Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford, Kingman Redo in Red Wing
October 29th, 2018
There’s a meeting about the Sturtevant Redo, actually it’s Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford and Kingman, and it’s coming up soon. Sturtevant is our street on the other side, up next to be redone, joys of living on a corner. Alan said a city engineer or ? was hoofing it around the neighborhood handing out notices for the meeting:
WHERE? WHEN? Here’s the short version:
6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7
Sunnyside School Gym
1669 Southwood Ave
Red Wing, MN
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE NOTICE! Somehow we slept through the notice for the West redo, and that was a mistake…
So far, I have two questions, procedural and substantive:
1) Why is this meeting at Sunnyside, the other end of town, instead of downtown, where we could just roll down the hill? Usually meetings like this are at City Hall, at the Library, at Ignite, so why not this one? Is there a number of scheduling conflicts? Makes no sense.
2) The handout suggests that there are two options under consideration for Sturtevant and Putnam, either one side parking with boulevards and trees, or two way with NO TREES?!?! Ummm, NO!
For Sturtevant, that makes sense, it’s one-sided parking now, because the street is just too narrow for parking on both sides. It’s a pain for our neighbors on the other side, for sure, but that’s how it is, it’s been that way for a long time, and we’ve adjusted. Putnam, though, is another matter. That street is an inexplicably VERY wide concrete superhighway, and every time I’ve driven on it, there are cars parked on both sides.
It’s obvious that Putnam between West and Pine is as wide was West, a major thoroughfare in town, with upwards of 4,000 cars daily!
On Putnam, West to Pine, from perspective of both available space and resident use considerations, I don’t see any rationale for both-sides parking with NO trees OR one-sided parking with trees. Are they planning to change the width of Putnam? There’s no reason to change the status quo of parking on both sides with trees. DON’T TEAR OUT THOSE TREES!
On Sturtevant, West to Prairia, that’s might be what’s at issue. It is already one-sided parking with trees from West to Pine, which makes sense, but I don’t recall if it’s no parking on the north side west of Pine… I think I remember cars parked on both sides. There are also many beautiful big trees there. I’d think that it should remain as is, either no parking on the north side as it is from West to Pine, or parking on both sides WITH the trees. Is parking an issue on that block? For some houses, I think it is. The ones on the south side seem to have large garages and driveways, on the north side, there are smaller garages, and some gravel driveways. Restricting street parking may be a problem.
Neighbors, if you have thoughts about this, now’s the time! Don’t wait, like we did, where we didn’t weigh in on the plans for our other street, West! Here’s what West looked like:
Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford and Kingman won’t be as bad, no way will it be anything like West, but oh, my, if you have any ideas, thoughts, comments, critique, NOW IS THE TIME, before it’s set in a blueprint.
Freeborn Wind’s Transmission
October 26th, 2018
It’s worth taking a look at the Freeborn Wind transmission docket (PUC Docket 17-322). To check it out, go to eDockets and search for 17 (year) 322 (docket number). Obviously the Commission’s decision is a problem here, and as we’re awaiting the written order, I’m pondering.
There’s a statute that applies to wind proceedings, specified expressly in the “Exemptions” statute as part of the Power Plant Siting Act that DOES apply. That’s found here:
216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.
Note the seafoam green Minn. Stat. 216E.08:
Subd. 2.Other public participation.
The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.
Check out the first and only Prehearing Order issued by the ALJ:
To call it “minimalist” is too generous… What does it say about public participation? Where’s the boilerplate information about intervention, about participation and being a “participant,” etc? M-I-S-S-I-N-G…
Here’s the siting docket’s Prehearing Order #1 as an example – see the difference?
Association of Freeborn County Landowners showed up on September 20, and let the ALJ know in technicolor what we thought, raised many issues in detail, and later submitted written comments, together with the written comments from many members, including information about land where Freeborn Wind was attempting to route over non-participants!
Before the hearing started, I’d approached the ALJ and requested that he swear people on oath or affirm, and he said something to the order of “I remember you” having requested that before. He didn’t want to put people under oath. I reiterated that I’d been present, twice, at Commission meetings where Commissioners asked if specific testimony had been provided under oath, and that the rules provide it as an option, so I want to assure that’s not an issue. The ALJ was not happy but essentially agreed to swear people in if so requested. AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
Minnesota Rules include swearing in as a duty of the ALJ:
1400.5500 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
Consistent with law, the judge shall perform the following duties:
… F. administer oaths and affirmations;
That’s a “shall.”
Minnesota Rules have many provisions regarding being sworn in, and regarding testimony regarding “a fact at issue” in a contested case hearing:
Minn. R. 1400.7800(g). That’s a “shall.” Here are a few citations regarding witnesses, oath/affirmation, and facts:
Oath? Affirmation? This is not something anyone should have to push about…
Every Association of Freeborn County Landowner participant requested to be sworn on oath and was. Not one of the witnesses speaking in support of the project requested to be sworn on oath.
