Recently, I learned that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decided that an “informal” process was to be used in reviewing the three NextEra Dodge County Wind applications and three dockets — Certificate of Need (20-865), Wind Siting (20-866), and Transmission (20-867).

This notion that an “informal” process is appropriate is bizarre — this is exactly the sort of project that needs a contested case!. A few years ago, NextEra had applied for permits for Dodge County Wind, and that project as proposed was so unworkable that they withdrew all three of the applications:

• Dodge Co. Wind – Request to Suspend Schedule, and WITHDRAW xmsn application

… though for sure it was also hampered by an equally bizarre proposal by Commissioner Tuma that they run a 345kV transmission line through the backyard of homes in Dodge Center! Regular folks stood up and weighed in and stopped this massive transmission line from going through their yards (in many cases, the easement would have included their homes, and many homeowners would have been displaced!).

• Dodge Center Xmsn – Mission Accomplished!
• Dodge Center Transmission in the news
• Dodge Center 345 kV transmission?
• Xmsn through Dodge Center?
• Dodge County Wind info presentation

What are these Commissioners thinking? They’re supposed to be regulators, not enablers.

Anyway, the task at this point is to file comments before the May 25 deadline. In addition to the areas above, it’s important to request a “contested case” and request that an advisory task force be established.

NEXT STEPS:

First, the easy one — Request an advisory task force, as provided by Minn. Stat. 216E.08:

So far, the Commission has not ordered an advisory task force for wind, EVER! Commerce-EERA has always used a very narrow definition of “siting” to argue against it. However, an advisory task force is exactly what’s needed to point out environmental issues and the impacts of both micro and macro siting of the wind project and transmission, i.e., this is LARGE Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) sited using small wind standards (Order Establishing General Wind Permit Standards, Docket No. E, G999/M-07-1102 (MPUC 2008); are all the homes (“receptors”) identified on the map; are wetlands and flood areas shown; are the maps sufficiently detailed to show 3×5 and 5×5 rotor setbacks; are easements identified and secured by this private corporation that is not a utility; impact of blinking red lights and use of new motion detected lighting system; impacts on nearby Rice Lake State Park; transmission and distribution lines identified; are all airports there, including private airports for spraying; are all sloughs and wetlands identified; all FAA applications in application; are participating and non-participating landowners regarded equally in siting and modeling; etc.

Second TO DO, and more complicated. In your own words (cut & pasting doesn’t cut it) REQUEST a referral to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a CONTESTED CASE PROCEEDING, and explain what material issues of fact need to be addressed in a contested case. Commenters thus far have raised issues that need to be addressed, the record developed, before any decision can be made. Some clues were above, and now rehashed below:

• This is LARGE Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) sited using small wind standards (Order Establishing General Wind Permit Standards, Docket No. E, G999/M-07-1102 (MPUC 2008) — small wind standards are not relevant to a LWECS project;
• Most wind projects miss homes in the project footprint — are all the homes (“receptors”) identified on the map and considered in siting;
• Does the project have all land rights for wind turbines (“targeted, pending, no status, and not interested” do not count, only leased. It appears that land rights are needed for 14 turbines.
• Does the project have all land rights for transmission. This is a private company with no right of eminent domain.
• Are all wetlands, calcareous fens, sloughs, and flood areas accurately mapped and impacts considered;
• Are the maps sufficiently detailed to accurately depict the 3×5 and 5×5 rotor setbacks;
• Are impacts of blinking red lights considered;
• Is the use of new motion detected lighting system approved and is FAA applications for this system and for all turbine lighting in the application;
• What are impacts on nearby Rice Lake State Park and other state land, easements, waters;
• NextEra has been fined by USFWS and is “on probation” for killing at least 150 bald eagles. Is NextEra’s eagle survey and Avian and Bat Protection Plan sufficient;
• Are all existing transmission and distribution lines identified and considered;
• Is noise modeling predictive of ability to comply with noise standards;
• Will shadow flicker be inflicted on residents?
• Has use of storage rather than transmission been evaluated;
• Is this the highest and best use for agricultural land;
• Does utility scale central station wind fit with county and township land use plans;
• Are claims that energy generated will be used in Minnesota credible, particularly considering typical powerflows to the east and south;
• Will this project directly reduce generation of CO2;
• Are all airports identified, including private airports for spraying, and are impacts considered;
• Are the impacts, risks, and costs of the turbines on aerial crop and insect spraying, medical, and hazmat helicopter flights identified and considered;
• Are participating and non-participating landowners regarded equally in siting and modeling impacts and avoidance;
• Is there a binding road use agreement with townships and counties;
• Does the decommissioning plan sufficiently protect landowners from burden of decommissioning and cost recovery in the event of operator’s failure to decommission, bankruptcy, and/or abandonment of the project;
• etc., etc., etc.

Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. on May 25th. DON’T MISS THIS DEADLINE!!

In addition to sending in your comments using options below, I also STRONGLY ADVISE you post them in eDockets. Registration is easy and immediate, and by posting to all three dockets, others will know about issues you’re concerned with and can join in and amplify these concerns.

