GWT files Testimony for 7/21 hearing
July 19th, 2010
Today (well, really really late yesterday), Goodhue Wind Truth filed the testimony of Richard R. James, INCE, for Wednesday’s hearing over in Goodhue:
A must read:
The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound
And this was published earlier this month:
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!
National Wind/AWA Goodhue PPAs ARE public record!
June 23rd, 2010
As seen on Hwy. 52 between the Zumbrota exits
Goodhue County is considering modifications of their wind ordinance, and have formed a committee to look at it with county planning staff.
And here is the draft ordinance, in pdf’d Track Changes:
Here is the report from the Rochester Post Bulletin:
First draft of Goodhue County’s new wind regulations proves unpopular
And from June 15th Beagle:
We were there to address specifics about proposed changes, and the discussion was wide ranging.
Ben Kerl, National Wind/AWA Goodhue (or whatever their name may be today!) made some astounding statements yesterday. He actually said, regarding Goodhue County’s ordinance proposal for wind projects, where they proposed to require a copy of the Power Purchase Agreement, to demonstrate it’s not a vaporware project, to help assure “they wouldn’t build an empty building,” and he had the audacity to say that he objected to this requirement, and that he’d have to check with Xcel to see if it could be disclosed. IF IT COULD BE DISCLOSED!!!
EXCUUUUUUUUSE MEEE?!?! It’s already public information (redacted a tad-bit), it’s already a public document:
The PPA provided in the PPA dockets would be sufficient to satisfy the county’s concerns.
That statement of Kerl’s was SO egregious I just couldn’t sit there and let it slide.
These PPAs above are from the Goodhue PPA dockets at the PUC. To review the full PPA dockets:
- Go to www.puc.state.mn.us; and
- Click on “search documents;” and
- Search for dockets 09-1348 and 09-1350 (they’re pretty much identical).
Oh, and we were discussing a Property Protection Plan as has been established in other jurisdictions, where the developer essentially guarantees that the property values will not be lower. Steve Groth raised that issue, and of course Ben Kerl objected, and thought it essentially a black hole of liability that would quash funding. I raised the “Buy the Farm” provision for transmission as something that is used in transmission to assure that if a landowner wants out, that they could do so.
CLICK HERE for Minn. Stat. 216E.12 — “Buy the Farm” and go down to Subd. 4.
There’s more, but that requires a little background work, so stay tuned. In the meantime…
Shame on you, Ben Kerl…
Goodhue Wind ain’t C-BED!
April 8th, 2010
Goodhue Wind is in the news, and the timing is perfect foreshadowing for next week’s PUC meeting.
In yesterday’s MinnPost:
T. Boone Pickens Tilting at Minnesota Windmills?
In today’s STrib:
Pickens wind turbines coming to Goodhue
In going through the THREE FOOT pile of mail waiting here when I got back, I’ve been reading the Dept. of Commerce Information Requests to Goodhue Wind, and I am pleasantly shocked, they are ON this. What is “this?” The basic financing and C-BED claims of this project — it’s been smoke and mirrors from day one, and Commerce is paying attention, digging for more information, and it’s impressive. MUST GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, particularly to Commerce!!!
THESE FILINGS ARE MUST READS!
Just in — here are the PUBLIC AWA/Goodhue’s responses to Commerce Information Requests. All of these below are the PUBLIC versions — I don’t see much to gain by reviewing the specifics because that’s pretty restrictive.
First, Dockets 09-1349l 09-1350 and 09-1186 (PPA & Certificate of Need):
Next, Docket 08-1233 (the siting docket)
Photo from the Country News – Does MOES’ Larry Hartman have a headache? Is he dreaming of retirement? He IS holding on to the microphone, word has it that people such as the speaker here, Dean Bungum, weren’t given the microphone to speak. It was standing room only for the MOES public meeting for the wind project going up on Dexter.
On March 4, Thursday, it was the same scene in Mazeppa for the Goodhue Wind Project… Oh, the AVA Goodhue Wind Project, the names have been changed to protect … nevermind. We don’t know why the name was changed. But there are new people involved. How does that change in ownership affect the already questioned C-BED status of this project?
They held the Goodhue meeting in Mazeppa? Why? Why not in Goodhue County? Why not at the Goodhue Lions Club? Why not at the Zumbrota school? Or the Legion on 58 in the middle of town…
There are some significant deadlines in the Goodhue Wind Project. Oh, first, to look up the dockets on PUC site:
CLICK HERE FOR PUC DOCKET SEARCH
Search for 09-1186 (Certificate of Need); 08-1233 (Siting) and 09-1349 & 09-1350 (Power Purchase Agmts)
IMPORTANT DATES:
March 15 – Comments in PPA Dockets on Xcel’s request for amendment – send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.
March 26 – Comments for scope of Environmental Report for Siting & Certificate of Need – send to larry.hartman@state.mn.us
March 29 – Reply Comments in PPA Dockets about others comments on Xcel’s request for amendment – send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.
Holler if questions!
STrib editorial on wind setbacks
January 20th, 2010
Oops, there goes a Suzlon…
Anyway, today the STrib has an editorial today about increasing setbacks — it’s a mixed bag — scroll way down below to read it. This concern of setbacks is ramping up and goes back to concerns raised over the years regarding individual projects as they wind their way through the permitting process. Now there is this PUC Docket that is coming to a head, based on a survey report commissioned by the Commission — they’re supposed to have a PUC meeting addressing this docket, maybe this month, but no word yet, don’t worry, I’ll post notice here (we know they’re not so hot on giving notice to non-wind industry interests in this docket):
To look at that docket, CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for docket 09-845.
This also comes at the time that Comments are due in the Goodhue Wind PPA docket. To look at that, go to CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for dockets 09-1349 and 09-1350. For the Certificate of Need docket for Goodhue Wind, see Docket 09-1186.
Yesterday (the comment deadline WAS yesterday) I filed this for Goodhue Wind Truth:
Then it turns out the PUC had filed another extension for MOES (seems they can’t meet a deadline these days, the EIS for CapX was also just delayed today too) and the deadline is now 2/12 for Comments and 2/22 for Reply Comments. GREAT! Another whack at the apple… Now’s your chance. You can eFile them at the PUC site, or mail in, take a look at the Comment above to get an idea how to do it.
Back to wind generally — This opinion piece was in the Republican Beagle a few days ago:
Study of wind project may blow you away
Let me share a few things I have learned since I read through this packet.
The property line setbacks are less stringent: 500 feet for a 400-foot tall wind turbine.
Here’s the response of Ann Occhiato, a landowner who lives in the proposed Greenvale project in Dakota County to the STrib editorial, below:
I am writing in response to today’s editorial on increased wind turbine setbacks. While the editorial highlights the critical need to increase setbacks to maintain wind’s momentum, it minimizes the reasons why setbacks are important in the first place.
There is, in fact, credible evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines can have a negative impact on health. The Minnesota Dept. of Health’s white paper on the Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines outlines this and recommends the cumulative affect of multiple turbines be taken into account when evaluating sound impacts, which is not currently done. There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence from homeowners living near turbines all over the world on the negative impacts to quality of life, health, safety, and property values. While the wind industry and proponents of wind like to point to studies that minimize these issues, numerous other studies show these impacts to be real.
The fact is there are serious issues related to wind farming that need to be addressed including setbacks, environmental regulation, property rights, health, safety, quality of life, and economic justice, among others. Industrial scale wind turbines clustered in “farms” can ruin neighborhoods and seriously alter the course of people’s lives. Belittling their concerns will not help the wind industry in Minnesota and it certainly does not make us a national leader.
As wind continues to spread these problems will only become more pronounced. Increased setbacks, pre-permitting site guidelines, community support and involvement, alternative modeling, and other solutions are necessary for the continued growth of the wind industry in Minnesota. Developers, public officials, legislators, and environmental groups have a responsibility to address these issues.
Ann Occhiato
Here’s the STrib’s editorial:
Editorial: Reconsider setbacks for wind turbines
Expand wind energy while respecting rural livability.
As the Star Tribune’s Tom Meersman reported last week, complaints about wind turbines are mounting, less on their merits than on their occasionally inappropriate locations. A family near Austin, for example, lives just across the road from a wind farm. One giant turbine, about 900 feet away, casts a flickering shadow over their 100-year-old farmhouse. There’s little they can do. State law allows commercial turbines as close as 500 feet from dwellings, although decibel restrictions typically stretch the actual distance to 700 to 1,000 feet. That’s still too close for a 400-foot turbine, especially if it’s not on your property.
Read the rest of this entry »