Market — where ever would I get the idea that the purpose of it is to displace natural gas with coal generation?
Well, look at pps. 14 and 83:
Again, the purpose, to sell from any Point A to any Point B. That’s what it’s all about! It has nothing to do with displacing coal with wind, and it has nothing to do with taking coal off line, shuttering plants, and it has nothing to do with reduction of CO2 through reduction of burning to generate electricity.
To satisfy Minnesota’s renewable energy standard, an estimated $10 billion dollars has been spent on building wind farms and billions more on transmission.
When talking about costs, True, lots has been spent on building wind farms. However, until very recently, utilities have not been spending those billions of dollars, the wind developers and wind companies have, and utilities are buying the energy via Power Purchase Agreement, and not spending the billions of capital costs, instead letting the independent power producers do it. There’s a big difference there between PPA and capital costs, and CAE does not acknowledge it, and does not acknowledge that we’re being billed for PPA costs and not capital costs in most instances.
Billions on transmission, yes, that’s true, as above, but that transmission is not for wind. It’s for wheeling their surplus power through Minnesota and out of the state, whatever power is there, and remember, those lines start at the coal plants! Again, check the ICF MISO Benefits Analysis Study to see why they want to build all this transmission.
$10 billion capital cost spent building wind farms? Compare with the $29 BILLION cost of building two nuclear reactors, 2,200 MW, at Vogtle, which will never run. Building generating plants of any sort costs money. The failed Mesaba Project coal gasification plant was expected to cost, at last estimate by DOE, over $2.1 billion, for 663 MW. Failed Kemper IGCC 582 MW for $7.1+ billion. As of year end, 2016, there was over 3,500 MW of installed wind capacity. $10 billion capital cost? Cost comparison anyone for construction of generation?
I want people to know that relying on pieces like this is not a good idea! Sending around these “reports,” i.e., the CAE “report” with its many misstatements about things where the authors they should know better, is not helpful because it’s a false spin, FAKE NEWS from the masters of misrepresentation. This rate issue and cost of generation, the decreasing demand and increasing conservation, and transmission for coal is something I’ve been enmeshed in for a long, long time, and I can’t let stuff like this slide.
Oh my, seems that Association of Freeborn County Landowners has struck a nerve. Freeborn Wind Energy (Invenergy) has responded:
Here’s the Response of AFCL to that Reply:
Reply_Association of Freeborn County Landowners_Petition for Task Force
There are some pretty wild statements, attributing motives and purposes that are off the wall:
Oh my… Here’s the statute, and a review of that demonstrates that the first two of their presumptions are contrary to law, and ya know, there are some lawyerly rules (Rule 11 anyone?) against those types of arguments misrepresenting the law:
“AFCL argues for the creation of a new purpose?” No. The only purpose specified in the statute, but stated in a way that leave it open to other purposes, is one of “evaluating sites.” That’s in the second sentence of Subd. 1. What typically happens in a task force is that the application is reviewed, members comment on it and raise issues and proposed additional options. That’s called informing the record. That’s what task forces do, contribute their first hand knowledge of their community, and use that to evaluate sites, to propose alternate sites (which should be in the application but are not!). The charge is to be specified by the Commission.
“Persist through the contested case proceeding?” After the Chisago I task force, which intervened in the first Chisago contested case, Northern States Power made sure that wouldn’t happen again, and in 2001 pushed to get language into the statute that did exactly that:
The task force shall expire upon completion of its charge, upon designation by the commission of alternate sites or routes to be included in the environmental impact statement, or upon the specific date identified by the commission in the charge, whichever occurs first.
Minn. Stat. 216E.08, Subd. 1. DOH! No way can the task force “persist.”
“AFCL’s request for a Scientific Advisory Task Force is, quite transparently, a second try to commence a rulemaking relating to wind turbine noise.” No. I’ve filed a lot of rulemaking petitions over the years, and even more petitions for task forces. With the 2016 petition to the MPCA for rulemaking on wind noise, the Commissioner said that there wasn’t sufficient “understanding of wind turbine noise and its potential effects” for rulemaking:
Soooooooo, if there is insufficient understanding, how do we build that understanding to the point its sufficient to support rulemaking, how do we “monitor the science” for a decision regarding future rulemaking? Yes, seems to me this is what a Scientific Advisory Task Force is for! And it’s my belief that the last time this was done was the Stray Voltage report from the “Science Advisors”back in the ’90s, appointed by the Public Utilities Commission to consider stray voltage:
This report came up several times in the Arrowhead Transmission Dockets in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and was not at all helpful in advancing understanding of stray voltage, that took a few successful plaintiffs, like Zumberge and Cook in Minnesota, but this is a way to develop the record. Worth noting is that this Science Advisors report was before Freeborn Energy’s attorney Lisa Agrimonti’s time… though I know Mike Krikava would remember!
