Legalectric

Just filed… Walleye Neighbors in Minnesota and South Dakota Comments on the Walleye Wind Draft Site Permit. Now it’s time for a nap!

… sigh… Totally ignores ALJ Recommendation after contested case hearing, setting up the issues that followed:

A new noise study not provided until AFTER the initial permit was granted, there was NO demonstration that they could comply, and what they provided after the first permit granted, and before the second decision, was NOT subject to a contested case. Earth to Mars, it’s “material issues of FACT,” not “issues” that must be demonstrated to get a contested case, and these are thousands of pages of facts not in evidence and not subject to contested case.

This is just so wrong, an application is NOT environmental review:

And this — how could issues and facts NOT part of the contested case have been addressed in the contested case?

New material issues of FACTS – FACTS not in existence for initial contested case, FACTS not provided until AFTER the initial permit was granted. “…relator therefore alleges no new material facts beyond those raised at the first contested-case hearing.” WHAT?!?!

How’s this for new material FACT beyond those raised at the first contested-case hearing:

How many hundred pages of NEW material FACTS? All this was part of PUC record, AFTER the first permit was issued. All this was included as new material issues of fact in our request for a second contested case. All this was included in appeal. Yet:

“As to these issues, relator therefore alleges no new material facts beyond those raised at the first contested-case hearing.”

My head is going to explode. Such deceptive word games, summarized with a demonstrably false statement.

An odd notice came out today — an extension of the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing comment period, “due to late-filed materials…”

Late filed materials??? Whatever could that be… SNORT!

Naaaah, more likely than not it’s the Comments I’ve filed in all the related wind dockets, plus the PPSA dockets, regarding “ground factor” an inappropriate use of anything but 0.0 as a ground factor:

That’s all about the many wind projects that are improperly using 0.5 and 0.7 ground factor. 0.0 is the only ground factor because the turbine is elevated, and from the source to the “receptor” it is a DIRECT hit! It’s really not hard to understand.

There are so many projects, ALL of the wind projects listed in this year’s Commerce-EERA handout for the PPSA:

These projects were all permitted using bogus noise modeling with GIGO input assumption of 0.5 or even 0.7 for ground factor!!! REALLY! These:

And these:

Guess somebody is wanting time to rebut! May it means we need a contested case, eh?!?! SNORT!

But then, even developer’s expert Mike Hankard agrees that 0.5 is not appropriate for an elevated source like a wind turbine:

It’ll be interesting to see what they have to say.

To look at the PPSA Annual Hearing docket go HERE and enter docket 19-18, using 19 (year number)- 18 (docket number).

This is really important! I learned, after perusing the PPSA handout from Commerce, that none of the wind projects permitted in 2019, and none of the wind projects currently in the permitting process, are using the proper ground factor of 0.0 for noise modeling. WHAT?

So I put this comment together and filed it:

Needless to say, the PUC had something to say about that… they extended the comment period for the PPSA Annual Hearing!