Part 2 – Chisago Transmission Project

For the full PUC docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “eDockets” blue button, and search for 04-1176 and/or 06-1667.  The issue before the PUC was Taylors Falls’ Petition to Amend the Chisago Routing Permit because NSP was trying to route the line contrary to the specifics of the Agreement between the City and the utility.

Taylors Falls Amendment Request

Comment – Neuman

Comment – Overland

Comment – Xcel

It was a Petition from City of Taylors Falls, but the Order was off, and Pugh, acting as Chair (after Reha, who had been acting as Chair in Boyd’s absense, recused herself), had MOES’ David Birkholz start, and argue against the Petition.  Hmmmmm… then after that, we did introductions and argued the Petition.  It started with the City of Taylors Falls, Loren Canaday, past council member back when the Agreement was made, and Michael Buchite, current Mayor.  Loren Canaday was in office and was an advocate for the Agreement, and he spoke about the history of the Agreement, and recommended “a small jog south of the utility corridor, which would permit undergrounding without harming the wetland.”

Bill Neuman brought in a letter dated May 29, 2007, from Commerce’s Birkholz, asking the National Park Service for a summary of its position, noting that the “opinion of NPS is critical.”  and asking whether NPS DOES have significant objection if the transmission line is not undergrounded dto the river.  NPS said that the routing should NOT reverse conditions agreed upon by Cities of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls and Xcel.

Jill Medland of NPS came in and spoke.  She is in the Resource Management Division, in charge of Environmental Compliance and Permit Review.  She gave some history of the St. Croix River Valley protections.  She noted that Taylors Falls has done an exemplary job of protecting the river valley, using its authority and its will.  She said that the way she reads the Agreement, they all advocated for the configuration in the Agreement, undergrounding down the high river bluff to the dam.

O’Brien asked whether NPS opposed blasting in the basalt, and Medland responded, “We have no reason to oppose that.”

Through out this discussion, I was wondering how they thought Xcel would bury the line down the bluff if not by blasting…  EARTH TO MARS!  IT’S A BLUFF!  IT’S ROCK!

It was a tortured discussion, with Commissioner Wergin noting that she was not there for the decision, and the Agreement was in the record (implying, HEY YOU, WHERE WERE YOU ON THIS!).  Pugh and O’Brien were pretty sheepish about not having addressed the agreement in the Order.  I got it in the record, Exhibit 218, but it wasn’t my job to advocate for Taylors Falls interests, that’s their job, and where were they?  But neither the ALJ nor the PUC took any note of the material terms in the Agreement and addressed consistency of the plan with the Agreement.

Bottom line – Motion to require company to make compliance reports, and to suspend the Petition to Amend, and that parties are urged to revisit the Agreement and if necessary, to invoke the Arbitration clause.

Passed unanimously, only Pugh, O’Brien and Wergin, as Reha was recused and Boyd was absent.

Yesterday was quite the day at the PUC, as Chinesey “interesting” as it gets.  I heard them saying things that made me wonder if I were really awake (and it was doubtful, long evening, rushed morning to get there, snoozing most of the way up).

As I came in, the New Ulm wind project was up.  I’d met some people afffected by this project at the Dog & Pony I did with people working for better wind siting practices in Goodhue County, landowners who had come all the way from Nicollet County, and whoo-boy, were they mad.  They said that the New Ulm muni was wanting to build a wind project, and as there wasn’t suitable land, they wanted to go into Nicollet County and take it by eminent domain!  HUH?  Say what?!?!?

This MOES description from the briefing papers gives a hint:

The proposed New Ulm Wind Farm Project comes to the Commission with a somewhat sullied history and polarized positions between landowners within and adjacent to the project site and NUPUC. OES EFP staff is not aware of the Project’s history prior to 2008.

New Ulm has put in an application.  It’s multi-part and so to get it all, go HERE and search for docket 09-178.

Here are the MOES Staff Briefing Papers:

MOES Staff Briefing Papers

As I got in, the New Ulm item had begun, and they were talking about eminent domain, the New Ulm muni’s plan to use eminent domain to get land to build this project, and here are some paraphrased snippets (count the number of times the term “eminent domain” is used, or “public purpose” or “question” as in “I question whether” and those sorts of words rarely spoken at the PUC:

(remember these are ROUGH paraphrased statements)

Wergin: questions whether eminent domain should be used.  We have an opportunity to investigate.  Questioned whether there’s a common practice to squelch freedom of speech (referring to contract provisions requiring support of the project).