I have a rulemaking petition for both Minn. R. Ch. 7030 and Ch. 7854 on deck, but as far as I can see, nothing has changed in MPCA’s “understanding” of wind noise and impacts on human health. We need to get the information into the system somehow. A Scientific Advisory Task Force — that is why this statute was created, that’s the purpose! DOH!
The Response of Freeborn Wind Energy has zero credibility. Did they make these arguments up while sitting around the bar after the Line 3 hearings last week? Good grief…
On April 12, 2017, the Public Utility Commission ordered noise monitoring for the Bent Tree Wind Project after numerous complaints pressured for action on those complaints. Bent Tree is located in Freeborn County just north east of Albert Lea, Minnesota, north of Interstate 90, and on the west side of Interstate 35, opposite where they now want to put up the Freeborn Wind Farm, south of I-90 and east of I-35. They put up monitors at a few locations near the homes of those who filed complaints, and then, for some reason the turbines near those homes are off (Curtailment? Why am I suspicious? Apparently they’ve never been off at other times.). Then they took the monitors away.
But the study is “complete?” Here it is.
On page one, the cover letter, they admit there are times of non-compliance. What’s important in this is that the problematic “noise” is the infrasound, which is found in “C weighted” scales, and not the “A weighted” scale that is the subject of Minn. R. 7030. Further, the Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 does not address impulsive sounds, such as sounds from a gun range, or some sound from wind turbines.
7030.0010 | INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. |
7030.0020 | DEFINITIONS. |
7030.0030 | NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT. |
7030.0040 | NOISE STANDARDS. |
7030.0050 | NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION. |
7030.0060 | MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY. |
7030.0070 | SOUND ATTENUATION MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY. |
7030.0080 | VARIANCE. |
MPCA’s Commissioner, John Linc Stein, agrees that the Minnesota Rules do NOT cover infrasound, and there are no rules covering infrasound, but yet will not initiate rulemaking:
WHAT!?!?!?!
Back to the studies. the protocol for the “study” is taken from the Minn. R. Ch. 7030, Measurement Methodology. Monitoring data was excluded if the wind speed was over 11 mph, but for the Langrud monitor, the report says that wind speed was not over 11 mph. Is that reasonable? Look at average wind speeds generally, considering that higher wind speed is desirable for generating electricity (click for larger version):
When wind speeds are high, that is when the noise from the turbines is most unbearable, and under the report protocol, when wind speeds are high, were excluded. Average wind speed n the Bent Tree area is 15.7 – 16.8. So in the chart above, it says 0% were excluded due to high wind. Does that mean there were no times that the wind was over 11 mph? That’s doubtful, although spring and fall are times with higher wind, typically, but, color me skeptical.
But yet Table 4-1 says wind speed did not go over 11 mph during the monitoring, and so no data where wind was over 11 mph was excluded. Curtailment is also unclear, because we do not know what turbines were curtailed, if it was only ones near the monitors, or the entire project (usually is is some but not all). It also says results were skewed by bird chirping and insect noise, which would not have been present in early spring or fall. WHAT?!?! And early spring is planting time so lots of farm equipment out, and fall is harvest. Makes no sense.
So how is the report valid?
Dave Langrud, a landowner in the Bent Tree footprint, has tracked when the turbines were off and on, and we’re working on comparing those times to the times in the report — they do have some info in this report for comparison showing time they admit the turbines were off:
And there were C weighted measurements, note how high these go:
We’ve submitted a Data Practices Act Request for more data:
Nothing has showed up yet.
Albert Lea, MN — Last night was the Dept. of Commerce information meeting where Commerce collected comments concerning (love alliteration, eh?) the Draft Site Permit it’s putting together for the Freeborn Wind Project.
For the Public Utilities Commission docket on this project, go HERE and then search for docket 17-410.
Before heading over to the meeting, I filed this Motion for Certification and Petition for Task Force and Scientific Advisory Task Force. Because this is the first contested case for a wind project siting docket in Minnesota, and because we’re operating under Minn. R. ch. 1405 Power Plant Siting Act for procedure, and because the wind siting chapter, Minn. Stat. 216F, specifically exempts wind from MOST of the Power Plant Siting Act, but specifically not 216E.08 which authorizes Task Forces, and most importantly, because there are material issues of fact about which Task Forces could help build the record, this is oh-so-important. Let’s get going on it!
The place was packed, and many more came in after I took this photo, it was standing room only.
And folks didn’t come only for the treats (great treats by the way, especially for this camper working in an office in the woods!). One man was very upset early on, jumping in during Rich Davis’ presentation, riled because he did not get notice about this project until it had already been applied for. This is a legitimate issue, and because there was no Certificate of Need, there was no legal requirement that notice be provided until after the application had been accepted as complete. He stormed out, not wanting to sit through all the “blah-blah” at the front end of this meeting (it did go on and on and on).
Rich Davis’ presentation did include some process explanation that was more specific about what comprises a contested case than that provided by PUC’s Mike Kaluzniak (the latest “Public Advisor” quit, and they’re looking for someone again). They never want to talk about “Intervention” and explain how people can become parties and when the deadline is to decide and file. They didn’t talk about the public comment period after the public hearing or include that in the powerpoint. They didn’t talk about the opportunity to file exceptions to the report of the Administrative Law Judge. etc… GRRRRRRR. And because this case is an odd one, the first contested case for wind, we’re in need of procedural guidance, what there is, and there is much that is known and which needs to be disclosed.
The Association of Freeborn County Landowners was there, filled the room, and did a tremendous job. Very specific comments, most with documents supporting their comments. Like wow, for the first time out the gate, very impressive. Keep up the good work!
Here’s the handout I’d passed around:
How 2 Comment on the Freeborn Wind Project
Comments by mail or email – again, due by 4:30 October 9, 2017:
Richard Davis richard.davis@state.mn.us
MN Dept of Commerce
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101-2198
Or better yet, eFile in PUC’s eDockets system so everyone can see and consider your comment (otherwise they end up in a big long bundle of a pdf with everyone else’s comments), again, due 4:30 October 9, 2017:
Register: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ Registration is easy and fast. Then follow prompts to eFile!
What was best about last night’s meeting is that the comments were specific and on point. I have 17 pages of notes, single spaced, and close to carpal tunnel from writing it all. Way to go, folks!! Meeting minutes will be posted on the Commerce site sometime soon, and I’ll post.
Also, soon the ALJ’s Scheduling Order/First Prehearing Order will be issued, and I’ll also post the official schedule here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Also, although in 1995 the legislature specifically exempted wind siting from the Power Plant Siting Act, some sections DO apply, including the criteria for siting, now Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 7:
Subd. 7.Considerations in designating sites and routes.
(a) The commission’s site and route permit determinations must be guided by the state’s goals to conserve resources, minimize environmental impacts, minimize human settlement and other land use conflicts, and ensure the state’s electric energy security through efficient, cost-effective power supply and electric transmission infrastructure.
(b) To facilitate the study, research, evaluation, and designation of sites and routes, the commission shall be guided by, but not limited to, the following considerations:
(1) evaluation of research and investigations relating to the effects on land, water and air resources of large electric power generating plants and high-voltage transmission lines and the effects of water and air discharges and electric and magnetic fields resulting from such facilities on public health and welfare, vegetation, animals, materials and aesthetic values, including baseline studies, predictive modeling, and evaluation of new or improved methods for minimizing adverse impacts of water and air discharges and other matters pertaining to the effects of power plants on the water and air environment;
(2) environmental evaluation of sites and routes proposed for future development and expansion and their relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the state;
(3) evaluation of the effects of new electric power generation and transmission technologies and systems related to power plants designed to minimize adverse environmental effects;
(4) evaluation of the potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed large electric power generating plants;
(5) analysis of the direct and indirect economic impact of proposed sites and routes including, but not limited to, productive agricultural land lost or impaired;
(6) evaluation of adverse direct and indirect environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed site and route be accepted;
(7) evaluation of alternatives to the applicant’s proposed site or route proposed pursuant to subdivisions 1 and 2;
(8) evaluation of potential routes that would use or parallel existing railroad and highway rights-of-way;
(9) evaluation of governmental survey lines and other natural division lines of agricultural land so as to minimize interference with agricultural operations;
(10) evaluation of the future needs for additional high-voltage transmission lines in the same general area as any proposed route, and the advisability of ordering the construction of structures capable of expansion in transmission capacity through multiple circuiting or design modifications;
(11) evaluation of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should the proposed site or route be approved; and
(12) when appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other state and federal agencies and local entities.
(c) If the commission’s rules are substantially similar to existing regulations of a federal agency to which the utility in the state is subject, the federal regulations must be applied by the commission.
(d) No site or route shall be designated which violates state agency rules.
(e) The commission must make specific findings that it has considered locating a route for a high-voltage transmission line on an existing high-voltage transmission route and the use of parallel existing highway right-of-way and, to the extent those are not used for the route, the commission must state the reasons.
This is the criteria that we need to focus on when presenting issues, testimony, comments, briefs and exceptions to the ALJ’s report.
More coming soon! In the meantime, it’s time to break camp and head out! Myre-Big Island is a great park. Though the bathroom/showers at the Big Island campground suck, they’re superb at the other campground in the park (White Fox). Yes, posted a campground review, inquiring minds need to know where the good state park bathrooms are!
Here’s the view right across the road night before last, the site is fronting the lake: