STrib editorial on wind setbacks
January 20th, 2010
Oops, there goes a Suzlon…
Anyway, today the STrib has an editorial today about increasing setbacks — it’s a mixed bag — scroll way down below to read it. This concern of setbacks is ramping up and goes back to concerns raised over the years regarding individual projects as they wind their way through the permitting process. Now there is this PUC Docket that is coming to a head, based on a survey report commissioned by the Commission — they’re supposed to have a PUC meeting addressing this docket, maybe this month, but no word yet, don’t worry, I’ll post notice here (we know they’re not so hot on giving notice to non-wind industry interests in this docket):
To look at that docket, CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for docket 09-845.
This also comes at the time that Comments are due in the Goodhue Wind PPA docket. To look at that, go to CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for dockets 09-1349 and 09-1350. For the Certificate of Need docket for Goodhue Wind, see Docket 09-1186.
Yesterday (the comment deadline WAS yesterday) I filed this for Goodhue Wind Truth:
Then it turns out the PUC had filed another extension for MOES (seems they can’t meet a deadline these days, the EIS for CapX was also just delayed today too) and the deadline is now 2/12 for Comments and 2/22 for Reply Comments. GREAT! Another whack at the apple… Now’s your chance. You can eFile them at the PUC site, or mail in, take a look at the Comment above to get an idea how to do it.
Back to wind generally — This opinion piece was in the Republican Beagle a few days ago:
Study of wind project may blow you away
Let me share a few things I have learned since I read through this packet.
The property line setbacks are less stringent: 500 feet for a 400-foot tall wind turbine.
Here’s the response of Ann Occhiato, a landowner who lives in the proposed Greenvale project in Dakota County to the STrib editorial, below:
I am writing in response to today’s editorial on increased wind turbine setbacks. While the editorial highlights the critical need to increase setbacks to maintain wind’s momentum, it minimizes the reasons why setbacks are important in the first place.
There is, in fact, credible evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines can have a negative impact on health. The Minnesota Dept. of Health’s white paper on the Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines outlines this and recommends the cumulative affect of multiple turbines be taken into account when evaluating sound impacts, which is not currently done. There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence from homeowners living near turbines all over the world on the negative impacts to quality of life, health, safety, and property values. While the wind industry and proponents of wind like to point to studies that minimize these issues, numerous other studies show these impacts to be real.
The fact is there are serious issues related to wind farming that need to be addressed including setbacks, environmental regulation, property rights, health, safety, quality of life, and economic justice, among others. Industrial scale wind turbines clustered in “farms” can ruin neighborhoods and seriously alter the course of people’s lives. Belittling their concerns will not help the wind industry in Minnesota and it certainly does not make us a national leader.
As wind continues to spread these problems will only become more pronounced. Increased setbacks, pre-permitting site guidelines, community support and involvement, alternative modeling, and other solutions are necessary for the continued growth of the wind industry in Minnesota. Developers, public officials, legislators, and environmental groups have a responsibility to address these issues.
Ann Occhiato
Here’s the STrib’s editorial:
Editorial: Reconsider setbacks for wind turbines
Expand wind energy while respecting rural livability.
As the Star Tribune’s Tom Meersman reported last week, complaints about wind turbines are mounting, less on their merits than on their occasionally inappropriate locations. A family near Austin, for example, lives just across the road from a wind farm. One giant turbine, about 900 feet away, casts a flickering shadow over their 100-year-old farmhouse. There’s little they can do. State law allows commercial turbines as close as 500 feet from dwellings, although decibel restrictions typically stretch the actual distance to 700 to 1,000 feet. That’s still too close for a 400-foot turbine, especially if it’s not on your property.
Read the rest of this entry »
Susquehanna-Roseland delay in the news
January 16th, 2010
Here are the articles on the NJ BPU delay of decision on Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line, but before that, here’s the letter the BPU sent to PJM requesting more information based on yesterday’s decision to put on the brakes:
Color me jaded, but what is needed is what Stop the Lines requested in our STL – Reply Brief, based on the sensitivity analysis ordered for PATH:
• PSE&G must waive any claim to FERC “backstop” authority in the pendancy of this sensitivity analysis and Board deliberation.
• The sensitivity analysis must include, but is not limited to those scenarios Ordered in the PATH docket:
1. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated to reflect the following changes in generation: (i) all existing generation as of January 7, 2010, which is not scheduled to be retired before 2014; (ii) all proposed generation that cleared the May 2009 PRM Auction; and (iii) all proposed generation with a signed ISA as of January 7, 2009 (“Scenario 1 generation”);
2. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect PJM’s 2010 load forecast (“Scenario 2”);
3. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;
4. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and PJM’s 2010 load forecast (i.e., Scenario 2) and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;
5. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast, and to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction (i.e. Scenario 4), and updated to reflect the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (i.e. using MW from PATH of 367, 420, and469 respectively); and
6. Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast, the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction, the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016; and updated to reflect additional demand response and energy efficiency projected (i.e. using MW from path of 1,825, 2,140 and 2,403 respectively).
These results shall be distributed to the parties as soon as possible and shall be subject to limited discovery and cross examination, after which the Board shall consider them together with the balance of the record in this matter.
See why it’s frustrating — they just missed the boat completely with the vague request to PJM…
So, on with the press coverage about yesterday’s decision to delay:
New Jersey regulators delay decision on PSEG transmission line
By Mark Peters
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Public Service Enterprise Group shares were at $32.32, down 50 cents, or 1.5%, in recent trading.
-By Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2457 mark.peters@dowjones.com
================================================================
Decision delayed on power project
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Lawrence Ragonese
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
Lawrence Ragonese may be reached at (973) 539-7910 or lragonese@starledger.com
===============================================================
State officials delay decision on PSE&G powerline for a month
By COLLEEN O’DEA • STAFF WRITER • January 16, 2010
Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman, said the utility was discouraged by the delay.
Colleen O’Dea: 973-428-6655; codea@gannett.com.
===============================================
Susquehanna-Roseland line approved with conditions in Pennsylvania; New Jersey vote is delayed
DELAY — Susquehanna-Roseland live from the BPU
January 15th, 2010
Fur was flying last night, late when I got a chance to check in, whew…
I’ll be typing notes as we go… we’ll see.
The room is filling up, almost standing room only…
I’ll correct all the typos later…
January 15, 2010
Pledge of allegiance
All five present
Next meeting 1/20 @ 10 a.m.
Special meeting regarding Petition of PSEG re Susquehanna-Roseland line
Ken Sheehan – background – description of project
Jurisdiction
Cost – portion for NJ ratepayers not clear, open issue at FERC
PSE&G claims must be in service by 2012
Extremely complicated
Key questions – need for the project, specifically to resolve reliability problems
Oct 15 2009 – PJM reaffirmed need for PATH, MAPP and S-R
Board became aware of changes in need for PATH line – VA-PATH has asked for withdrawal. Reduction in scope and severity of NERC violqations, PJM will work through planning process
This has raised issue of similar issues with this line
Fiordaliso gave official notice to these issues. PSE&G did not object to entry
Firodaliso also gave official notice re: MAPP suspension. MAPP – PJM said it needed to reanalyze need for MAPP because it assumed PATH
There has been a flurry of comments regarding official notice these last few days. Most notably was two paragraph letter from PJM witness – delays will not in any way change the need for Susquehanna-Roseland.
Intervenors have noted that this conclusory statement needs substantiation.
Fiordaliso has formally recommended that the Board take notice of PATH and MAPP.
Firodaliso – (these guys are talking way too fast)
One word that soood out was flurry. I was the prsiding commissioner. During the proceedings we have held multiple public eharings, held a full evidentiary hearing. We have provided opportunities to prepare Pos Hearing briefs, filed only on 1/6/2010. It was inthese briefs that the PATH and MAPP issues were first raised. Because of the importance of this issue, I felt it was appropriate to bring this to the full Baord. My immediate question, shared by the other commissioners, is whether this information has the ability to significantly change the underlying factual situation of these lines. If PJM is no longer certain that MAPP and PAH are no longer needed at this time. I believe our board would be remiss not to consider whether PJM would feel the same about S-R and how that would affect NJ. The changes to PATH aned MAPP are extraordinary, this is not minor updates and changes (Comm. Fox nods vigorously). One of the core analyhsis of this is need, are the lines needed for the protection of transmission. PJM is able to provide expert analysis. The board would be remiss in not taking this into consideration. PJM has sent a letter that nothing ash changed. (quoting from PJM letter, above is link) “For clarity and in order to avoid any confusion, PJM as the independent transmission authority, that the factors driving PATH and MAPP do not in any way change need for S-R in NJ as detailed in my testimony as set forth in this docket.” We appreciate that input, nevertheless we need more than a this suumary statement. We need to have PJM to explain how they reached that conclusion, and in a way that will allow all parties to comment.
Amend recommendation — recommend to Board that we issue secretary’s letter to PJM asking for their input, notably we should seek and receive detailed confirmation that despite changes in map and path lines no changes have occurred in its analysis tof SF that would materially alter PJM analysis. provide this as soon as possible to allow for our review and provide opportunities for all parties in this case to see the results. This will allow the board to make an informed decision.
I do not want anyone to have the opinion that the board will issue a decision today. One of the obstacles is that the Board may need additional facts, and this is where we currently find ourselves.
Everyone associated with this project has been working as hard as humanly possible to bring this to an efficient and proper conclusion. The size of the record and the significance of this case make it essential that the Commission have a full record and the depth of understanding to understand the positions advanced by all of the parties. This always takes time, with a record as voluminous and contested as this. I hope we can get a commitment from all the commissioners, we can get a commitment to have a decision within 30 days. This time-frame represents a fair balancing of the Board’s responsibilities and the Board’s desire to have this as fair as possible.
