Legalectric

GOOD!  Another incremental win for Association of Freeborn County Landowners.  That’s an interesting development!

County board opts not to vote on wind farm, will have further talks in March

After last Friday’s PUC meeting where Freeborn Wind’s siting permit was put on hold as they consider amendments:

Yesterday at PUC – Freeborn Wind TABLED!

… and today, at Freeborn County, when Motion was made to vote on the Freeborn Wind Development Agreement, and others, there was no 2nd!  Silence!!

Here’s the latest drafts of the agreements that I’ve been able to scrounge up:

Freeborn Development Agreement final January 2019

Freeborn Road Use Agreement final January 2019

Freeborn Public Drainage System Agreement final January 2019

How bad is this agreement?  Check this, on p. 8:

6.1. Amendments to Development Agreement. This Development Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties only if the amendment is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each Party. County authorized representative will be County Board Chair or County Administrator. Developer authorized representatives will be as designated by Article 9.4 of Development Agreement.

Ummmmm, no. Guess again…  Amendments must go to entire County Board. And there are additional changes you’ll need to make, Freeborn Wind!

Stay tuned.  Next meeting is mid-March.

Yesterday, Freeborn Wind, the Applicant, had its wind project permit tabled by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.  How’d that happen!?!  SNORT!  I heard there was an audible gasp from that side of the room when it happened.

This latest round started with a bizarrely attempt to get more than what they got:

20191-148986-02_Freeborn Wind’s Request4Clarification

Yeah, it sure got them more!!  Great idea, disclosing an “agreement” with Commerce and MPCA after being granted a permit by PUC after the ALJ Recommendation that the permit be denied (and in the alternative, that they be granted time to demonstrate that they COULD comply):

So what did Freeborn say in its Request4Clarification?

Freeborn Wind requests the Commission clarify its Site Permit to adopt Section 7.4, as
proposed by Freeborn Wind and agreed to by the Department and MPCA, in place of the current Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, to both ensure consistency with the Order and avoid ambiguity in permit compliance.

Freeborn Wind’s September 19, 2018, Late-Filed proposal for Special Conditions Related
to Noise outlines the agreement reached between Freeborn Wind, the Department and the MPCA on this issue.[fn omitted] The letter indicated that Freeborn Wind had carefully reviewed the proposed Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 from the Staff Briefing Papers, and was concerned they “create[d] ambiguity and would lead to significant compliance challenges.” [fn omitted] Instead, Freeborn Wind offered “proposed alternative language addressing pre-construction noise modeling and postconstruction noise monitoring special conditions” which is “specific to this case” and would “achieve a similar level of noise regulation, but in a manner that can actually be measured following the applicable rules and standards.”

p. 1-2, 20191-148986-02_Freeborn Wind’s Request4Clarification (emphasis added).

SNORT!  Really, they said that!  It was good to see confirmation of the orchestration I’d observed at the September 20 PUC agenda meeting, being in the middle of the full court press of  Freeborn Wind, Commerce and MPCA (why exactly was MPCA there, they have no jurisdiction).  Oh, about MPCA’s jurisdiction, the letter of Kohlasch explains that well:

Exhibit M_Kohlasch_Letter_20189-146351-01

So we responded to that Freeborn Wind Motion:

AFCL_ResponsetoFreebornMotion-ClarificationRequest

I’d sent Data Practices Act Requests to MPCA and Commerce:

MPCA-Agreement_Data Practices Act Request

Exhibit C_Commerce-Agreement_Data Practices Act Request

And on receiving Data Practices Act Requests from MPCA, which showed some of the behind-the-scenes going on, filed this:

20192-150272-01-1_AFCL Motion to Remand to ALJ

And the moment I filed it, and went to email to check filing status, get confirmation, and I see an email from Wachtler, Commerce-EERA, which is included in this, filed the following day:

AFCL_Motion-Addendum to Remand to ALJ_FINAL FULL PACKET

They produced NON-O-T-H-I-N-G!  Nothing at all!

So off we went to the PUC, and the meeting was bizarre.  The Commission did not take up the Many Motions, Motions to Strike, Motions for Reconsideration, Motions for Remand, Motion after Motion, it was dizzying.  Admissions of “confusion” were heard, and can’t have Commissioner confusion.  Methinks that there was confusion at the September 20, 2018 meeting, which was why the permit was approved with the conditions offered and haggled over just a bit.  The video, do check it out, scroll down to #3 at link, starting at 16:43:

TABLED!  We have 14 days to provide language for the permit conditions, 7.4; 7.4.1; 7.4.2.  Then another Agenda meeting date will be set, ostensibly to deal with Motions, language, etc.

Friday, Freeborn Wind is before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, where Association of Freeborn County Landowners’ Motions for Reconsideration are on the agenda:

20192-150272-01-1_Motion to Remand to ALJ

UPDATE:

AFCL_Motion-Addendum to Remand to ALJ_FINAL FULL PACKET

Why update? Because we got more juicy details.  As I was filing the “Motion to Remand to ALJ” I got an email from Commerce-EERA’s John Wachtler, and he said that there were no emails, that Commerce deletes them after 90 days.  Well, emails weren’t all that was requested, and yet, NOTHING was produced. NOTHING!

Here’s what we asked for:

Exhibit C_Commerce-Agreement_Data Practices Act Request

Why am I not surprised…

This is the Shell Rock River, covered with winter hoar frost today, and part of the DNR’s Shell Rock River State Water Trail, where Freeborn Wind wants to string a transmission line over the river!  Click for larger view:

It’s a State Water Trail – click for larger view:

Doesn’t this just look like the greatest place for transmission across the river?!?!  Good grief, what are they thinking?

Apparently Invenergy doesn’t like the idea that we’re intervening in their Wisconsin dockets.  I guess after Freeborn Wind, it’s not hard to understand why.

Intervention in Badger Hollow HUGE 300 MW solar project docket — approved by the Administrative Law Judge (Docket 9697-CE-100):

Jinkins Jewell Wendhausen_Intervention

Order_Interventions_11-1-2018

And then the related dockets, the transmission line and the acquisition docket, appropriately known as the BS docket, our intervention, their objection, and our response.  The transmission docket (Docket 9697-CE-101):

Jewell Jinkins_101_Intervention_FINAL

9697-CE-101 Badger Hollow – Response to Request for Intervention (Objection!)

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_101_Reply to Objection

And the acquisition BS docket (Docket 5-BS-228):

Jewell Jinkins_228_Intervention_CORRECTED

Applicant Response to Motion to Intervene (Objection)

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_228_Reply to Response

Oh, and the Cardinal Hickory Creek 345 kV Transmission Line!  Docket 5-CE-146.

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_Cardinal-Hickory Creek_Intervention

To look up any of these dockets, go to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s Search site, and  plug in the numbers.

Meanwhile, we’re waiting on the Minnesota Commission meeting on Reconsideration for our Rulemaking Petition, and waiting on two orders, project and transmission, for Freeborn Wind.

And around all these filings, I’ve been to band practice, made wild rice and garbanzo salad, and I hear a Ferndale Market turkey calling…

What a long week it’s been!  WHAT?  Tuesday?!?!  No, really?!?!