Legalectric

Over nine years, and how many of those years going to St. Paul for meetings, how many hours of editing and commenting, of group meetings to go over changes, proposed suggestions, meaningful public participation…

Well, here’s the Minnesota Public FUtilities Commission in action:

Can it be?!?! The rulemaking based on the 2005 statutory changes was published in the state register today. TODAY… 2005… SIXTEEN YEARS, and NINE YEARS since this 12-1246 docket was opened. Comments are due by November 17, more on that below.

The Public Utilities Commission did one hell of a job delaying until BILLIONS of CapX 2020, a/k/a CapX 2050 and Grid North Partners and MTEP MVP projects were rammed through. Public interest anyone? Naaaaaaah…

Here it is — First the Notice (60 page service list!), then Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) and then the proposed rules (yeah, 120+ pages):

Comments are due November 17th:

Here’s the catch — they are planning on putting these through without a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, UNLESS there are at least 25 requests for a hearing — I think that can be arranged. Here are the details, note that they must be “valid” requests, which means explain in short what you want differently in the rules:

ONWARD! SIXTEEN YEARS… UNREAL!

We know who you are, and we saw what you did… and didn’t!

No surprise.  Today the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rejected Goodhue Wind Truth’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission’s denial of our Petition for Rulemaking.  Rules, who needs rules… about 2,500 MW of wind has been sited in Minnesota WITHOUT LARGE WIND SPECIFIC SITING RULES AND/OR STANDARDS!  Really!  And the Commission doesn’t seem to regard that as a problem.  Large wind is sited using SMALL WIND/COUNTY SITING STANDARDS, not intended for large wind.  And the Commission doesn’t seem to regard that as a problem.  Large wind is sited using MPCA’s industrial noise standards which were admittedly NOT designed with wind in mind.  And the Commission doesn’t seem to regard that as a problem.  Large wind is sited using a Commerce boilerplate site permit with 1,000 foot setbacks and staff has no idea where that 1,000 foot setback came from (it’s contrary to even the small wind standards, and there’s no rule or standard of 1,000 ft!).  And the Commission doesn’t seem to regard that as a problem.

GWT_Reconsideration_FINAL

Here’s the rest of the background information:

I often use this photo, because it represents one simple fact: Sometimes things go off the rails.  Wind siting in Minnesota is one of those things, we have no wind specific siting criteria!

Thursday, December 6th, we’re back at the Commission, where they’ll address Goodhue Wind Truth’s Petition for Reconsideration, or not (and toss it in the circular file).

PUC Notice – Agenda Meeting 12-6-2018

It’s that time of year again, and for a change, no reminder necessary, AND it’s in 2018, not crammed in at the very end of year or beginning of next!

It’s the POWER PLANT SITING ACT ANNUAL HEARING!

This is our opportunity, as those wrestling with the state’s siting laws and rules, and absence thereof, to tell them what does and doesn’t work.  Then the Administrative Law Judge files the report and it’s ignored for another year.

Frustration with lack of response was what triggered the multiple rulemaking petitions I’ve filed, on my own as individual, and representing Goodhue Wind Truth, most recently:

Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration

We used to have a pot-luck for the PPSA Annual Hearing, until the PUC put the kibosh on that.  GRRRRRR!  Treats is the best way to get people to show up.

Now’s the time, show up, spout off, and tell them what works and what does not.  And note that aspects of the Power Plant Siting Act DO apply to wind:

216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.

(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.