Legalectric

It was a full house yesterday at the PUC but the result was a bust.  The PUC tossed the Freeborn Wind ALJ Recommendation right out the window, did a 180 from the ALJ’s Recommendation and granted a siting permit and transmission permit for Freeborn Wind. There was a last minute “compromise” presented by Freeborn Wind and Commerce, last minute, meaning the DAY BEFORE, and the PUC Staff Briefing papers had 23 pages of an inexplicable chart of proposed adoption and rejection of Exceptions.

20189-146406-01_PUC_StaffBriefingPapers

Through what gyrations will they get their “order” to align with the record? Out with it — let’s see!!

In the STrib:

Minnesota utility regulators approve Freeborn County wind farm opposed by neighbors

In the Albert Lea Tribune:

Commission unanimously approves Freeborn Wind Farm permits

From the article:

Commissioner Katie Sieben said she also supported the project, noting she received a letter in July 2017 from a constituent saying the issue was “tearing neighbors apart.”
“I would hope that as the applicant has modified, has moved wind turbines, has lessened that division,” she said.

Sieben says Freeborn “has moved wind turbines?”  WHERE EVER WOULD SHE GET THAT IDEA?  The application wasn’t modified, wind turbines haven’t been moved.  This just proves she hasn’t read the record.  How many times did Dan Litchfield testify that they couldn’t move any turbines?

And on KIMT TV:

Freeborn Wind Farm approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

 

Freeborn Wind at the PUC tomorrow.

Watch on line HERE: Live Webcast

ANOTHER LATE FILING!!!  This last minute flurry is indicative of their desperation!  So I guess it’s a good thing, but hey, I’ve got to get ready for the Wind Rulemaking docket that I’ve been trying to get before the Commission for how many years?  Oh well… one thing at a time…

Freeborn Wind’s “Late Filed — Proposed Special Conditions Related to Noise _20189-146486-01

And our response just filed:

AFCL’s Late Filing2_Reply2Freeborn

Oh yeah, we’re going to have fun at the PUC tomorrow.  Watch on line HERE: Live Webcast

And background, yesterday and day before:

AFCL reply to Freeborn Wind’s Motion to Exclude

Freeborn Wind files Motion to Exclude!!

Whew, quick response to Freeborn Wind’s Motion:

Association of Freeborn County Landowners_FINAL Reply

Here’s their Motion:

20189-146448-02_Motion to Exclude Untimely Filing of Frank Kohlasch

From here, it looks like they’re trying to weasel their way into a 1 dBA “wiggle room” to add onto the state’s 50 dBA limit.  Ummmmmm, no!  No way is that supported by the record, and really, there’s already a 3 dBA “margin of error” built in, supposedly, well, so says Freeborn Wind’s expert Hankard!

Here’s the MPCA letter they’re so up in arms about, but wait, it’s nothing new!!!!

Letter 9/11/2018 Frank Kohlasch MPCA_20189-146351-01

Freeborn, you know all about ambient sound noise modeling, we discussed it for how many hours in the hearing?  Good grief…

Here are the MPCA’s noise standards:

NOISE STANDARDS  Minn. R. 7030.0040

Hot off the press — Freeborn Wind files Motion to exclude the letter of MPCA’s Frank Kohlasch regarding noise regulation:

20189-146448-02_Motion to Exclude Untimely Filing of Frank Kohlasch

20189-146448-01 Cover Aff of Service Service List

After the Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge came out recommending denial of the site permit, they were “alarmed.”  Now what are they?  Read that Motion!!!

Here’s the “Frank Kohlasch letter” they’re so afraid of:

Letter from MPCA’s Frank Kohlasch_20189-146351-01

On Thursday, the Freeborn Wind siting docket (17-410) and transmission docket (17-322) are before the Public Utilities Commission.  The meeting starts at 9:30, and starting not earlier than 10:30 is wind rulemaking, followed by Freeborn Wind siting and transmission.  You can watch it here, and $50 says it’ll have high ratings!

Live Webcast

To check out the dockets, where everything but the hearing transcript is public, go to eDockets and search for docket 17 (year) – 410 for the siting docket.  For the transmission docket, search for 17 (year) 322.  BOTH are up on Thursday.

And before the Freeborn dockets is the much awaited wind rulemaking docket, where I filed a Petition for Rulemaking on behalf of Goodhue Wind Truth.  Here’s the background info from a couple weeks ago:

Today’s Wind Rulemaking Comments

I’ve been working for years to get rulemaking going, love to bang my head against the wall.  But it’s “working within the system” and it’s all we’ve got.  And yes, it is a good way to get the process engineered more favorably to people on the ground!  To view the docket, go to eDockets and search for docket 18 (year) – 518.

The tRump administration is at it again, this time a rule proposal from Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services to circumvent a rule that limits detention of immigrant children to 20 days, and instead, detain them indefinitely, and to make it easier to detain families indefinitely as their cases are pending rather than release on probation.  The proposed rule is open for comment for 60 days, so due November 5 or 6, depending on when it is published in Federal Register.  Info on how to comment is below.

In Fortune:

Trump Administration Proposes Indefinite Detention of Child Migrants

Here’s the proposal, DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-19052.pdf

If/when adopted, the rule would terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement. From the rule:

But the practical implications of the FSA, and in particular the lack of state licensing for FRCs and the release requirements for minors, have effectively prevented the Government from using family detention for more than a limited period of time, and in turn often led to the release of families. That combination of factors may create a powerful incentive for adults to bring juveniles on the dangerous journey to the United States and then put them in further danger by illegally crossing the United States border—in the hope, whether correct or not, that having a juvenile will result in an immediate release into the United States. At the same time, the second choice—that of separating family members so the adult may be held in detention pending immigration proceedings—is to be avoided when possible, and has generated significant litigation. See Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18-428 (S.D. Cal.).

…

The expectation that adults with juveniles will remain in the United States outside of immigration detention may incentivize these risky practices.

Of course the practice of separating parents and children, and jailing children as they have, DOH, it would generate significant litigation.  But really, “a powerful incentive” “expectation” that to bring children with would facility entry and that’s why they’re bringing their kids? Really, drag kids along on this arduous journey as a “get out of jail free” card?  This is DHS’ position?

Read it.

You may submit comments on all or part of this proposed rule, but be specific, cite to page number, language, the more specific the better, and propose alternative language, or jettisoning of the whole damn thing.  Put the docket number at the beginning of your comment: DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002

Send your comment by any one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal (preferred by DHS):
https://www.regulations.gov

Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.

via E-mail: ICE.Regulations@ice.dhs.gov. Include DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-
0002 in the subject line of the message.

By Mail: Debbie Seguin, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536.

Remember, include DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002 in your correspondence.