O’Brien – asked whether there was “non-disparagement” language in the contract, utility said no, there was not (non-disparagement?  How about non-disclosure?  His choice of words was odd).

Pugh – there is a SLAPP statute, I sponsored that bill, if City attempted to initiate action it’s available.  Great reservations if this may be forced through eminent domain.  But we can’t legally stop it today, this is “acceptance of application as complete.”

Wergin – for eminent domain, a project must meet the standard for public purpose.

Reha – asked about public process, if and wehn draft permit issued there may be public hearings

Cupit – who gets notice per the rule – don’t have boundaries, some in circled areas got notice, notice should go to all potentially affected.

O’Brien – have to get the power to New Ulm, transmission?

Hartman – limited understanding, New Ulm working on interconnetion that doesn’t have to go through MISO queue

Applicant – there is powerline right next to these sites, or through spearate line to Ft. Ridgely substation about seven miles.

Hartman – MOES had applicant revise study area and did broad notification

A-1 amendment – applicant to submit map and legend

O’Brien – can this project go forward with current land rights?

Applicant – depends on conditions in permit

Wergin – don’t have a choice today, question whether we need additional piece for public participation.

Hartman – we can move forward, OES will bring a draft site permit to review, and Commission can determine what process

O’Brien – Public Advisor – speak to wisdom of project, there are 100s of projects with willing landowners, here it’s disputed.  Ask Public Advisor to address this matter, Commission could ask OES to address.

Reha – Public process as she sees it is draft permit is issued and that triggers the public process.  Will it be coming back?

Cupit – It will be back next when the draft permit is issued

Pugh – concerns about eminent domain issues, power different, our actions are taken as proof that public purpose exists, if it were to go forward in court, that removes the public purpose determination from the court process.  Here, there will be a draft site permit, no analysis has been submitted or need to be submitted as to wheter there’s another way to do it, rather than eminent domain.  We may be making a decision that has impact of declaring that it is a public necessity.  I’d like to see other options, I know I can’t mandate Hartman to do that.

O’Brien – Accept permit, specifically not including public purpose determination

Puch – fine with including that, without that analysis, I don’t feel comfortable taking position.

Reha – supplement application, explaination how they came about this.

O’Brien – ask applicants whether there are other means. 1) not proving public purpose, 2) address reasonable alternative means to acquire renewable resource, then we can act in fairness to all.  If we have authority to accept or reject, we have authority to require additional information.

PUC Counsel – could ask applicant to provide more information

O’Brien – whether they considered purchasing

Counsel – can ask, no need for CoN, this isn’t CoN, need to look deeper

Wergin – munis don’t have RES

Moves A1 as amended, B1, C and D – D = city to provide supplemental info regarding reaching decision re: generation v. PPA, and specifyting that PUC is NOT approving public purpose, that we have genuine issues surrounding that.

Ekness – recommend Dept. look at need issue and potential alternatives.

Wergin – adopt as E.

Passed unanimously.

Really, that’s what they said at a meeting where the operators of the Hibbing “biomass” plant were confronted with all the problems, dust, noise, neighbors fed up and bringing in the evidence.  This is the plant that was violating its air permit and was fined and shut down,
but of course air permit limits were INCREASED and it reopened.
GRRRRRRRRRR.  And when they were told to clean it up, given a deadline, they said:

“I think we need to sit down and prioritize these things and get our butts going,” said Fena.  “We should be able to tackle some of these issues, like some of the noise, right away. If we can’t, we  should be shot.”

Thanks to Charlotte Neigh for sending this in.  Let’s keep an eye on this one!  Ready… aim…

Commission vows to take action on dust, noise

Meeting draws more complaints from neighbors

by Kelly Grinsteinner
Assistant Editor

Published: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 6:06 AM CDT

HIBBING
— Members of the Hibbing Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will have
just more than one month to devise a game plan on how to be better
neighbors.

The commission will hold another public forum, as it
did Monday evening, to address concerns raised by its neighbors about
fugitive dust and noise coming from the facility. The meeting will be
held at 6 p.m. Tuesday, July 14.

“We may not have a resolution,
but we will have a plan of attack,” Jim Fena, the commission’s newest
member, promised the room of more than 30 frustrated nearby residents.
“It will be top priority. We need to make progress on this, and do more
than give lip service.”