OK, let’s get to work — it’s time to print out those documents, the revised application, later filings of maps, etc.

To access the PUC dockets go HERE to eDockets Project Database, then search for dockets 20-865 (Certificate of Need), 20-866 (Wind Siting), and 20-867 (Transmission). Just plug “20” into the “year” space, and “865” or “866” or “867” into the “docket” space.

Subscribe to the docket to get notice of filings — subscribe by clicking on a box under the “Subscribe” column heading, then click the grey “Subscribe” button, and follow the directions:

Here are links to some of the NextEra “Dodge County Wind” docket filings:

Certificate of Need Application – Docket CN-20-865:

Wind Site Permit Application & Filings – Docket WS-20 866:

Transmission Route Permit Application – Docket TL-20-867

Freeborn Wind permit (and standard language in all permits) has noise limits, the state standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) and permit condition limits:

Xcel’s conslutant’s noise monitoring report (2 parts):

And then Commerce-EERA wants to review and “analyze” it and here’s the result, released yesterday:

Despite documented noise exceedences, they craft it to this result:

… sigh… it starts out promising:

What it looks like is that the measurements of noise monitoring aren’t taken seriously, and that “binning” is used to obfuscate and dismiss testing and monitoring results that show noise levels above those permitted.

Remember the ALJ’s recommendation for this project, that the permit be denied because Freeborn had not demonstrated it could comply with noise standards?

OAH+80-2500-34633+Final+Order

WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or… May 14th, 2018

And then the PUC bends over and gives Freeborn/Xcel what it wants:

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation September 21st, 2018

To challenge this, hiring a noise expert is necessary, and then it’s time to sue their collective asses. It becomes the responsibility of those affected by the wind project’s incursion on their land to raise the objections and foot the bill. Fair? Equity? Justice? In what world…

A wind energy company has pleaded guilty after killing at least 150 eagles

What’s really odd about this is that most of the projects that I’ve been dealing with in permitting have secured eagle take permits — I thought. In this case, NextEra seems as a policy not to have take permits. HUH?

I am remembering resistance to developers answering questions about eagle take permits, and I think that it comes down to whether USFWS requires them to get one.

Here’s USFWS info on eagle permits here in the Midwest – it appears that there are only three eagle take permits issued for Minnesota wind projects, Red Pine, Getty/Black Oak, and Pleasant Valley/Grand Meadow:

Midwest Region- NEPA Documents for Eagle Permits

This seems to say that there are only FIVE eagle take permits? Here’s the application for one project that I’d worked on:

Black Oak/Getty Wind Farm Eagle Take Permit Application

For the Freeborn Wind project, we entered information about locations of nests and photos of eagles foraging, nests and foraging territory being, supposedly, two criteria examined in siting of wind projects and consideration of need for take permits:

See Freeborn Wind ALJ Recommendation, and search for “eagle” in the Recommendation.

Methinks this will have significant impact, but sentencing a company to probation — but how does that work?

This came up again today, and studies popped up — if there are important ones not here, please let me know in the comments (with a link!!):

Note how this one sets it up: “Wind farms’ operating companies have increased their interest in noise impact due to resistance from people settling in the proximity of new projects.: See study:

This one is interesting because it specifies use of ISO 18406 (2017) (percussive pile driving), and not ISO 9613-2. Keep a lookout in these studies for ISO methodology, because as we saw with Freeborn Wind, GI/GO — gotta use the right measurement methods and criteria. So check out this article from Acoustics Today:

And AGAIN! It’s the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing! You can attend in person, MASKED, or via webex or phone. Primary documents are posted below.

December 20, 2021 @ 9:30

PUC Large Meeting Room

121 – 7th Place East – 3rd Floor

St. Paul, MN

Comments? BE SURE TO NOTE DOCKET NUMBER FOR COMMENTS:

PUC Docket E999/PR-21-18 & OAH Docket 65-2500-37832

Written comments will be accepted through January 10, 2022, by 4:30 p.m.

Note notice only to those “who have requested notice” above? Nope, notice should be to all who are on service and project lists for projects active in the calendar year. Thankfully EERA does give notice to a lot more than just those “who have requested notice” (see “Notice & Service Lists” link posted above).

From the EQB Monitor:

Here are the projects EERA’s Summary says were approved — note that for wind it does NOT list applicable parts of 216E, such as Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 7!

Meanwhile, the update of rules for PPSA siting, Minn. R. ch. 7850, is stalled out again, WITHDRAWN by the PUC last Thursday, supposedly based on many comments made over the last few weeks by a bunch of people and orgs who were utterly absent through the NINE YEARS of this rulemaking proceeding. My grits are FRIED! The PUC Agenda Item starts at the very end of the meeting, and note the bogus statements about the “why” of this rulemaking. Let’s be clear here — it’s due to the 2005 legislative changes, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. See PUC Docket R-12-1246. Good grief… Discussion starts at 2:48:28: