Legalectric

Dodge County Concerned Citizens asked me to do an information presentation on NextEra’s Dodge County Wind project, which was recently applied for at the Public Utilities Commission.  Here’s my presentation:

Turbine and Transmission Neighbors?

Completeness comments are due August 10, 2018, with reply comments due August 17, 2018.

20187-144854-01_PUC Notice_Completeness Comments_ALL dockets

How to file?

Here’s a form you could use for guidance — yes, its a test, and an essay test at that.  Your original words are what count, because you know your community best, what impacts on the ground might be.  You can best identify the material issues.

To the Public Utilities Commission_Sample Comment

It was interesting that Beth Soholt, is concerned enough to show up on a Saturday morning!  She’s the ED of wind industry association Wind on the Wires (f/k/a program of Izaak Walton League Midwest until Bill Grant was appointed Deputy Commissioner – Energy – Dept. of Commerce)   But her being there was not much of a surprise, because NextEra’s Julie Voeck is Chair of the WOW Board.  And don’t forget that PUC Commissioner Matt Schuerger’s “Energy Systems Consulting Services” was a primary recipient of Waltons/WOW consulting funds.  As we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.”

Can’t find a Dodge County Wind, LLC website (it is a Delaware LLC registered with Minnesota Secretary of State), and NextEra has nothing on its website about the LLC, nor about the Dodge County project, that I can find, ALL Press Releases are about MONEY, not a one about “Dodge County.”  There is a separate transmission page with “project info” but no project specific info there either.

This project was really difficult to dig through, because there are THREE dockets: Certificate of Need (17-306); Wind Siting (17-307); and Transmission Routing (17-308).  WHEW!  This would be overwhelming to anyone, and to try to explain what’s proposed, the process (UGH!), and issues, that’s a couple of books… whether fiction or non-fiction remains to be determined.

Post Bulletin – Proposed Dodge County wind farm raises questions

KTTC – Dodge County Concerned Citizens holds informational meeting on proposed wind turbine project

KIMT – Wind project proposed in Dodge County

This project has been brewing for a while, because there’s a Certificate of Need requirement of a Notice Plan before anything is applied for, and then notice goes out as laid out in the Notice Plan.

20186-144410-04_Order_Approval of Notice Plan

I’m on the general service list for all projects, pretty much everything, so I have an idea what’s new and exciting at the PUC, but it’s pretty hard to track it all.  For this project, the initial “notice” filings for 17-306 (Certificate of Need) & 17-308 (345kV transmission line) were in April, 2017, and the transmission route app and wind site permit app were not filed until 6/29.  The wind site permit is most significant in terms of cost and geographic spread, and nothing was filed until June 29, 2018, less than a month ago.  The wind site permit filings contain an affidavit of mailing of notice but NO ADDRESSES, and the transmission affidavit of mailing of notice DOES have addresses.  Why are no addresses included?

Three dockets, all those filings, at least 1,000 pages, and I confess haven’t read all of it! What jumps out at me is that this is another scattered site project, with a large footprint. It’s a 170MW project, not unusual in that way, but the turbines proposed are 2.5 MW turbines.  That’s BIG!  The reported hub height is 291 feet, and from ground to tip of blade, 485.5 feet.  That’s BIG!

How to look at the dockets:

So now, quick because Completeness Comments are due, it’s time for people to take a look at this project, what’s proposed for the wind project, the big honkin’ transmission line, and whether all this is needed.

Oh, and about that big honkin’ transmission line, here’s a cut and paste from their application:

Characterizing this bundled 345kV line as “generation inter-tie?”  Oh, please…

YES!!!  On to federal court!!!  I love it when this happens!  Downwind and Golden Bridge have sued the Department of Energy (DOE) and Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA)!  Here’s a copy of the Complaint, give it a read:

Downwind, LLC & GoldenBridge LLC-v-DOE & SWPA – Case 3:16-cv-00207

Here’s the bottom line, what they’re asking for:

It’s focused on the DOE and Clean Line’s most vulnerable issues, those of improper potential use of eminent domain for private purpose and private company, and, as David Ulery says:

“Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE’s review of Clean Line’s application,” he said. “An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level.”

Clean Line and the DOE were asked, demanded, expected, to provide due process, and nope, nada, not the most basic opportunities to participate.  Seems they’ve never heard of due process — how dare they!  From June, 2015, here are multiple filings demanding due process:

BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line docket filings

Here’s the first of articles to appear about the federal suit:

Opponents sue to block Clean Line project

By John LyonArkansas News Bureaujlyon@arkansasnews.com

LITTLE ROCK — Opponents of a planned transmission line across Arkansas and parts of Oklahoma and Tennessee said Friday they have filed a federal lawsuit objecting to the U.S. Department of Energy’s participation in the project.

Golden Bridge and Downwind, two organizations representing landowners who oppose the Plains & Eastern Clean Line project, said they filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Little Rock. The suit was not available on the court’s website Monday evening, and the groups did not immediately provide a copy to the Arkansas News Bureau.

According to a news release, the suit challenges the legality of the Department of Energy’s decision to participate in the project under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, which allows the agency to partner with private companies on some energy infrastructure projects.

“While understanding the importance of infrastructure in the production, transmission and distribution of electrical energy, the landowner-managed organization is concerned with the federal government’s legal authority, and the scope and manner of its proposed participation in transmission projects pursuant to Section 1222,” Downwind said in the release.

“There are lingering doubts about the substance and merits of the department’s determination in this project, with particular concern relating to the potential use of federal eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit of a private, for-profit company,” the organization said.

The suit also alleges that landowners should have had more ability to participate in the department’s review of the application for the project by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston, according to Dave Ulery of Golden Bridge.

“Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE’s review of Clean Line’s application,” he said. “An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level.”

Clean Line Energy Partners Executive Vice President Mario Hurtado said Monday he had not seen the suit and could not comment on it specifically.

Hurtado said in a statement, “It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects. In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

The $2 billion transmission line is expected to transmit 4,000 megawatts of wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle to distribution centers in Arkansas and Tennessee, with Arkansas receiving 500 megawatts of that energy. Arkansas’ congressional delegation opposes the project, and Rep. Steve Womack, R-Rogers, has filed a bill to kill it.

Womack’s bill cleared the House Natural Resources Committee in June.

It’s final… that is, the FINAL meeting notice was just issued, one more go round on these draft rules for Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Power Plant Siting Act (siting and routing of utility infrastructure) (Minn. R. Ch. 7850).

We’ve been at this for about a year and a half, maybe more, and to some extent we’re going round and round and round.

Here are the September 2014 drafts, hot off the press:

September Draft 7849

September Draft 7850

Send your comments, meaning SPECIFIC comments, not “THIS SUCKS” but comments on the order of “because of _______, proposed language for 7950.xxxx should be amended to say_______.”  It’s a bit of work, but it’s important, for instance, the Advisory Task Force parts are important because we were just before the PUC on this last week, trying to reinforce that Task Force’s are necessary, despite Commerce efforts to eliminate and/or neuter them.  That despite ALJ orders otherwise, the Final EIS should be in the record BEFORE the Public Hearings and Evidentiary Hearings (just lost a Motion to require this last month).

How can you comment?  The best way is to fire off an email to the Commission’s staff person leading this group:

kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

If you’re up to it, sign up on the PUC’s eDockets, and file your Comment in Docket 12-1246.  If you’d like your comment filed there, and can’t figure it out, please send it to me and I’ll file it for you.  It’s important that these comments be made in a way that the Commission will SEE, in a way that they cannot ignore, when this comes up before them.

The Public Utilities Commission has been trying to get information out of “New Era Wind Farm, LLC” about the Goodhue Wind Project.  Search Legalectric for “Goodhue” and you’ll find a LOT about it.

Here are the latest PUC Information Requests:

PUC’s Information Request, October 11, 2012

And today, Peter Mastic … hmmmmmm… in the summer, would we call him “Tan Mastic” and is that the key to how he it all holds together?

Anyway, Peter Mastic filed responses last week, probably from his new Goodhue, Minnesota office…

… and the PUC eFiled them today:

New Era Response to PUC Information Requests – Nov 19 2012

Some of the responses are VERRRRRRRRRRY INTERESTING…

Here’s the final response and the most interesting one, raising Force d’ Manure (click for larger view, or download the info request responses and scroll down to the end):

December, 2011, that’s when Trishe Wind bought National Wind, and Trishe didn’t take on the Goodhue Wind project, wanted nothing to do with it.  So when exactly did that happen?  Likely in December, 2011, when Trishe Wind bought National Wind, and if so, well, that was nearly a year ago.  We’d just found out about Trishe in what, September?  And we find out about this Force de Manure notice now and the notice was given to Xcel Energy last December?  Ummmmm… I’d think this is something the Commission should have received notice on… and the public too, of course.