In the meanwhile, some analysis will be conducted on the fugitive dust
wiped up by neighbors and presented to the commission on Monday.

Kathy Nyberg handed over two black rags that were once blue. She has
used the rags to wipe her window sills.

“This can’t be healthy,” she said. “I clean. I get this. It’s in my house. I
breathe it. It’s going into my body, into my lungs. It can’t be
healthy.”

Linda Johnson said she
hoses down the swing set and scrubs the slide before she lets her
grandchildren use it. The fugitive dust and ash, she claims, has also
pitted the windshield of her vehicle and ruined the cover to her hot
tub.

Gerry Wyland showed photos — ash and coal dust on his home,
in the alley and even on his kids. The snapshot of children showed
their legs looking all muddy, but there was no mud, he noted.

“You are supposed to control this from happening,” he challenged the
commission. “You need to find a better way to suppress this.”

Mandy Gherardi spoke about how her children have endured allergies and
respiratory infections, which she feels may be attributed to the
utility’s fugitive dust and dirt.

“It’s something that’s going off in my head,” she said. “Something
needs to be done.”

Colleen Hall said she and her son suffer from asthma. They can’t hang out in
the back yard because of the fugitive dust and she is embarrassed to
entertain at home, she said.

“Everything is so filthy,” she added. “I can’t clean it. We can’t sell
it. We’re stuck.”

Several others spoke about putting new siding on their homes and making
improvements to their properties only to be discouraged when they find
soot, dust and grime everywhere.

“Are you going to help us clean?” Marianne Just asked the commission. “We all are rate payers,
but these are additional expenses out of our own pockets.”

Just gave the commission a bag of clothes filled with soot that she had
wiped from her glass table top over the period of a week.

Many neighbors agreed that the problem has compounded over the past three to
four years, which coincides with the Biomass project. HPU officials
also confirmed that the volume of coal and ash they have been burning
has nearly tripled.

Fena credited that to becoming more of an electricity-generating facility, a switch from the utility’s prior
years of producing mainly steam.

HPU is contractually obligated to produce so much electricity, be it by burning wood or coal. And the
utility is forced to burn more coal when the Biomass is down or when
wood supply is short.

“Because the process requires so much more, there will also be that much more dust and noise,” said Fena.
“We’re aware of the situation and aware of the rub. Now we have to deal
with it.”

Several neighbors talked about the noise annoyances, including the banging of gates on trucks, exhaust noise when two of the boilers run simultaneously and about a safety valve popping on and off
at night.

Bob VonAlman said the noise is so distracting that he can barely hold a conversation in his backyard. Jason Johnson said he hears trucks jake braking at unreasonable hours of the morning.

Linda Johnson imitated the irritating noise she hears coming from the plant.

“It’s sad when you wake up dreaming of WD-40,” she said.

HPU General Manager Jason Fisher outlined the steps the HPU has taken to
cut down on fugitive dust since December. Those efforts have included
installing belt cleaners on wood handling belts, enclosing one side of
the coal storage hut and installing spray nozzles on the coal-ash
handling system to wet the ash during unloading. He also said they
currently have a cost estimate for a hood for the receiving area.

In terms of noise, the utility has installed cameras to monitor trucks
unloading at the HPU to ensure drivers are doing their part to cut down
on noise. Fisher said that “has gotten better.”

The utility has also “made some corrections” to the safety valve on the wood boiler to
help alleviate that “gun shot sounds,” according to Fisher. They also
have a cost estimate for a baffle system for the stack of the combined
boilers.

Chair John Berklich and Commissioner Gary Kleffman
commented on how surprised they were to hear so many, including some
new, complaints.

“I wish we would have known this to be able take some action,” said
Kleffman. “…We have a lot of work ahead of us.”

Residents were encouraged to call the utility when the noises happen and when
they have complaints. In contrast to his predecessor, Fisher was
acknowledged by the neighbors for returning their phone calls and being
responsive.

Neighbors first aired their concerns during a similar meeting that took place in mid-December. A couple of those parties had petitioned its commission at their regular meetings for
some time, but felt as though they had gone unheard.

Larry Schloesser has been vocal on the issue for some time. He’s lived across
the street for more than 30 years and said it’s never been so bad. He
advocated for building a wall about the entire facility.