AFCL also filed extensive written comments:
Here’s the ALJ’s Recommendation, filed July 26, 2018:
Looking at this recommendation, how are comments from the public laid out? How are the many substantive comments of AFCL members and project opponents positioned against the few, and with few exceptions, the comments of supports that had no content? Search the Recommendation for “AFCL” and/or “Association of Freeborn County Landowners” and what do ya get?
Another point — do you see anywhere the boilerplate language regarding opportunity for any affected party to file Exceptions? Yeah, this language (example from Docket 17-568):
Notice is hereby given that exceptions to this Report, if any, by any partyadversely affected must be filed under the time frames established in the Commission’srules of practice and procedure, Minn. R. 7829.2700, .3100 (2017), unless otherwisedirected by the Commission. Exceptions should be specific and stated and numberedseparately. Oral argument before a majority of the Commission will be permittedpursuant to Minn. R. 7829.2700, subp. 3. The Commission will make the finaldetermination of the matter after the expiration of the period for filing exceptions, or after oral argument, if an oral argument is held.
| File #: | Details 2018-190 Version: 1 | Name: |
| Type: | M – Miscellaneous | Status: | Agenda Ready |
| File created: | 8/30/2018 | In control: | PUC Agenda Meeting |
| On agenda: | 9/20/2018 | Final action: |
| Title: | * IP6946/TL-17-322 Freeborn Wind Energy LLC In the Matter of the Application of Freeborn Wind Energy LLC for a Route Permit for the Freeborn Wind Transmission Line in Freeborn County. 1. Should the Commission adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation? 2. Should the Commission find that the environmental assessment and the record created at the public hearing adequately address the issues identified in the scoping decision? 3. Should the Commission issue a route permit identifying a specific route and permit conditions for the Freeborn Wind 115 kV Transmission Line Project? (PUC: Kaluzniak) |
Nov. 14th – PPSA Annual Hearing!
October 22nd, 2018
It’s that time of year again, and for a change, no reminder necessary, AND it’s in 2018, not crammed in at the very end of year or beginning of next!
It’s the POWER PLANT SITING ACT ANNUAL HEARING!
This is our opportunity, as those wrestling with the state’s siting laws and rules, and absence thereof, to tell them what does and doesn’t work. Then the Administrative Law Judge files the report and it’s ignored for another year.
Frustration with lack of response was what triggered the multiple rulemaking petitions I’ve filed, on my own as individual, and representing Goodhue Wind Truth, most recently:
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
We used to have a pot-luck for the PPSA Annual Hearing, until the PUC put the kibosh on that. GRRRRRR! Treats is the best way to get people to show up.
Now’s the time, show up, spout off, and tell them what works and what does not. And note that aspects of the Power Plant Siting Act DO apply to wind:
216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.
Camping season is winding down
October 16th, 2018
Greetings from my office in Myre-Big Island State Park! It’s the perfect place for a client meeting, and a meeting with a local attorney, drafting a Petition for Reconsideration… nothing like having a fully equipped office with wheels! The downside is that there’s a season where it works, and a season where it doesn’t — for sure it does not work in the dead of winter.
We’re getting to the end of the season, it came to an end too quickly. There was about an inch of snow here, it rained/sleeted/snowed all night Friday and all day Saturay. Sunday morning people cleared out of here like it was on fire. Our furnace and little heater kept up well, and one down comforter was sufficient!
Cooking was kinda rough the first two days, but washing dishes was worse! Then today arrived and the sun was out and it was beautiful!
Sadie got to play with her “cousin” Sandie at the dog park two days running, and she was a happy, pooped, and socialist puppy! They’re getting along quite well, but Sandie is… well… a PUPPY! She’s now bigger than Sadie, plump and jiggly, whereas Sadie is for sure greyhound style.
Got to see little bro’s “new” house, and, well, it’s a good thing he didn’t get the first one he told me about down there, Hwy 13 in Hartland, right near Bernie and Cheryl Hagen and right in Bent Tree! DON’T YOU DARE! I sent Alan and Sadie out to play while I was writing, and there was some serious bonding going on the first day at the dog park and Home Depot. A few mods to the camper, we now have two more stable tables, and a new outlet where the camper was designed for an air conditioner plug, so running little electric heater and oven or tea kettle at the same time is no problem. One less thing to think about. It was odd, there were two circuits, everything was on one, and nothing on the other, but all set up and ready to run, just needed an outlet. Who needs an air conditioner, particularly in a camper! But we all need another outlet, eh?
Only one more meeting to go, and then homeward bound!
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
October 16th, 2018
Remember when AWA Goodhue and Pickens were pushing that wind project in Goodhue County and accused the local folks of “promiscuous ice fishing” and baiting eagles? Well, above is what Goodhue Wind Truth’s Marie McNamara had to say about that… and we’re still at it.
A couple months ago, we filed yet another rulemaking petition, this one was the 2nd for wind rulemaking in Minnesota, to address the big holes in Minn. R. Ch. 7854, the wind siting rules.
The Commission wasn’t thrilled, and denied the petition:
DENY THE PETITION? WHEN THERE ARE NO WIND SITING RULES? Yeah, right… so here’s what we filed today: