Legalectric

Let me see if I understand this… we’ve got Ingrid Bjorklund, a wind industry lobbyist/employee now Commerce employee and Deb Pile, also Commerce, using Affidavits to argue LEGISLATIVE intent based on statements by Mike Bull, Commerce employee working under Pawlenty’s roof now working for Xcel.   EH?  LEGISLATIVE intent based on industry lobbyist/employee & Exec agency employee hearsay affidavits of Pawlenty’s Energy Boy.  Where’s the LEGISLATURE in legislative intent?  And what does Mike Bull have to say about this?

Duck and cover, Mikey!  Commerce has trained their sights on you!

HUH?  What’s going on?  Well, we just had a deadline for submittals in response to the First Prehearing Order in the AWA Goodhue Wind contested case regarding application of Goodhue County’s Wind Ordinance.  for the whole docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “Search eDockets” and search for docket 08-1233.

Here’s the prelude to yesterday’s filings:

PUC’s Order – Referral to OAH

Goodhue County Wind Ordinance

Staff Chart of Differences between Goodhue Ordinance & State Standards prepared for PUC Chair Boyd

After a Prehearing Conference and the ALJ’s request for our positions in this case, we submitted memos and then the ALJ issued a Prehearing Order:

First Prehearing Order

In that order we were asked to set out the differences between county and state standards; whether county ordinance is a conflict, supplement, or something new; whether it should be applicable to this project; material facts regarding this issue; and what evidence we’d introduce. and here’s what was filed — where’s everybody else?  Anyway, read the Deb Pile and Ingrid Bjorklund Affidavits and note who’s sayin’ what, whose interests are at issue, whose intent is couched as “LEGISLATIVE” intent, and while you’re at it, ask just what role they had at that time.  Seems to me they’re putting it all on Mikey Bull.   Hey Mikey?!?!  Get ready!

Goodhue Wind Truth 2nd Prehearing Memo

Belle Creek Township 2nd Prehearing Memo

MOES Comments

MOES Comments – Attachment 1

MOES Comments – PUC Briefing Papers on Goodhue

MOES Comments – Affidavit of Deb Pile

MOES Comments – Affidavit of Ingrid Bjorklund

Today on the PUC’s agenda? AWA Goodhue’s request for Reconsideration of the PUC’s remand to an Administrative Law Judge.

Here’s their remand Order and subsequent filings:

PUC’s Order – Remand to OAH

And from that Order, here’s what the PUC wants from the ALJ:

1. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to develop a record on every standard in Article 18 that is more stringent than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS and make recommendations regarding each such standard whether the Commission should adopt it for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Goodhue County. The Commission has identified two such standards in this Order (Section 4 and Section 6) but is not by this Order restricting the ALJ from developing the record and making recommendations regarding additional standards in Article 18 that upon further examination meet the “more stringent” qualification.

2. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to allow the parties to develop a factual record on the question of “good cause” as that term appears in Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 and to provide recommendations on whether, with respect to each standard in Article 18 identified in the course of her review as “more stringent” than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS, there is “good cause” for the Commission to not apply the standard to siting LWECS in Goodhue County.

3. As the ALJ addresses the issues identified in the previous two sections, the ALJ is requested to include (but not limited to, by this Order) whether there is sufficient evidence regarding health and safety to support a 10 rotor diameter set-back for non-participating residents and the stray voltage requirements.

To which AWA Goodhue said  …. “NOOOO, we want you to undo that decision” …

AWA Motion – Text only – maps are too big

… and to which we said, “PPFFFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBT!” …

Goodhue Wind Truth – Response to Motion for Reconsideration

… including a section you really ought to read:

III. THERE IS A SYSTEMIC FLAW IN THE PROCESS BY WHICH MATERIAL INFORMATION IS NOT FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION

… and from Goodhue County:

Goodhue County – Response – late filed

… and then the AWA Goodhue’s Reply – quite pissy, eh?

AWA Goodhue Reply

… and some others on behalf of AWA:

“Wind on the Wires” Izaak Walton League Comment

GE Energy Comment – late filed

… and PUC staff weighs in:

Staff Briefing Papers (a separate revised cover sheet filed later)

… and then at 8:21 a.m. this morning, served by eFiling, and Document Properties show it wasn’t pdf’d until 4:03… TODD GUERERRO, WHATEVER ARE YOU THINKING… this from AWA Goodhue trying to wiggle into mediation somehow rather than a proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge.  Mediation???  Mediation has it’s place, but… well, anyway, here’s what they said:

AWA Goodhue Last Minute Letter

The Commission was probably not pleased, the timing of that latest filing was duly noted, and after a short discussion about the availability of mediation in any contested case, under the administrative rules it’s always an option, the discussion led by Commissioner Reha, who as an ALJ had mediated the Chisago Transmission Project (were any of the Commissioners around then?  Perhaps Pugh?):

Deal – NSP – Taylors Falls – St. Croix Falls

That’s one result of that mediation, one which I certainly wouldn’t be proud of, because though it did underground down the banks of the St. Croix River, it DOUBLED the capacity, and I don’t think anyone other than our friends at NSP had any clue what dropping voltage but bundling BIG conductors meant.  Well, Art Hughes, Ph. D., of course, but he’s dead… And at the time,  it was disturbing the way ALJ Phyllis Reha and George Crocker were on the stage of the Festival Theatre in St. Croix Falls stumping for the deal and urging Concerned River Valley Citizens to adopt the deal.  WHY, what’s in it for them?  For CRVC, nothing!  And why would Reha and Crocker want CRVC to adopt that deal?  Enough to be promoting it on stage before CRVC?  CRVC said NO, and the rest is history…

So anyway, to make a short story long, the PUC talked about Reconsideration and the referral to OAH a bit, Commissioner Reha mentioned some things she is concerned about as material facts at issue, they expressly stated they did not want to Reconsider, and they all (4, Betsy Wergin was missing) said NO to AWA Goodhue’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Onward!

Wow, what a day… with an exciting turn of events that tells me that the issues raised by Goodhue Wind Truth are being taken seriously.

In the Beagle this morning:

PUC delays decision on Goodhue Wind

It turned on the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance, passed in early October:

Goodhue County Wind Ordinance

Everyone’s taking this seriously, except MOES of course:

MOES Supplemental Recommendation

… where they said:

OES EFP staff is not able to provide any additional information about what may have transpired in Goodhue County regarding development of regulations and would refer the Commission to the appropriate representative of Goodhue County for additional information.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!  Of course it’s good to go to the source for information, but to state that “OES EFP staff is not able to provide any additional information about what may have transpired in Goodhue County regarding development of regulations” is beyond absurd.   I was at the Subcommittee meeting that Deb Pile, OES EFP, attended, and in the discussion that ensued, it was stated that there had been ongoing discussions between county staff and subcommittee members (and I think at least one County Board member), and all the county subcommittee, Planning Commission and County Board information had been filed by Goodhue Wind Truth and probably other parties as well.

The bottom line is that they] Minnesota Public Utilities Commission put the Certificate of Need (09-1186) on hold, and sent the Siting Permit (08-1233) over to OAH for a hearing, Findings of Fact and Recommendation, on the Goodhue County Ordinance. Specifically, to build a factual record regarding whether the PUC should adopt the Goodhue County standards, the question of good cause, and to examine whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to support a 10 Rotor Diameter setback.

But let’s not get too excited — the PUC’s intent and the result could go either way.  Hard to tell whether this is a fishing expedition to scrounge up “good cause” to IGNORE the ordinance or whether it’s butt covering to make sure they’ve got a supportable decision if they DO implement the Ordinance in the permit, but it means more work for us and dashed hopes of getting permits by year end for the applicant. It was a roller coaster all day long, I felt good about it going in because Goodhue Wind Truth has done such a good job of making their case, my bet was that it would be good for us, but THE SUSPENSE…

…and Todd Guererro, representing AWA Goodhue, or whatever their name is, he paced a rut in the back of the room yesterday.  I’m sure they’re spinning, saying “HEY!  Where’d that come from?!?!?!”

The best part for me was Goodhue County’s presentation. You all know I’ve had serious problems with Goodhue County since Nuclear Waste Daze, and that’s a story for another day, or perhaps the book… but yesterday the County, as a united front explaining their Ordinance, was very impressive. Each County representative there told a part of the story, detailing the county’s long process in wrestling with the ordinance, the purpose, the intent, in a way that was impossible for the PUC to ignore.

To look at the full dockets, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “Search eDockets” and then search for dockets “08-1233” and “09-1186” for the rest of the story.

So what to do? Well, that’s simple — keep on it.

