It’s the most wonderful time of the year!

The Power Plant Siting Act annual hearing, a la Minn. Stat. 216I.15, is the time to let the Public Utilities Commission know what works and what does not work in the Commission’s siting of power plants, transmission, wind, solar, and even pipelines!

Here’s the problem — all they have to do per the statute is “advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year.” What happens after that, well, it goes to the PUC but that’s about it. It is a good time to vent, and get on the record all the horrible things that have happened over the year, and the historical trends, such as elimination of the Advisory Task Force.

Here’s the decades old law providing for Advisory Task Forces:

And this session, after the Public Utilities Commission and their OAH ALJs were denying, denying, denying after so many Advisory Task Force Petitions over so many years — simply repealed, eliminated:

It’s GONE! And eliminating the reference of Task Forces as an aspect of public participation:

Ja, we “Public Participants” get the PUC’s message loud and clear:

Public participation via the Public Utilities Commission? Remember the Report of the Office of the Legislative Auditor?

Public Utilities Commission’s Public Participation Processes – OLA-Report

Fat lot of good that did. Instead of improving public participation, we hear the Commission Chair saying, “What can we do to make this faster for you?” and “What can we do to speed this permitting up?” and that whole “streamlining” effort, which is really STEAMROLLING. Fast tracking permitting, denial of interventions, failure to have project proponents witnesses at hearings for questioning…

PUC Strategic Plan

Here are the reports from the last 20 years — often they hold it on my birthday, but not this year. You can see that year after year, it’s the same issues:

2000 Summary of Proceedings

2000 Report EQB

2001 Summary of Proceedings

2001 Report EQB

2002 Summary of Proceedings

2002 Report to EQB

2003 Summary of Proceedings

2003 Report to EQB

2004 Summary of Proceedings

2004 Report to EQB

2005 Report to PUC

2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733

2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579

2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426

2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351

2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222

2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324

2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360

2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965

2014 Summary Report– Docket 14-887

2015 Summary Report – Docket 15-785

2016 Summary Report – Docket 16-18

2017 Summary Report – Docket 17-18

2018 Summary Report – Docket 18-18

2019 Summary Report_Docket 19-18

Summary Report – Docket 20-18

2021 Summary Report – Docket 21-18

2022-Summary-Report_Docket 22-18

And last year’s Report from the 2023 hearing, held on December 20, 2023:

There’s a trend… And here we go, on Tuesday, another year of banging heads against the wall.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce issued the Draft EIS for the Dodge County wind project, and about the “C” and “D” route proposals for a 345kV line through the heart of Dodge Center, they had this to say:

Here’s the full DEIS Narrative:

This is an example of why it’s crucial to get involved early, that comments must be made at the outset before they have moved into evaluating a proposed route, so that they can consider the input of people on the ground in the initial evaluation. Here, at least 14 people weighed in on the impacts of the C and D routes on their homes and their lives, and that message was heard.

Now’s the time for the City of Dodge Center to acknowledge that it was Tom Applegate’s efforts, alerting the City of Dodge Center and the residents effected by this project’s Route C and D possibility, helping generate the many comments that were filed, that made Commerce’s rejection of these routes a reality.

And I sure hope Commissioner Tuma acknowledges what a bad idea routes C and D were and that next time he has a routing idea, that he commits to spend at least an hour on google earth along the route to know what he’s proposing. These two proposed routes were the worst I’ve seen for a 345kV line.

In July, Goodhue Wind Truth filed a rulemaking petition at the Public Utilities Commission, to spur a close look at the wind siting rules:

Just Filed – Petition for Wind Siting Rulemaking

Here it is:

17-410+Comments & Draft Site Permit

Now, get to work reading and doing a thorough mark-up!

 

At long last, the final round of Comments on the 5+ year long rulemaking have been filed.  A five year long process to enact the changes consistent with legislation passed in 2005, 12 years ago.  WHAT!?!?!  Yes, that’s how long it’s taken.  These are rules based on the Minnesota statutes for Certificate of Need (Minn. Stat. 216B.243) and the “Power Plant Siting Act” (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E), which is transmission routing and power plant siting.

Here are the Reply Comments, and note there are very few:

Public Intervenors – No CapX 2020, U-CAN, North Route Group & Goodhue Wind Truth – FINAL_May 31 2017

McNamasra GWT Reply_20175-132415-01

Commerce EERA Reply_20175-132345-01

ITC Midwest_Reply_20175-132421-02

OtterTail Power_Reply_20175-132275-01

Xcel Energy_Reply_20175-132417-01

Next step — on the agenda at a future Public Utilities Commission meeting, where they’ll discuss changes, hopefully we’ll have oral argument of the parties and comments from the public, and then the rules are formally released to the public for public comment, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and then back to the Commission for approval.  Probably it will be August… given the public comment period and hearing, this will be at least a SIX YEAR PROCESS!