AFCL appeals PUC denial of EAW Petition
March 20th, 2020
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
Routing Alternate Review — Environmental Assessment isn’t enough
September 23rd, 2015
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.
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.”
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:
And in this statute, there’s a subdivision authorizing an “environmental assessment.”
Subd. 5.Environmental review.
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:
And Certificate of Need draft rules:
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.
MN Environmental Congress – register NOW!
March 12th, 2013
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
2300 East American Boulevard
Bloomington, MN 55425
952-854-3411
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.
And the AGENDA for Friday.
For those of you who went to the meetings, or are curious about what happened, here are the reports:
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.
EQB “Streamlining” Comments Due!
January 14th, 2013
This “streamlining” of environmental review marches onward.
COMMENTS ARE DUE TOMORROW!
I’d guess that the Gov. got an earful of what the people thought of his idea to … well… to… see E.O. 11-32, with an apparent intent to gut, slice and dice – the people don’t like it one bit:
Meetings were held, comments were given, but the only thing presented to comment on, and about which comments were directed, was the “Environmental Report Card.” But there also was a report about “Improving Environmental Review” and “Environmental Coordination and Governance.” Not one word was said by the meeting facilitators about these two reports, reports that were “approved” by the EQB before these meetings were even held! Great, just great.
Here were a few of my comments at the time, which I’ll be sending in, in technicolor:
Links to the EQB Environmental Review documents:
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
- Minnesota Environment and Energy Report Card
At the meeting, I’d asked when comments were due, and the response, after they all looked at each other, was “anytime before the Environmental Congress (sometime in March, still no date disclosed).
Now, I hear there’s a deadline of January 15. It’s not on the EQB calendar, and it’s buried on the “Environmental Congress” page. Here is that deadline and also a form to make online comments:
Click HERE for the EQB’s “Resource” page.
Note there’s a “Calendar” on the Resource Page, above Click on that CALENDAR and note that there is no mention of any deadline for comments.
Please read the two reports with something of substance (the report card is “fluff” at best):
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
What’s most important about these is that they’ve backed off from some of the language of the draft reports, the “eliminate regulation” mantra is not so frenetic. The charge for these reports was:
1. Evaluate and make recommendations on how to improve environmental review
2. Evaluate and make recommendations for improved environmental governance and
coordination
This is the part I find disturbing — tell me, how does this relate to the charge:
The elements of the evaluation directed by EQB included:
- Look at the original intent of environmental review and consider if circumstances in Minnesota have changed such that a fundamental change in the original intent is needed.
It also claims that:
The intent of this draft report is to provide a transparent depiction of the process
that was used to develop recommendations and allow for broad public review of the
recommendations.
Where’s the “broad public review” of this report? There is NONE! It’s up to us, folks, to go over this and review it and comment on it, because so far, “broad public review” hasn’t been happening.
The part that is most disturbing to me is the way they’re trying to reframe “intent.” I don’t know where this came from, E.O. 11-32 says not one word about “intent” of environmental review — that’s a legislative mandate from decades ago. Who wrote this? Was it our good friend Charlie Peterson who wrote it, the one who facilitated these meetings, the one who facilitated the CapX 2020 Task Forces so abysmally, going far afield of the charge? Where does the writer of this report get any direction or authority to rewrite legislation, legislative history, and redefine the intent of environmental review?
Here’s what’s in the “final” report, p. 5-6, approved by the EQB on November 14, 2012:
What’s wrong with that? Take a closer look. The problem is the part about “consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.” Environmental review is to look at impacts, to provide information, and it is not about “consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.” Environmental review has never done a thorough cost/benefit analysis. Social and economic impacts are supposed to be addressed in environmental review, but “NEEDS” — let’s talk about what the social “needs” of the state are, and let’s talk about what the economic “needs” of the state are. Who decides what a social or economic “need” is, and what weight to give it? If this report is any indication, we’re in trouble. Look in Appendix D at the weights given to the groups, and you’ll see that in the identical categories, when asked to pick the most important issues, some groups get more votes than others. Whose opinion counts more? Look at their Appendix D to see.
Send in your comments on the studies, let them know you’re commenting on the studies and then tell them what you have to say, and note that something this important does indeed require a “broad public review.” At least, that’s this broad’s opinion!