“Keep yours on your side of the street, and I’ll keep to my side of the
street,” he said.

Rick Johnson has been along-side Schloesser advocating for something to be
done. He acknowledged that some things had been done, but said the big
problems aren’t fixed.

He accused Berklich and Kleffman of lip service, and asked when the commission was “going to admit this Biomass thing is a failure?”

Other suggestions offered by the neighbors included dismantling and moving Biomass, buying out homes surrounding the utility, paying to clean homes and talking with companies like Excel and Minnesota Power to relax contracts to cut back on the facility’s current capacity.

Several comments were made that HPU needs to determine whether the fugitive dust is posing a health risk, which could be more costly in the long-run if it is.

The meeting was the first time Fena was on the receiving end of the complaints.
After listening to the many grievances, he vowed that the utility would
address some of the issues immediately.

“I think we need to sit down and prioritize these things and get our butts going,” said Fena.
“We should be able to tackle some of these issues, like some of the noise, right away. If we can’t, we should be shot.”

Kelly Grinsteinner can be reached at kelly.grinsteinner@mx3.com.
To read this story and comment on it online go to www.hibbingmn.com

Naries filter — A new use for a Homer Hanky???

Last night’s hearing was a start – the Minneapolis Planning Commission is thinking about the implications and impacts of increasing the “throughput tonnage” (makes it sound so innocuous) for the HERC incinerator, the incinerator right next door to the new open (polluted) air stadium.  Care for some tire PM 2.5 with that hot dog?  New use for “Homer Hankies?”

There was good representation of a number of opposition views.

Muller – Comment – Spreadsheet of Pollutants

Comment-Eureka Recycling, Institute for Local Self Reliance, Linden Hills Power & Light, Women’s Environmental Initiative, Will Steger Foundation

For some who were not able to be there, I was also able to get into the record letters from (and will post if they arrive electronically):

Rep. Karen Clark

Senator Patricia Torres-Ray

East Phillips Improvement Coalition – Carol Pass

Carol Greenwood – Seward Neighborhood

And some decent media coverage!  From Fox9 News – check out the video with John Schatz and Andrea Kiepe testifying:

Minneapolis residents discuss garbage incinerator plan

And in the STrib today:

Minneapolis may set limit on pollution from burner

A Minneapolis planning body is weighing a no-net-increase limit in considering whether to allow more trash to be burned in downtown Minneapolis.

By STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune

Minneapolis planning commissioners signaled informally Monday that they may set a no-net-increase requirement for pollution from the downtown incinerator if they decide to allow it to burn more trash.

The commission didn’t act on the request Monday evening after hearing from burner opponents and operator Covanta Energy Corp., but asked for more information on emissions and health effects. The incinerator is next door to the new Minnesota Twins ballpark, which opens next spring.

Covanta and Hennepin County, for which it operates the incinerator, are seeking permission to burn an average of 1,212 tons of trash daily. The limit in the city’s original 1987 zoning conditions for the facility is 1,000 tons per day.
Read the rest of this entry »

Well, would ya take a look at this!  I would guess that Minneapolis is getting the message that there is indeed opposition to this stupid idea…

Minneapolis pushes to burn more trash

By STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune

Minneapolis planners have recommended that the city approve an increase in the amount of trash that can be fed daily to Hennepin County’s downtown garbage burner.

A planning staff recommendation to the Planning Commission urges that the city’s zoning permit for the facility be amended to allow the increase sought by Hennepin County and Covanta Energy, which operates the plant for the county.

They want to increase the average daily consumption of trash from the current 1,000 tons to 1,212 tons.

That recommendation will be considered by the commission at its meeting at 4:30 p.m. Monday at City Hall.

The request has attracted attention because the new Twins ballpark is rising next to the incinerator, and is due to open next spring close to the time that the larger amount of trash would begin to be burned.

According to a planning staff report, an environmental review conducted for the stadium found emissions from the larger amount of trash were below federal levels of concern. The same study also found that neighborhood odors such as sewer smell and diesel exhaust were more noticeable than the odor of incinerator trash.

Opponents of the expansion said Thursday that they are organizing for the commission meeting. Alan Muller, who has been evaluating the request for opponents, said an expansion would inevitably increase human exposure to air pollutants. He questioned whether the state is adequately regulating the facility.

Some opponents have urged the county to compost more garbage as an alternative to burning it.

Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438