Legalectric

Notice of the Power Plant Siting and Transmission Line Routing Program Annual Hearing

Issued: November 6, 2015

In the Matter of the 2015 Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing

Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Docket Number: E999/M-15-785

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Docket Number: 60-2500-32901

Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Location: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, Saint Paul, MN 55101

Bad weather? Find out if a meeting is canceled. Call (toll-free) 1-855-731-6208 or 651-201-2213 or visit mn.gov/puc

Hearing Description

The annual hearing is required by Minnesota Statute § 216E.07, which provides that:

Thecommission shall hold an annual public hearing at a time and place prescribed by rule in order to afford interested persons an opportunity to be heard regarding any matters relating to the siting of large electric generating power plants and routing of high-voltage transmission lines. At the meeting, the commission shall advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year….

Note – No decisions about specific projects are made at the annual hearing.

Public Hearing Information

• Public hearings start on time.
• Arrive a few minutes early so you have time to sign in, pick up materials, and find a seat.
• Administrative Law Judge James LaFave will preside over the hearing.
• Public Utilities Commission and Department of Commerce staff members are available to answer questions about the Power Plant Siting Act processes and the projects.
• You may add verbal comments, written comments, or both into the record.
• Learn more about participating at a public hearing at http://mn.gov/puc/resources/meetings-and-hearings.jsp
• Judge LaFave will use information gathered at the public hearing and during the comment period to write a summary report for the Commission

Submit Comments

Topics for Public Comment:

• Any matters related to the site permit process for large electric generating power plants and routing of high-voltage transmission lines.

Comment Period: November 6, 2015 through January 5, 2016 at 4:30pm.

• Comments must be received by 4:30pm on the close date
• Comments received after comment period closes may not be considered

Online Visit mn.gov/puc, select Speak Up!, find this docket (15-785), and add your comments to the discussion.

If you wish to include an exhibit, map or other attachment, please send your comments via eFiling (see below) or U.S. Mail.

Please include the Commission’s docket number in all communications.

Filing Requirements: Utilities and state agencies are required to file documents using the Commission’s electronic filing system (eFiling). All parties, participants and interested persons are encouraged to use eFiling: mn.gov/puc, select eFiling, and follow the prompts.

Important Comments will be made available to the public via the Public Utilities Commission’s website, except in limited circumstances consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The Commission does not edit or delete personal identifying information from submissions.

Hearing Agenda

I. Introductions
II.Overview of Programs
A. Public Utilities Commission – Facilities Permitting and Public Advisor
B. Department of Commerce – Energy Facilities Permitting Unit
C. Role of Other Agencies
III. Projects Reviewed
A. Projects Permitted in 2015
B. Pending and Anticipated Projects
C. Electric Facilities Subject to Power Plant Siting Act
1. Generating Plants
2. Transmission Lines
IV. Public Questions and Testimony
V. Adjourn

How to Learn More

Subscribe to the Docket: Subscribe to receive email notifications when new documents are filed. Note – subscribing may result in a large number of emails.

1. mn.gov/puc
2. Select Subscribe to a Docket
3. Type your email address
4. For Type of Subscription, select Docket Number
5. For Docket Number, select 15 in the first box, type 785 in the second box
6. Select Add to List
7. Select Save

Full Case Record: See all documents filed in this docket via the Commission’s website – mn.gov/puc, select Search eDockets, enter the year (15) and the docket number (785), select Search.

Project Mailing Lists: Sign up to receive notices and opportunities to participate in other dockets relating to specific projects in which you are interested (meetings, comment periods, etc.). Contact docketing.puc@state.mn.us or 651-201-2234 with the docket number, your name, mailing address and email address.

Minnesota Statutes and Rules: The hearing is being conducted according to Minnesota Statute 216E.07. Minnesota Statutes are available at www.revisor.mn.gov.

Project Contacts

Public Utilities Commission Public Advisor

Tracy Smetana – consumer.puc@state.mn.us, 651-296-0406 or 1-800-657-3782

Hot off the press,here at the Plains & Eastern EIS site!

Appendix Q contains the Comments and responses to those Comments:

EIS-0486: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume VII)

EIS-0486: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume VIII, File 1)

EIS-0486: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume VIII, File 2)

Here’s a very problematic statement from the intro letter:

Based on the information presented in the Final EIS, DOE has identified participation in the Project as its preferred alternative in the Final EIS.

Why?  Most improper in that the EIS is not supposed about a “preferred alternative,” which goes too far towards bias of a supposedly neutral party.  It’s pretty basic — the purpose of an EIS is to inform the record, and the decision makers, of the IMPACTS.  It is not a decisional document, it is not the basis for a recommendation.  Add to that the lack of a thorough evaluation of need, which, particularly in this case, is to be the deciding factor.  A project of this magnitude doesn’t go forward just because, or because the developers want it.  That’s not enough.  It’s about need.  If you search the Table of Contents, there is only one mention of “need” in the intro, talking about the “need” for an EIS, and there is one section in the text, entitled “Department of Energy Purpose and Need.”  There doesn’t seem to be any evaluation of need for the P-R-O-J-E-C-T!

