Legalectric

First AWA Goodhue’s testimony, and then ours… It’s been quite the week… quite the last TWO weeks… were I still driving, I’d be out of hours on my second log book:

In the Goodhue Wind case, testimony was due, the Applicants’ a while ago, and now our intervenors’ Testimony.   For the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and to “Search eDockets” and search for “08-1233.”

First, here’s what AWA Goodhue has filed:

Testimony – Direct – Burdick

Testimony – Direct – Casey

Testimony – Direct – Kalass

Testimony – Direct – Malamen

Testimony – Direct – Peterson

Testimony – Direct – Robertson

Testimony – Direct – Ward

Testimony – Direct – Zilka

AWA Exhibit 1A

AWA Exhibit 1B

AWA Exhibit 1C

AWA Exhibit 3A

AWA Exhibit 3B

AWA Exhibit 3C

AWA Exhibit 3D

AWA Exhibit 3E

AWA Exhibit 3F

AWA Exhibit 3G

AWA Exhibit 4A

AWA Exhibit 5A is too large to load

AWA Exhibit 6A

AWA Exhibit 7A

And on to the Intervenors, on the next post…

Check the PUC filings yesterday — there goes Todd Guererro with his disposition problem!

As you know, the PUC issued an PUC’s Order – Referral to OAH in which the AWA Goodhue wind project was sent to an Administrative Law Judge to address the following issues:

1. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to develop a record on every standard in Article 18 that is more stringent than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS and make recommendations regarding each such standard whether the Commission should adopt it for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Goodhue County. The Commission has identified two such standards in this Order (Section 4 and Section 6) but is not by this Order restricting the ALJ from developing the record and making recommendations regarding additional standards in Article 18 that upon further examination meet the “more stringent” qualification.

2. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to allow the parties to develop a factual record on the question of “good cause” as that term appears in Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 and to provide recommendations on whether, with respect to each standard in Article 18 identified in the course of her review as “more stringent” than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS, there is “good cause” for the Commission to not apply the standard to siting LWECS in Goodhue County.

3. As the ALJ addresses the issues identified in the previous two sections, the ALJ is requested to include (but not limited to, by this Order) whether there is sufficient evidence regarding health and safety to support a 10 rotor diameter set-back for non-participating residents and the stray voltage requirements.

AWA Goodhue is not happy about this, and have filed this:

AWA Goodhue’s Motion for Summary Disposition

Here are a couple snippets for the gist of their argument:

… the county’s ordinance applies only to small wind projects up to 5 MW and therefore does not set standards that apply to the AWA Goodhue project. In addition, because the county has chosen not to regulate wind projects up to 25 MW, it has no authority under Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 to adopt “more stringent wind standards” and, as a result, there are no county standards for the Commission to consider or apply…

Interpreting the statute so that it is limited only to counties that have assumed permitting authority for projects up to 25 MWs is the most reasonable interpretation in light of the established regulatory framework for siting wind turbines in Minnesota. The legislature has designated the Commission as the primary siting authority for large energy projects, including LWECS.13 Even in the limited circumstance where a county assumes responsibility for permitting LWECS under 25 MWs, the default under section 216F.08(c) is that the Commission’s general siting standards (which are based on the Commission’s
expertise and past experience) apply unless the county adopts more stringent standards.

It is wholly inconsistent with this framework to then read section 216F.081 to require the Commission, when making a decision on a project located in a county that has not adopted permitting authority, to apply the county’s more stringent standards. Moreover, it makes little sense for a county to adopt standards for LWECS if the county has no intention of regulating LWECS (up to 25 MW) in the first place. And, it makes even less sense for the Commission to have to apply those standards if the county itself is not inclined to do so.

Last, interpreting section 216B.081 to allow any county to adopt more stringent standards is at odds with section 216F.07, which expressly states that a site permit from the Commission preempts all county rules, regulations and ordinances. Rules of statutory construction require that every law be interpreted, to the extent possible, to give effect to all of its related provisions.14 Accordingly, to give effect to section 216F.07, county standards must be applied only where a county has assumed permitting authority for LWECS up to 25 MW. Any other interpretation would allow the exception to swallow the general rule.

We have to respond by January 14, 2010!

To check out the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “Search eDockets” and search for docket 08-1233.

Wow, what a day… with an exciting turn of events that tells me that the issues raised by Goodhue Wind Truth are being taken seriously.