Butler:
In my 11 years as commissioner, I’ve learned a few things. Transmission cases are never easy. I also know that I have rarely seen a record this large and with this many parties, and I’ve never seen it decided just 7-8 days of receipt of final briefs. The size of the record, the need to reach a decision, we will give commitment to render that decision. I will be spending part of my holiday reviewing this case! We need to balance needs of community and its residents, take the time, that’s correct approach.
PSEGE called me and informed me Ex PARTE , others commissioners were contacted as well. (all were nodding at this statement). I believe our course of action is the correct one. Asking PJM for formal communication as to how they reached their decision, I am confident it will be a better decision because of the steps we’ve taken today.
Asselta:
I am also in agreement with the presiding Commissioner. I have to tell you that I have not been contacted by any parties. I know a few things that I’m in support of, improving reliability, making sure we have complete reliability, and besides that, economic opportunities, infrastructure improvement so state can grow, I am looking forward to the 30 day deadline, so that the state of NJ will come to conclusion on this decision. I too am looking forward to the reports, make sure this is the right project at the right time and that the ratepayers are not on the hook for every bit of the cost to produce this line. I am in support of Commissioenr Fiordaliso’s request.
Randall:
I agree, I am not prepared to cast vote on this today based on volume of information. I do believe that I will be prepared within the next 30 days.
Fox:
I want to thank follow commissioners and staff for work and thanks to Commissioner Fioredaliso. I’m in strong agreement with Commissioners, record is huge, the transcript is almost 1200 pages, in past , the government has to strive to get it right, for the state and people we represent. Good government requires we take notice of these developments and consider changes in transmission system, failure would be failure to do our jobs correctly. We are not ready to make decision at this time, we just closed record a week ago, and there are significant issues to get into, whether need has evolved, this is not a simple matter, it is not obvious. Resonable minds can and have differed, I’m aware PSEG has a construction schedule, but I am confident that this will not impact their schedule. I’m aware that there’s a FERC deadline, but I believe this action is necessary and propery. We can make this decision within a month. We can maek a final determination in the meantime.
Fiordaliso:
I make a motion, take judicial of information as outlined, and a secretary’[s letter be sent to PJM seeking additional information
Butler:
I second that.
Randall:
I also want to note that we are refirming Commissioner’s 30 day deadline.
Passed unanimously.
++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s the letter they sent, missing the boat…
Delaware’s IRP for Delmarva
January 11th, 2010
The Delaware’s Public Service Commission (at least they still call it “public service”!!!) is holding meetings Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on the Delmarva Power and Light Integrated Resource Plan.
Tuesday, January 12 @ 7 p.m.
Carvel State Office Building, 2nd Floor Auditorium 820 N French Street
Wilmington – DE, 19801
Wednesday, January 13 @ 7 p.m.
DTCC – Owens Campus Theatre – Arts and Science Building
Rt 18, Seashore Hwy
Georgetown – DE, 19947
Thursday, January 14, @ 7 p.m.
Cannon Building, Ste 100
861 Silver Lake Blvd
Dover – DE, 19904
But wait… no plan has been filed, no plan is due to be filed until May…
EH?
Nothing there. So let’s look at the DPS IRP site:
Ummmmmmm… THERE’S NOTHING THERE
Really, check it out, I defy you to find one thing on Docket 10-02!
EH?
So I says to myself, I says, “There’s LOTS that needs to be a part of this Delmarva IRP!” Particularly where when I commented way back in December 2008 that demand was down and when would Delmarva produce updated forecasts and nada, they wouldn’t even address it. Todd Goodman just got pissy, to the point where he deserved one of these:
And so today, here’s what I sent in, gathering up some of the choice documents from this New Jersey Susquehanna-Roseland transmission fight, and wrapped it up and tied it with a bow:
Overland IRP Comment – 1-11-10
Exhibit C – MAPP Request to Suspend – Jan 8, 2010
Exhibit D – PATH-VA Press Release – Withdrawal 12-29-09
Exhibit E – PJM PATH Sensitivity Analysis & Cover Letters
Exhibit F – Letter NJ Comm. Fiordaliso – Official Notice 1-6-10
Exhibit G – Offshore wind and transmission Memorandum of Understanding
So now it’s your turn — it’s a blank slate!
Send Comments on Delmarva’s nonexistent IRP to:
ruth.price@state.de.us
Be sure to note on the Comment that it’s for IRP Docket 10-02.
EH?
It’s official – Susquehanna-Roseland is delayed
January 8th, 2010
It’s official, well, semi-official, there’s still no word from the Board of Public Utilities itself!
Here’s PSEG’s objection and their missive asking that the time to respond to Commissioner Fiordaliso’s request for comment be cut short:
Dig the last paragraph:
Accordingly, PSE&G respectfully requests that the Board shorten the time to comment from January 16 to January 12 and further requests that the Commission act on the evidence before it and approve the Petition on January 15 without further delay.
Oh, right, yes, ma’am, we’ll get right to it! They must be dreaming…
And as if that weren’t funny enough, here’s the PSEG argument against oral argument:
… but here it is in B&W:
BPU delays decision on power line