I’m going to print these out and read them as I make some bread — the oven’s fixed now and I’m not about to start buying bread anytime soon!

And for those looking to remove Mastic, here’s just the folks to do it:

Flooring Authority, Inc – Surface Preparation

They note that “When flooring is removed often there is one or many layers of “sticky stuff” aka…mastic, that needs to be removed.  Complete floor mastic removal is always best.”  Mastic removal?  OK, let’s get to it!

.

Yes, and it’s about time — Concerned River Valley Citizens, who fought the Chisago Transmission Project for over a decade, have intervened in the Lent Township and Chisago County proceedings about this project.

Lent Township and Chisago County are negotiating a “development agreement” and as it comes together, WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT, a lot of important issues are being decided that these local governments have no business or authority to decide without public input.  Lighting is within a township’s zoning jurisdiction, but light pollution, which will certainly be an issue, is also an issue for the PUC.   Noise is an issue for the ownship, but it is also under jurisdiction (with too loose standards) of the MPCA.  There will be an air permit, and I sure hope that puts limits on fuel oil use.  Any development agreement presumes that the plant will be built, and that’s not a presumption CRVC is comfortable with.

There are too many unanswered questions.  Where is the need for this plant?  Xcel’s not about to be buying any electricity from them anytime soon, and LS Power was shown the door.  What is proposed?  LS Power can’t/won’t even tell state regulators with any specificity, and they’ve been told go away until they’ve got something solid.

What are they proposing?  Hard to tell…  there’s no application to the PUC yet, which is another reason all this “pre-application” dealing with local governments is a problem.  They’re doing deals with local governments before it’s at all clear what’s proposed, and without knowing what’s proposed, so how can any agreements be made?  Who in the township or county has any experience with big natural gas plants and associated infrastructure like gas pipelines, water pipelines, transmission… well, some in Chisago County have a lot of transmission expertise!   We do know some things from public documents, i.e., the MISO interconnection queue documents say 855MW gas with fuel oil back up, the legislation passed, again, without public notice or input, specifies no more than 780MW Summer Capacity, and a recent LS Power presentation:

September 2009 – LS Power – Sunrise River Energy Station

The problem is that the local governments are making agreements, which include concessions and plans, without public input, and by making these agreements, they implicitly approve this project, with some conditions, which means that LS Power can move this project towards reality without the input necessary to thoroughly vet the application.  Who is Chisago County to make an agreement regarding water use when it’s also an issue within DNR jurisdiction?  They tried to pass the utility personal property tax exemption legislation without even letting local governments know the revenue impacts and how utility personal property tax Host Fee Agreements work, or that they even exist… so the question — who is protecting the public interest in all of these agreements?  Hence the CRVC intervention.

And just for the record, in one of the articles they quoted an LS Power rep as saying the only emission is steam.  WHAT??!!!???   Let’s see what your air permit application says… duh… let’s have a look at NOx… How stupid do they think we are?  STEAM?!?!?  Yeah, like the Prairie Island plant is a “steam plant.”

Here’s CRVC’s Lent Township Intervention:

Notice of Intervention – Cover

Intervention – Town of Lent

Exhibit A – MISO G135 Feasibility Study

Exhibit B – MISO Transition – Fasibility Analysis Posting G901-G999Exhibit C – June 16 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

Exhibit C – June 16 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

Exhibit D – July 30 – Hundreds attend meeting to learn about power plant

Exhibit E – February 17 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit F – May 19 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit G – April 21 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit H – July 21 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit I – August 18 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

And here’s CRVC’s Chisago County Intervention:

Intervention – Chisago County

Exhibit A – MISO G135 Feasibility Study

Exhibit B – MISO Transition – Feasibility Analysis Posting G901-999

Exhibit C – April 15 Official Proceedings

Exhibit D – County Attorney Correspondence

Exhibit E – Memo Chisago Co Environmental Services & Zoning

Exhibit F – Letter – Sunrise River June 30

Exhibit G – National Park Service Letter July 29

Exhibit H – Chisago Co Water Plan Policy Team Minutes August 10

Exhibit I – Technical Memo – Barr Engineering – Test Well 1 Geology and Well Summary

Exhibit J – Water Team Recommendation of EIS August 11

Exhibit K – Chisago Co Board Minutes August 19

Exhibit L – September 2 Official Proceedings

Exhibit M – Lent Land Use Regulation – Chapter 1