In the Beagle this morning:

PUC delays decision on Goodhue Wind

It turned on the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance, passed in early October:

Goodhue County Wind Ordinance

Everyone’s taking this seriously, except MOES of course:

MOES Supplemental Recommendation

… where they said:

OES EFP staff is not able to provide any additional information about what may have transpired in Goodhue County regarding development of regulations and would refer the Commission to the appropriate representative of Goodhue County for additional information.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!  Of course it’s good to go to the source for information, but to state that “OES EFP staff is not able to provide any additional information about what may have transpired in Goodhue County regarding development of regulations” is beyond absurd.   I was at the Subcommittee meeting that Deb Pile, OES EFP, attended, and in the discussion that ensued, it was stated that there had been ongoing discussions between county staff and subcommittee members (and I think at least one County Board member), and all the county subcommittee, Planning Commission and County Board information had been filed by Goodhue Wind Truth and probably other parties as well.

The bottom line is that they] Minnesota Public Utilities Commission put the Certificate of Need (09-1186) on hold, and sent the Siting Permit (08-1233) over to OAH for a hearing, Findings of Fact and Recommendation, on the Goodhue County Ordinance. Specifically, to build a factual record regarding whether the PUC should adopt the Goodhue County standards, the question of good cause, and to examine whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to support a 10 Rotor Diameter setback.

But let’s not get too excited — the PUC’s intent and the result could go either way.  Hard to tell whether this is a fishing expedition to scrounge up “good cause” to IGNORE the ordinance or whether it’s butt covering to make sure they’ve got a supportable decision if they DO implement the Ordinance in the permit, but it means more work for us and dashed hopes of getting permits by year end for the applicant. It was a roller coaster all day long, I felt good about it going in because Goodhue Wind Truth has done such a good job of making their case, my bet was that it would be good for us, but THE SUSPENSE…

…and Todd Guererro, representing AWA Goodhue, or whatever their name is, he paced a rut in the back of the room yesterday.  I’m sure they’re spinning, saying “HEY!  Where’d that come from?!?!?!”

The best part for me was Goodhue County’s presentation. You all know I’ve had serious problems with Goodhue County since Nuclear Waste Daze, and that’s a story for another day, or perhaps the book… but yesterday the County, as a united front explaining their Ordinance, was very impressive. Each County representative there told a part of the story, detailing the county’s long process in wrestling with the ordinance, the purpose, the intent, in a way that was impossible for the PUC to ignore.

To look at the full dockets, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “Search eDockets” and then search for dockets “08-1233” and “09-1186” for the rest of the story.

So what to do? Well, that’s simple — keep on it.

And I wish the PUC would order some nitrous oxide for that “security” guard, the way he glares is enough to chill public participation — and that the PUC thinks that having a security guard is necessary, or appropriate, is disturbing.

In the Rochester Post Bulletin:

Commission deals setback to Goodhue Wind project

10/22/2010 8:01:07 AM

By Brett Boese
The Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN

ST. PAUL — Dozens of Goodhue County residents filed into the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearing room Thursday morning. Having experienced nothing positive during four previous trips to St. Paul to argue against a proposed wind farm in the county, members of Goodhue Wind Truth have come to rely on their numbers for support.

The five-member commission agreed to send the issue to an administrative law judge to further develop the public record, especially how a new county ordinance governing wind farms affects the AWA Goodhue project. That’s expected to delay proceedings for about six months, giving Goodhue Wind Truth something to celebrate.

Goodhue County officials told the commission why the county included a 10-rotor diameter setback in the ordinance.

State Reps. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, implored the commission to deny the project’s certificate of need and final site permit.

“If we approve this project in the face of so much opposition, we divide a community,” Kelly said. “We pit neighbor against neighbor.”

Drazkowski said, “At what point do these developments get too close (to residents)? Is it Goodhue County? Is it Dakota County? Is it Hennepin County? I’d assert, commissioners, that we’ve reached that point.”

Chad Ryan, chairman of the Belle Creek Township Board, said that “I think people in Goodhue County made a positive step forward today. We were listened to and heard by people who actually wanted to listen.”

Steve Groth said that “to have your state representatives and your county commissioners come up and speak for you, oh man. You know you’re on the right trail. It’s not going unnoticed.”

Project delay

The extra six months extends the response time to AWA Goodhue’s project application to 18 months; the state typically responds in fewer than 12 monhts. The delay also throws into question the future of the 32,000-acre, 50-turbine project.

National Wind, the AWA Goodhue project developer, must begin construction in 2010 to be eligible for a 30 percent grant from the government. Thursday’s decision means the company will have to accept instead a production tax credit, which company attorney Todd Guerrero said means a financial difference of “millions and millions.”

AWA Goodhue has a power purchase agreement with Xcel Energy, but the sunset date is Dec. 31, 2011. Renegotiating the agreement is difficult, according to project developer Chuck Burdick, and requires approval from the public utilities commission. A typical wind project takes six to 12 months to become fully operational so AWA Goodhue would probably have to try to extend the sunset date by at least a few months.