Here ’tis:

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project

And HERE’S a nearly verbatim cut and paste of their email, release of yet another FEIS from the Department of Energy:

Plains & Eastern EIS You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive information and updates about the Plains & Eastern EIS. Thank you for your interest in this project. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project is now available The Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0486; Final EIS) is available on the project website at http://www.plainsandeasterneis.com/interactive-map/maps-and-documents.html and on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) website at http://energy.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statements-eis. DOE has not made a decision regarding the proposed Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project. DOE is the lead federal agency for the preparation of the Final EIS, which examines the potential environmental impacts from the Applicant Proposed Project and the range of reasonable alternatives. The Applicant is Clean Line Energy Partners LLC of Houston, Texas, the parent company of Plains and Eastern Clean Line LLC and Plains and Eastern Clean Line Oklahoma LLC (collectively referred to as Clean Line or the Applicant). The Final EIS considers comments submitted on the Draft EIS, including those submitted during the public comment period that began on December 19, 2014, and ended on April 20, 2015. Late comments have been considered to the extent practicable. During the comment period, DOE held 15 public hearings in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Approximately 950 comment documents were received from individuals, interested groups, tribal governments, and federal, state, and local agencies. In addition to numerous comments that provided a statement of general opposition or support, the primary topics raised include, but are not limited to: concern about electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line; concern about reductions in property value; concern about impacts to agricultural resources such as crop production, irrigation, and aerial spraying; concern about the use of eminent domain; and concern about visual impacts from the transmission line. A Comment Response Document, included as Appendix Q of the Final EIS, contains the comments received on the Draft EIS and DOE’s responses to these comments. Parallel with the NEPA process, DOE is evaluating Clean Line’s application under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This non-NEPA evaluation includes, but is not limited to, reviewing the application against statutory criteria and other factors listed in the 2010 request for proposals (75 Federal Register 32940). An outcome of this evaluation could be a Participation Agreement between Clean Line and DOE, which would define under what conditions DOE would participate with Clean Line and, if applicable, would include any stipulations or requirements that resulted from this environmental review under NEPA. The DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability website (http://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222-0) provides more information about the Section 1222 evaluation. If DOE decides to participate in the proposed Project, it will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Copies of the Final EIS and supporting documents are available for inspection at public reading rooms. Have questions? Email us at info@PlainsandEasternEIS.com

Xcel’s cost of electricity is down.  Yet they want more money from us, 9.8% over the next 3 years, with the average residential customer’s 675 kW/hr bill to go up $11 a month.  WHAT?

Meanwhile, last year at the legislature, the biggest of the big customers got a special rate category and special lower rates.  WHAT?

The above graph is from Chuck Burdick’s testimony — after dealing with him in the Goodhue Wind case, I couldn’t resist checking out his testimony (Application, 2A2 – MYRP).

So if Xcel Energy was authorized a certain ROE, and only earned a much lesser ROE, does that mean we should make up the difference?  Also from Burdick’s testimony:

Were this “free market” the response would be that the company should contract, that there are too many cooks in that kitchen, that the capital expenses not for our use, such as this big transmission build-out, should not occur, and we should not have to pay for them.

Let’s take a look at the drivers, where they’re running short — do we want to pay for this?  From the Application 1:

The initial filing in this new rate case is there for the reading, dig in, I’m sure there’s something you’ll enjoy.

Just go HERE TO PUC’S SEARCH DOCKETS PAGE and search for PUC docket 15-826, opened today.

In the STrib today:

Xcel seeks 9.8 percent rate hike in Minnesota over three years

Hot off the press, just filed:

Menahga_Comment of Andersen_FINAL

Overland_Andersen_Comment_FINAL

Whew, now back on the road!

Others filed today:

Comments_GRE-MP_201511-115396-01

DOT Comments_201511-115379-01

DNR Comments_201511-115391-01

Red Wing City Council meeting last night voted to reconsider the most recent passage of Resolution 6873, which is supporting the National Fraternal Order of Police to request “[t]o expand the Federal hate crimes law to protect police…”  GOOD!  It will go to the Human Rights Commission for discussion.

It was passed that the meeting prior with almost zero discussion (except for a procedural sidebar about Resolution v. Proclamation!):

Listen to the Council’s discussion of 9/28/2015 HERE — video at 1:05 – 1:11

9B_-_Attachment_Sept 28 2015

FYI, assault of a police officer is a FELONY in Minnesota.  See Minn. Stat. 609.2231.

My concern was first raised listening to the Police Chief introducing it, when he spoke of the State Fair Black Lives Matter protest and hostile statements there, and statements in the cover sheet for resolution, that “The United States has seen an increase of hostility toward law enforcement over the past two years.” and “at a time when law enforcement is the target of criticism and violent attacks…”  … sigh… and it was a clear diversion from very pressing issues regarding police behavior and accountability.  What’s the need for this?  If a Black Lives Matter demonstration is used as basis for a resolution of this sort, if claims of “hostility” and “criticism” are the basis… no, this is a defensive maneuver, a step in the wrong direction, and shifting the focus from dealing with police abuse of power.

