Legalectric

The judge’s Order arrived, and it’s disappointing, to put it mildly.

The judge’s decision focused on the belief that these matters had been litigated in another forum, so we couldn’t do it again. Litigated? Intervention is not necessarily litigation, though certainly AFCL intervened in the Freeborn Wind docket, and certainly did not in the Plum Creek, Three Waters or Buffalo Ridge dockets. And in this District Court proceeding, Lisa Agrimonti let me know that another attorney would be lead in this case, that their firm was putting a “litigator” on it. Hmmmm, Agrimonti’s not a litigator, and put Alethea Huyser on the job, so the firm admits that what we, Freeborn Wind and AFCL, were doing in those dockets was not litigation, right, I get it… uh-huh… sigh…

How do we deal with these systemic problems in wind siting? 25 years and still no rules? Setbacks aren’t sufficient to prevent noise standard violations and people need to leave their homes to be able to sleep, so far two families reached settlements and buyouts to get away from noisy turbines. Wind projects pay out for blinds so people can sit in the dark, or suggest going to Florida, to avoid shadow flicker inflicted on them. At the PPSA Annual Hearing last week, the DOT said it wants the 250 foot setback from roads reevaluated. The Public Utilities Commission has actual and constructive notice of these problems for years, yet nothing happens…

Let’s see… rulemaking Petitions denied over and over. The only time we’ve had a contested case, the judge recommended denial because developer had not demonstrated compliance with noise standard, and recommended a lower number of hours as “acceptable” for shadow flicker.

Once more with feeling — the ONLY time, the FIRST time, in Minnesota history where there was a contested case on a wind siting permit, the only time it could arguably be said the issues were “litigated,” the ALJ recommended that the permit be denied!

WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or…

May 14th, 2018

The PUC turned that around in a private settlement with the developer, excluding intervenors.

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation

September 21st, 2018

Now what… How many more complaints, how many more landowner settlements, before they fix this mess?

What’s the point of intervening, becoming a party? What’s the point of raising issues at the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing (for 23 years)? What’s the point of over and over raising the systemic problems in the PUC’s wind siting? How do we work “within the system” when the system is broken?

Lot of filings in preparation for the first hearing on Association of Freeborn County Landowners’ MERA suit against the PUC. At this time next week, it’s off to the races!

First, the Motions to Dismiss:

PUC Filings – Motion to Dismiss:

NSP and Plum Creek Wind Filings – Motion to Dismiss

Buffalo Ridge and Three Waters Wind Projects’ Filings – Motion to Dismiss

AFCL Response to Defendant and Defendant Intervenors Motions to Dismiss

Next, Motion for Temporary Injunction:

PUC Filings re: Injunction

NSP – Plum Creek Filings re: Injunction

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.