And I wish the PUC would order some nitrous oxide for that “security” guard, the way he glares is enough to chill public participation — and that the PUC thinks that having a security guard is necessary, or appropriate, is disturbing.

In the Rochester Post Bulletin:

Commission deals setback to Goodhue Wind project

10/22/2010 8:01:07 AM

By Brett Boese
The Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN

ST. PAUL — Dozens of Goodhue County residents filed into the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearing room Thursday morning. Having experienced nothing positive during four previous trips to St. Paul to argue against a proposed wind farm in the county, members of Goodhue Wind Truth have come to rely on their numbers for support.

The five-member commission agreed to send the issue to an administrative law judge to further develop the public record, especially how a new county ordinance governing wind farms affects the AWA Goodhue project. That’s expected to delay proceedings for about six months, giving Goodhue Wind Truth something to celebrate.

Goodhue County officials told the commission why the county included a 10-rotor diameter setback in the ordinance.

State Reps. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, implored the commission to deny the project’s certificate of need and final site permit.

“If we approve this project in the face of so much opposition, we divide a community,” Kelly said. “We pit neighbor against neighbor.”

Drazkowski said, “At what point do these developments get too close (to residents)? Is it Goodhue County? Is it Dakota County? Is it Hennepin County? I’d assert, commissioners, that we’ve reached that point.”

Chad Ryan, chairman of the Belle Creek Township Board, said that “I think people in Goodhue County made a positive step forward today. We were listened to and heard by people who actually wanted to listen.”

Steve Groth said that “to have your state representatives and your county commissioners come up and speak for you, oh man. You know you’re on the right trail. It’s not going unnoticed.”

Project delay

The extra six months extends the response time to AWA Goodhue’s project application to 18 months; the state typically responds in fewer than 12 monhts. The delay also throws into question the future of the 32,000-acre, 50-turbine project.

National Wind, the AWA Goodhue project developer, must begin construction in 2010 to be eligible for a 30 percent grant from the government. Thursday’s decision means the company will have to accept instead a production tax credit, which company attorney Todd Guerrero said means a financial difference of “millions and millions.”

AWA Goodhue has a power purchase agreement with Xcel Energy, but the sunset date is Dec. 31, 2011. Renegotiating the agreement is difficult, according to project developer Chuck Burdick, and requires approval from the public utilities commission. A typical wind project takes six to 12 months to become fully operational so AWA Goodhue would probably have to try to extend the sunset date by at least a few months.

What’s next

Guerrero pressed the commission to expedite the administrative law judge’s review, but commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien refused and added to his motion that the review proceed at a “thorough and deliberate speed.” That didn’t sit well with representatives of the wind company.

“I guess I don’t know what more record needs to be developed,” Burdick said. “There’s already hundreds, if not thousands, of papers already on record. … I feel like this has been a lengthy and thorough process to date and there’s not sufficient reason to drag it out any further.”

Burdick said he and his associates would spend the next few days reviewing material and examining their options. Many Goodhue County residents rushed home to their farms with smiles on their faces.

“I think you could buy Goodhue Wind stock pretty cheap right now,” Ryan quipped.

Tomorrow there are FOUR AWA Goodhue Wind dockets at the PUC, a siting docket where a Draft Permit is proposed, a Certificate of Need docket, and two Power Purchase Agreement dockets.

MOES Reply Comments – Siting Docket 08-1233

Staff Briefing Papers – PPA Dockets 09-1349 and 09-1350

Staff Briefing Papers – Certificate of Need 09-1186

So in response to that:

Goodhue Wind Truth – Siting Docket Comment 08-1233

Goodhue Wind Truth Comment – CoN & PPA 09-1186, 09-1349, 09-1350

To look up the dockets, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search eDockets” and then search for the docket numbers, as above.

And check out the Goodhue Wind Truth site.

What’s the big deal?  Well, they want to site this project when the maps provided in the application are way way off, as in claiming land rights where they have none, “forgetting” to put homes on the map, that sort of thing.  No environmental review has been done and it’s a BIG project, the “Environmental Report” won’t be done until June — so why is this before the PUC now? And they claim it’s a C-BED project which has some preference in the scheme of Power Purchase Agreements and fulfilling the renewable energy mandate when it’s not exactly local ownership — remember those T. Boone Pickens articles last week? Pickens comes to Goodhue?

Pickens wind turbines come to Goodhue