What’s next

Guerrero pressed the commission to expedite the administrative law judge’s review, but commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien refused and added to his motion that the review proceed at a “thorough and deliberate speed.” That didn’t sit well with representatives of the wind company.

“I guess I don’t know what more record needs to be developed,” Burdick said. “There’s already hundreds, if not thousands, of papers already on record. … I feel like this has been a lengthy and thorough process to date and there’s not sufficient reason to drag it out any further.”

Burdick said he and his associates would spend the next few days reviewing material and examining their options. Many Goodhue County residents rushed home to their farms with smiles on their faces.

“I think you could buy Goodhue Wind stock pretty cheap right now,” Ryan quipped.

The Public Utilities Commission hearing/meeting on the Certificate of Need (09-1186) and Siting Permit (08-1233) for Goodhue Wind went on until 10:30 last night, and many people still had not spoken.   It starts up again at3:00 p.m., again at the Goodhue school.

For the full record, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and “Search eDockets” for 08-1233 (siting) or 09-1186 (Certificate of Need).

And here is a small part of Goodhue Wind Truth’s filings:

Direct Testimony – Richard R. James, INCE

The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound

Wind Turbine Noise – What Audiologists Should Know

News coverage of yesterday’s shindig:

In the Beagle

Goodhue Wind releases detailed site plan

On MPR:

Wind turbine or the Foshay Tower: Which is taller?

At Finance & Commerce:

Goodhue Wind execs, opponents meet before administrative judge

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Wind buffer proposals from Zumbrota, Goodhue meet resistance

And at MinnPost:

Concerns about wind farms to be aired at Goodhue hearing

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Proponents and critics of proposed Goodhue County wind farm speak up

On KSTP – check the video!!!

Controversy brewing over wind mill farm

I’d guess there will be something in the News Record and the Beacon soon too…

In the STrib – info on capital funding for the Goodhue project and other National projects:

Deutsche Bank funding will give a push to local wind developer

National Wind will get help on 12 projects and a loan to expand.

By JENNIFER BJORHUS, Star Tribune

A Minneapolis-based wind developer is getting a lift from Deutsche Bank. The German investment bank will help finance 12 wind projects, including five slated for Minnesota, that National Wind has in various stages in the pipeline, National Wind said Thursday. The bank also gave the developer a senior secured loan for an undisclosed amount to finance an expansion to the West Coast and New England.

“We anticipate that Deutsche Bank will participate in financing those projects,” Leon Steinberg, National Wind’s chief executive, said in an interview Thursday.

The projects are still subject to underwriting, but it’s good news for the company at a time when many wind developers are struggling with tight financing.

Robert Martorano, managing director of Deutsche Bank’s asset finance and leasing group, said in a statement that Deutsche Bank is making renewable energy a priority.

National Wind, which employs about 42 people, develops relatively large wind farms with local land owners who maintain majority ownership when projects are done. It has sold three operational wind farms so far: one in Minnesota’s Cottonwood County and two in North Dakota. The 12 projects it is working on would generate 3,950 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power an estimated 1.6 million to 3.6 million homes, depending on weather and the sizes of the homes. The five slated for Minnesota would generate about 1,030 megawatts, or enough to power 412,000 to 927,000 homes.

National Wind made headlines in April with news that one of Texas oil magnate Boone Pickens’ companies is backing another National Wind project in the state, a 78-megawatt wind farm it’s developing around Goodhue, Minn., south of Red Wing. Pickens’ Mesa Power is helping finance that project and supplying about 52 1.5-megawatt GE wind turbines.

The state Public Utilities Commission has granted the Goodhue farm preliminary approval. A group called Goodhue Wind Truth has been opposing the project, which would span about 32,000 acres.

Today (well, really really late yesterday), Goodhue Wind Truth filed the testimony of Richard R. James, INCE, for Wednesday’s hearing over in Goodhue:

Direct Testimony – Richard R. James, INCE

A must read:

The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound

And this was published earlier this month:

Wind Turbine Noise – What Audiologists Should Know

To check out the rest of his exhibits, look at the PUC docket for the AWA Goodhue Wind project:

• www.puc.state.mn.us

• and then to “Search eDockets”

• and then search for docket 08-1233

Wednesday’s hearing is for both the Certificate of Need and Siting Permit for AWA Goodhue’s 78MW wind project in Goodhue County, west of the City of Goodhue, utilizing the Goodhue and Vasa substations.  This is the one that T.Boone Pickens is involved with, and they’re claiming it’s a C-BED project — but the AWA Goodhue LLC’s HQ is at 8117 Preston Road, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas, 75225.  Walker Clarke is the “organizer” and he’s in Houston.

Yup, sounds locally owned to me!