Legalectric

Yet another example of GI/GO noise monitoring, following the GI/GO noise modeling, notice of the discrepancies between modeled noise expected and the actual noise found in the post-construction noise modeling.

It doesn’t want to embed, so here’s the link:

https://minnesotapuc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1737&meta_id=205848

The noise study for Freeborn Wind at issue, Parts 1 and 2:

And Commerce-EERA “analysis” of it, with the emphasis on “anal” eh?

There was a lot of talk about the Minnesota noise standards (which are admittedly NOT designed to address wind noise), Minn. R. 7030.0040:

And not until quite late in the discussion did they even bring up the 47 dB(A) limits imposed by the “Special Condition” deal that Commission did with Freeborn:

Note that when there are levels above 47 dB(A), “the Permittee shall work with the Department of Commerce to develop a plan to minimize and mitigate turbine-only noise impacts.” Where does the landowner/resident/human “receptor” fit in? Zero consideration, evidence shows. GRRRRRRR.

Freeborn Wind permit (and standard language in all permits) has noise limits, the state standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) and permit condition limits:

Xcel’s conslutant’s noise monitoring report (2 parts):

And then Commerce-EERA wants to review and “analyze” it and here’s the result, released yesterday:

Despite documented noise exceedences, they craft it to this result:

… sigh… it starts out promising:

What it looks like is that the measurements of noise monitoring aren’t taken seriously, and that “binning” is used to obfuscate and dismiss testing and monitoring results that show noise levels above those permitted.

Remember the ALJ’s recommendation for this project, that the permit be denied because Freeborn had not demonstrated it could comply with noise standards?

OAH+80-2500-34633+Final+Order

WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or… May 14th, 2018

And then the PUC bends over and gives Freeborn/Xcel what it wants:

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation September 21st, 2018

To challenge this, hiring a noise expert is necessary, and then it’s time to sue their collective asses. It becomes the responsibility of those affected by the wind project’s incursion on their land to raise the objections and foot the bill. Fair? Equity? Justice? In what world…

Over nine years, and how many of those years going to St. Paul for meetings, how many hours of editing and commenting, of group meetings to go over changes, proposed suggestions, meaningful public participation…

Well, here’s the Minnesota Public FUtilities Commission in action:

In-person meeting tonight — MASK UP!

READ THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND REGISTER YOUR THOUGHTS!

Xcel still has not disclosed what cask they plan to use. They also have said they don’t need a NRC license amendment, but the Xcel testimony in the rate case says otherwise. See p. 56-58:

Be there, or be square!

Just WOW! Yeah, that WOW too… Today was the meeting of House Climate and Energy Policy and Finance, and check out the presentations:

Attachments:

• HF XXX/BE133 (Stephenson) Permitting Reform – 2/2/2022
• Electric Transmission System Report – 2/3/2022
• Agenda – 2/9/2022
• Minutes for 2-3-22 – 2/9/2022
• Minutes for 2-8-22 – 2/9/2022
• Presentation-Engelking – 2/9/2022
• Presentation-MISO – 2/9/2022
• Presentation-Soholt – 2/9/2022
• Letter-MP – 2/9/2022
• Letter-MRES – 2/9/2022
• Letter-Overland – 2/9/2022
• Presentation-PUC-Updated.pdf – 2/10/2022

The good news is that MRES did have challenges to the proposed language in HF XXX/BE133 (Stephenson) Permitting Reform, but aside from MRES, what a bunch of transmission toadies.

Commerce’s Electric Transmission System Report and a PUC Commissioner ADVOCATING for more transmission Presentation-PUC-Updated.pdf, good grief, there’s just no excuse.

More of this?

No thanks…

Needless to say, I should have pushed to get on the list to testify, a letter isn’t enough.