Legalectric

Turns out a landowner couple have been complaining about noise since March 9, 2020, and this Thursday it is coming up before the Public Utilities Commission. I read through some filings and got OH-SO-PISSED-OFF! Better pissed off than pissed on… and filed this:

THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WAS WARNED! THEY HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE THAT NOISE IS A PROBLEM, AND ACCEPTED GI/GO “MODELING” AND PERMITTED THE PROJECT.

Here’s a letter summarizing the landowners complaint:

This above complaint was dated September 25, 2020, but was not filed in the PUC’s eDockets until January 12, 2021.

They made their first complaint March 9, 2020, and there were other complaints March 17 and 24, and April 2 and 14, 2020, regarding turbines 11, 28, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 83, 84, 85 and 86.

Complaints made were reported in the monthly permit-required “Complaint” compliance filing as “pending,” with repeated complaints not disclosed. Thursday’s agenda item deals only with the Weverka noise complaint and turbine 90, and does not address the multiple complaints of March 17 and 24, and April 2 and 14, 2020, regarding turbines 11, 28, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 83, 84, 85 and 86.

The time-frame of Weverka noise complaints and actions by Xcel are listed here — pay particular attention to the dates, and note it’s XCEL hiring the consultants for the noise monitoring, not Commerce as occurred for the Bent Tree noise complaints:

DoC-EERA notes that:

… and Commission staff repeats this statement in the Staff Briefing Papers (p. 6):

… to which I can only say, DOH!

Doc-EERA recommends this be addressed regarding Turbine 90 only, when a more logical response would be to look at the entire project and compare monitoring results with the pre-construction noise modeling DONE AT THE IMPROPER 0.7 GROUND FACTOR! DOH! and DOUBLE DOH!

Post-construction noise modeling of the project “was completed during the summer of 2020,” but it’s not been filed yet, as of January 14, 2021. WHAT?!?! How long does it take to print out the results, write up a summary, and file it?

And what’s this Xcel July 9, 2020 noise report that was filed on 11/13/2021?

And this November 23, 2020 “Xcel Response to Noise Complaint” that also was not filed until 1/13/2021:

Here’s the initial Noise Modeling from the Application, Appendix A:

Here’s an “updated” Noise Modeling – REDACTED, dated December 2016, filed June 2020:

I really don’t have the time to dig into this, but it’s clear they’re hiding info, that the complaints are legitimate, that there are noise exceedences, and that the Commission knew the noise modeling was off, garbage in, garbage out. The Commission also knew that the setbacks were not adequate, because setbacks at Bent Tree, with smaller turbines, less noise turbines, were not adequate, and there were noise exceedences at 1,150 feet at Hagen’s home and 1,525 at Langrud’s home. They’re “resolving” this in secret, with back and forths between Xcel and Commerce-EERA without involvement of the landowners. THE LANDOWNERS ARE NOT EVEN ON THE SERVICE LIST!

THERE IS NO EXCUSE, NO EXCUSE FOR THIS!

RIGHT NOW! It’s the PPSA Annual Hearing… sigh… here we go again.

Go to webex, Event # 146 311 2620. The powerpoint slides will be here (and will also be filed on eDockets).

To be able to comment, you have to get on the phone 866-609-6127, Conference ID: 4449079, and to comment, you need to press #1 and get in queue.

Here is the Commerce info about this year’s projects:

And for the record, folks, note that wind is not exempt from many of the parts of the PPSA:

Association of Freeborn County Landowners filed a Complaint with the Public Utilities Commission against Commissioner John Tuma and Chair Katie Sieben last week.

The PUC responded with this… oh my… and an Affidavit from John Tuma, he DID contact a Freeborn County Commissioner about pre-empting the township’s Ordinance and local control:

And under the statute, Minn. Stat. §216A.037, the PUC must refer it to the Office of Administrative Hearings:

The administrative law judge assigned to the ex parte complaint proceeding by the Office of Administrative Hearings shall conduct a hearing investigation and shall issue a report within 30 days after the matter is referred. If the administrative law judge determines that the report cannot be properly completed within that time period, the judge shall report that fact to the commission within the 30-day period and shall file a final report within a reasonable time thereafter, no later than 60 days after the referral to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Minn. Stat. §216A.03

… so today, it was referred. GOOD!

Why? Well, this is about the July 16, 2020 meeting, the one where you just have to listen to the video – yeah, we’ve got the transcript, but the video just conveys so much more:

On June 10, 2020, Association of Freeborn County Landowners filed a Complaint against the Public Utilities Commission and four wind projects: Freeborn Wind, Plum Creek Wind, Buffalo Ridge Wind and Three Waters Wind:

AFCL brought this suit under MERA, the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, which gives anyone standing to sue, and sue we did, seeking:

• A declaratory order that the state’s permitting of Large Wind Energy Conversion Projects is not in compliance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act;
• A declaratory order that the Public Utilities Commission has not complied, and must comply, with the mandate of Minn. Stat. §216F.05 to develop rules for environmental review of wind projects;
• An order that the Public Utilities Commission promulgate rules for wind siting and environmental review;
• A remand for additional proceedings as required by law and the Commission’s rules. 
• AFCL also seeks a temporary injunction pending these directives and actions by the Commission.  Minn. Stat. §116B.10.

All the Defendants have brought Motions to Dismiss, and today I received reams of paper with their arguments:

Filings from the PUC:

Filings from NSP & Plum Creek:

Filings from Buffalo Ridge Wind and Three Waters Wind:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Onward toward the Motion Hearing on September 2, 2020! Lots of reading and writing to do in response to these, and lots of writing to do for our Motion for Temporary Injunction!

Here’s the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “deliberating” and deciding to DENY our Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet. What a concept, environmental review of a wind project. It’s never happened in Minnesota, and 2,500+ MW of wind sited, sans wind specific criteria and rules. DOH!! PUC has actual and constructive notice that there are noise problems with wind. Another DOH!