Legalectric

On Wednesday, Association of Freeborn County Landowners filed an appeal of the Public Utilities Commission’s denial of AFCL’s Petition for and Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It was mailed Certified Mail yesterday, as required by statute, and today, filed on the PUC’s eDockets:

The PUC really screwed this up, in so many ways. Granted there are few Petitions for EAW to the Commission, and Commission staff may not be familiar with EQB rules and process. However, in the only other Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet/EIS, they denied a Motion and then a Petition for EAW forwarded by the EQB, and it was sent back to the Commission by the Appellate Court:

In the Matter of Minnesota Power’s Petition for Approval of the EnergyForward Resource Package

Lesson not learned. We’ve been trying to get environmental review of wind projects for how long now, particularly given the demonstrable impacts, actual and constructive notice, beyond the “potential” for environmental impacts. Bent Tree noise excedences and landowner settlements? What more is needed?

Bent Tree Order filed by PUC

In the Staff Briefing Papers, which is staff’s recommendation to the Commission, over and over it was said that the Petition was insufficient because there were not 100 signatures, but there were 380+ signatures! In the Staff Briefing Papers, over and over it was said that the Commission could declare the Petition insufficient, when it is NOT the Commission’s job to address sufficiency, that was already determined by the Environmental Quality Board, which validated the Petition and forwarded it to the Commission for action! Read the Briefing Papers… really, it’s that absurd:

I fired off a letter requesting correction, which never happened:

And even after denying AFCL’s Petition, they went further, and provided “notice” in an email to the EQB that the Board had made its decision:

And that “notice” was published in the EQB Monitor on February 18, 2020:

And yet to this date, they’ve not filed an Order or the Record of Decision on this decision! WHAT?!?! Yes, really!!

I’d sent a letter to the EQB about the Commission’s failure to file the Order and Record of Decision nearly a month ago:

STILL NO ORDER OR RECORD OF DECISION. There are no Findings of Facts to explain, to support, the Commission’s decision. I guess it’s harder to make them up than staff thought?!?!

Meanwhile, the appeal deadline of a decision on an EAW Petition is 30 days after the notice is published in the EQB Monitor. Minn. Stat. 116D.04, Subd. 10. It’s kind of hard to Appeal a decision without the necessary documents, so I can guess that’s one more reason the Commission has chosen not to file! Oh well… ONWARD!

Prior posts on AFCL’s Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet:

Freeborn EAW – more time!

EQB forwards EAW Petition to PUC

Petition for EAW – Freeborn Wind

Transmission over Red Wing’s Westwood subdivision

In routing permitting using “Alternate Review” and in wind siting permitting under Minn. Stat. Chapter 216F, exempted from environmental review, the environmental review is inadequate.  An Environmental Impact Statement is necessary!  DOH!

Looking at Minnesota’s draft Rules for Transmission/Utility Infrastructure siting and routing, it’s clear that the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision remanding the Sandpiper pipeline case to the Public Utilities Commission has implications beyond Certificate of Need.

“Sandpiper” decision – OPa150016-091415

The Court’s bottom line was:

This was based on its holding that a Certificate of Need decision by the Public Utilities Commission was a “major governmental action.”

Because the decision to grant a certificate of need for a large oil pipeline constitutes a major governmental action that has the potential to cause significant environmental effects, we conclude that MEPA requires an environmental impact statement to be completed before a final decision is made to grant or deny a certificate of need.

Just as a Certificate of Need is a major governmental decision, a Siting Permit or a Routing Permit is a major governmental decision.  The Minnesota statute and rules provide for “Alternate Review” for siting and routing:

Alternate Review of Applications – Minn. Stat. 216E.04

And in this statute, there’s a subdivision authorizing an “environmental assessment.”

Subd. 5.Environmental review.

For the projects identified in subdivision 2 and following these procedures, the commissioner of the Department of Commerce shall prepare for the commission an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment shall contain information on the human and environmental impacts of the proposed project and other sites or routes identified by the commission and shall address mitigating measures for all of the sites or routes considered. The environmental assessment shall be the only state environmental review document required to be prepared on the project.

Throughout this rulemaking, a number of us participating have been stressing that this “environmental assessment” does not comply with MEPA.  Under the logic of the “Sandpiper” decision – OPa150016-091415, the Court would agree.

Yet here are the draft rules for Siting and Routing — search for “environmental assessment” in the draft:

August 3 2015 Draft Minn. R. Ch. 7850 (Siting & Routing)

And Certificate of Need draft rules:

August 3 2015 Draft Minn. R. Ch. 7849 (Certificate of Need)

And regarding wind permits, also a major governmental decision, these are statutorily exempted from environmental review by exempting it from PPSA – Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 5 “Environmental Review.”

216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.

(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.

Wind siting permits are exempt from environmental review?  Public Utilities Commission issuance of wind project siting permits is a major governmental action.  Nope, not compliant with MEPA.

If you’re interested in going to the Minnesota Environmental Congress, register NOW — and I sure hope that many of those who went to the meetings around the state follow through and keep demanding change!

2013 Minnesota Environmental Congress

Friday, March 15, 2013 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Registration Questions:
Catherine Dubbe
GTS Educational Events
cdubbe@mngts.org

This was originally INVITATION ONLY!  Can you believe it!  Yours truly didn’t make the cut, I can’t imagine why… and now, it’s thrown open to any ol’ body, so I guess that means us.

REGISTER HERE

And the AGENDA for Friday.

For those of you who went to the meetings, or are curious about what happened, here are the reports:

Environmental Congress Citizen Forums

Suffice it to say, the standing room only attendance at all of the sessions was a surprise to the organizers.  The people of Minnesota are more than a little upset about the state’s failure to protect Minnesota’s environment.

It struck me as hilarious that on the opening page, they cite the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act:

Minnesota law directs the EQB to host an annual Environmental Congress. Read MN Statute Ch. 116C Sec. 04 to learn more about the statutory role of the EQB.

Now’s the time to keep that message hammering home…  Best read both the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.