Legalectric

On April 12, 2017, the Public Utility Commission ordered noise monitoring for the Bent Tree Wind Project after numerous complaints pressured for action on those complaints.  Bent Tree is located in Freeborn County just north east of Albert Lea, Minnesota, north of Interstate 90, and on the  west side of Interstate 35, opposite where they now want to put up the Freeborn Wind Farm, south of I-90 and east of I-35.  They put up monitors at a few locations near the homes of those who filed complaints, and then, for some reason the turbines near those homes are off (Curtailment? Why am I suspicious? Apparently they’ve never been off at other times.).  Then they took the monitors away.

But the study is “complete?”  Here it is.

Bent Tree_Report_Noise Monitoring_20179-135856-01

On page one, the cover letter, they admit there are times of non-compliance. What’s important in this is that the problematic “noise” is the infrasound, which is found in “C weighted” scales, and not the “A weighted” scale that is the subject of Minn. R. 7030.  Further, the Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 does not address impulsive sounds, such as sounds from a gun range, or some sound from wind turbines.

MPCA’s Commissioner, John Linc Stein, agrees that the Minnesota Rules do NOT cover infrasound, and there are no rules covering infrasound, but yet will not initiate rulemaking:

WHAT!?!?!?!

Back to the studies.  the protocol for the “study” is taken from the Minn. R. Ch. 7030, Measurement Methodology.   Monitoring data was excluded if the wind speed was over 11 mph, but for the Langrud monitor, the report says that wind speed was not over 11 mph.  Is that reasonable?  Look at average wind speeds generally, considering that higher wind speed is desirable for generating electricity (click for larger version):

When wind speeds are high, that is when the noise from the turbines is most unbearable, and under the report protocol, when wind speeds are high, were excluded. Average wind speed n the Bent Tree area is 15.7 – 16.8.  So in the chart above, it says 0% were excluded due to high wind. Does that mean there were no times that the wind was over 11 mph?  That’s doubtful, although spring and fall are times with higher wind, typically, but, color me skeptical.

But yet Table 4-1 says wind speed did not go over 11 mph during the monitoring, and so no data where wind was over 11 mph was excluded.  Curtailment is also unclear, because we do not know what turbines were curtailed, if it was only ones near the monitors, or the entire project (usually is is some but not all).  It also says results were skewed by bird chirping and insect noise, which would not have been present in early spring or fall.  WHAT?!?!  And early spring is planting time so lots of farm equipment out, and fall is harvest. Makes no sense.

So how is the report valid?

Dave Langrud, a landowner in the Bent Tree footprint, has tracked when the turbines were off and on, and we’re working on comparing those times to the times in the report — they do have some info in this report for comparison showing time they admit the turbines were off:

And there were C weighted measurements, note how high these go:

We’ve submitted a Data Practices Act Request for more data:

Miltich – Dept of Commerce_Data Practices Act Request

Nothing has showed up yet.

Here it is, published in the Federal Register today:

Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats

tRump claims that:

…the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, has determined that a small number of countries—out of nearly 200 evaluated—remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory.

Oh?!?!  Yes, he says, “Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen” plus Somalia.

Where does he get these ideas?  How is this anything but WRONG!

Here we go with another round of lawsuits…

Yesterday Neighbors Against the Burner filed this Petition to Intervene in a docket at the PUC where Xcel Energy has filed a request for approval of a Power Purchase Agreement slashing the rate paid to Hennepin Energy Recovery Center – HERC for electricity generated at the HERC garbage burner:

Neighbors Against The Burner_Cover-Notice of Appearance -Petition to Intervene

Check out the Public Utilities Commission docket:

Click “Search Documents” HERE and search for docket 17-532

Here’s the Neighbors Against the Burner page for HERC:

HERC page and links via Wayback Machine

And check out Alan Muller’s powerpoint from the successful challenge to attempt to increase garbage burning:

HERC_Power Point

There was an announcement in April, 2016, of  the “HERC Clean Power Plan Coalition” with multiple groups joining to shut down HERC!  Sierra Club North Star Chapter, MPIRG, Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, Community Power, St. Joan of Arc, etc.  HERC has been raised as an issue in this fall’s Minneapolis Mayoral election. 

Now’s the time to get it done!  SHUT IT DOWN!

The Minnesota part of the Freeborn County wind project is the site in red, above.

The Association of Freeborn County Landowners has been granted intervention, we’re a party!!!

Order-Intervention-AFCL_20179-135455-01

And a footnote for those wonks interested in Minnesota Rules and OAH and Public Utilities Commission procedure:

For more information about this docket, the application and the filings thus far, go HERE and search for Public Utilities Commission docket 17-410.

I found my notes!!  On August 29, 2017, Alan and I went to the Goodhue County Courthouse for the GreenMark Solar v. Wacouta Township (Court Case No. 25-CV-17-1462) festivities — a Summary Judgment hearing.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m not a fan of any of the principals of GreenMark, Mark Andrew, Dennis Egan, and Julie Jorgensen.  Mark Andrew is a former Hennepin County Commissioner and a fan of burning garbage. Here’s a thread from the Mpls yak-yak list about Andrew when he was running for Mayor.  Dennis Egan, well, we had a few go rounds when he was Mayor of Red Wing AND was executive director of Minnesota Industrial Sand Council, and at the time silica sand mining issue was on agenda for City of Red Wing. Julie Jorgensen? Her Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project coal gasification plant took up 5 years of my full-time labor before it went to part-time and intermittent, and still just won’t fully go away! Minn. Stat. 216B.1694, Subd. 3(b)(1)(ii).

That said, I’m also a big fan of solar, from way, way back when my father designed the solar on the Minnesota Zoo (that was later taken down, it was hot water! Not quite what was most needed, and they didn’t know much about solar back then).

Here’s the GreenMark Complaint — couldn’t find the Wacouta Answer or the cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The Wacouta Township website is years out of date — what’s up with that?  (2014 is most current minutes, plus a notice of the May 2017 meeting about the solar project. ???)

Greenmark Solar v. Wacouta Township_Complaint 25-CV-17-1462

Here are a couple articles:

GreenMark Solar challenges Wacouta Township | Republican Eagle

Minnesota Developer Sues for Solar Garden Permit

The oral argument started with Greenmark.  Some points (not all inclusive):

Focus on Minn. Stat. 394.33, Subd. 1, that the township decision violates Town Powers Act. It’s inconsistent with their zoning. They can enact more restrictive zoning, but they didn’t, township has no solar ordinance.2

Township ordinance is ambiguous.  Frank’s Nursery case — if ambiguous, allow property owner to do what they want with the property.

“Agricultural community” — Planning Commission and Board selected different definitions.  Current use, peat mining and hay.  Pollinator scale 45, and 85 with solar.  Wetlands. Reduce carbon emissions.

Township argument:

Town Power Act does not restrict township actions. Bergen defines inconsistent, it’s not different.
Township Ordinance, Art. 3, Subd. 10, limits industrial uses that do not support agricultural. Solar is an industrial use. Twp. does allow solar in ag, BUT, it’s more restrictive, and it’s not inconsistnet.

The standard is whether down decision was rational, i.e., legally sufficient, supported by record.

Reasonable — inconsistent with agriculture, exported to the grid. CUP – exported, GreenMark takes issue with def of ag use, but see “Hubbard Broadcasting” denial of Conditional Use.  Review is deferential.  Mandamus (GreenMark’s action) review not to challenge discretionary decisions of local government.

Frank’s Nursery re: ambiguous ordinance, doesn’t require ordinance to be construed to support use. Court still needs to determine rationality.

Greenmark Rebuttal

Mandamus – this is about building permit, a ministerial act, not discretionary.

Does township even have jurisdiction/authority.

Purpose of project — Goodhue County, that’s the area.

Altenberg (?) – Town Powers Act – Twp didn’t adopt a more restrictive ordinance.

Bergum (?) – legislative intent of Town Powers Act.

Township Rebuttal

Cases of Mandamus for building permits

Goodhue – zoned agricultural, township couldn’t zone industrial, that would be inconsistent with county zoning.

__________________________

Judge Bayley said he has a lot of homework to do, and will do it and issue Order.