Phony basis?  Yup.  It’s about attacks on police officers?  Fact check!  Check out the details of officers who died on duty, search by year on the Officer Down web page.

And though 98 or 99 officers have died on duty, and 29 were indeed killed by gunfire, there is no indication of the number that would have the targeted premeditation required of a hate crime. Those are very few, and all are front page news triggering manhunts and fast arrests. The next highest category is “Automobile Accident” at 23 (not including 3 motorcycle accident and 1 aircraft accident), arguably 27 vehicular accidents. Next highest category, 16 died of heart attack on the job. Next is a tie with 5 each for 9/11 related illness and 5 struck by vehicle. This is not an unusual uptic.  The only thing unusual is that there’s a wave of public sentiment that police need to be held accountable.

In the first meeting where this came up, on the 28th, the intro part referring to the “Black Lives Matter” protest at the State Fair (also referred to by Peggy Rehder yesterday), and the written background cover sheet refers to “an increase of hostility toward law enforcement over the past two years” and “At a time when law enforcement is the target of criticism and violent attacks…” which are red warning flags that the NFOP agenda here is to uprate the hype when in fact police deaths are at lower levels, and where targeted killings are very few, and conversely, police being murdered are far fewer than the systemic pattern of police murders “over the past two years” that generates the demands for accountability and “an increase in hostility.” I’m glad they’re revisiting, since I’ve done the research and now will be able to put my thoughts together (this last week was a busy week) for the next meeting. This NFOP agenda is disturbing.  Police are trained in response, de-escalation, and use of deadly force (how, if, and when).  They’re held to a high standard, yet uncalled for and unlawful killings are rampant. Accountability is necessary, not a dodge and weave ducking of responsibility, liability, and resistance to change.

Listen to the Council’s discussion of 10/12/2015 HERE!  Video from 54 – ~115

And a few snippets (NOT a transcript!):

Lisa Bayley eloquently explained her concerns, and that the Council was to discuss specifically whether it was appropriate to take it up, and there was no discussion about it, and that must be done.  She said it should be referred to the Human Rights Commission.  And she noted that we already have laws in place, and thinks it paints a broad brush over something that’s very complicated.  It was given to us, was written for us, by an outside group, and she’d like to see us come up with something specific to our situation.  And so makes a Motion for Reconsideration.

Dean Hove seconded the Motion, with the same concerns, and thinks it should go to the Human Rights Commission.

Peggy Rehder would be opposed to having any discussion at Human Rights Commission without the Chief present at that meeting (that was resolved, would go on agenda at following meeting).  She’s looked at the Police Department facebook page, and she looked at who was commenting and “some of them were pretty interesting felons that don’t like what we’re proposing to do.”  (She knew they were felons how?  Someone with access looking them up for her?)  “The comments that I picked up, all of this stuff about piggies, and all of those kinds of things, I don’t think it was a huge deal for the National Order of Police to ask our police to do this, and for the FOP to ask the Chief to bring it forward, because I’m certainly not seeing… the people that I can identify just obviously don’t like the police, this isn’t going to change that one way or another.

Dean Hove – Supports Motion to Reconsider.  Would like to slow down and look at the last sentence at the bottom.  I don’t think anyone here doesn’t support the police… the wording on that last sentence is something that we really need to reconsider.

Peggy Rehder wants to know what sentence, Lisa Bayley wants to revisit that last sentence, the part about the hate crimes statute what it means.

Dan Munson wants to review that as well…

Peggy Rehder wants to know if it’s just that part, or if we’re going to rewrite the entire document.  I won’t support it if we’re going to go beyond that.  Wants to table that next resolution then, don’t want to not have any real positive thing, if we’re in agreement on that, then I can support it.  I’ve been amazed to see how many people are proud that we’re doing this, not bashing the police.

Dean Hove — I’ve reread it several times, we need to talk about that last sentence.

Ralph Rauterkraus – wants Human Rights Commission, and not just send it bac, but to encourage them to engage public dialog and public forums, these are issues that people feel emotional about, and I want to encourage them to speak out on that.

Roger Pohlman, Police Chief – “misperceptions” – some comments he’s seen on Facebook, wants to clarify some things.  Thought about how litigated and how much law enforcement has so much more than any other… all dictate rulings and trainings.  So many things that our department implement, that are not being considered.  Law enforcement believes that all life is valuable, and we look forward to working with all groups to help end the needless loss of life…  But I believe the end result must be that the needless killing on all groups comes to an end.

Dean Hove: That last statement is your best statement, that all killing needs to come to an end.  That is the biggest issue we have in this country as far as I’m concerned…

(Jason Sebion didn’t say a word, not unusual, but he seconded the Motion to approve it on the 28th!).

Voted unanimously to reconsider.  And at that time, they tabled a Motion (9B) to encourage our state Senator and Representatives to also lobby for “hate crime” status.

9B_-_Attachment_Oct12 2015

Here’s the full report in the Red Wing Republican bEagle:

Council pushes rewind button on resolution

By Danielle Killey Today at 8:00 a.m.

A single sentence in a resolution supporting law enforcement has brought significant attention to Red Wing and led City Council members to take a step back, calling for more discussion.