Legalectric

The Minnesota part of the Freeborn County wind project is the site in red, above.

The Association of Freeborn County Landowners has been granted intervention, we’re a party!!!

Order-Intervention-AFCL_20179-135455-01

And a footnote for those wonks interested in Minnesota Rules and OAH and Public Utilities Commission procedure:

For more information about this docket, the application and the filings thus far, go HERE and search for Public Utilities Commission docket 17-410.

Here are Comments filed on behalf of Association of Freeborn County Landowners:

Association of Freeborn CountyLandowners_Petition & Initial Comments – Filed July 6, 2017

Association of Freeborn County Landowners — Add to Service List

Process Issue – Timing of Request for Contested Case

Reply CommentsCompleteness – Association of Freeborn County Landowners

Yes, it’s been a long march.  We’ve been slogging through for years — this Public Utilities Commission rulemaking began in 2012. We’ve been going to these PUC sponsored Advisory Group meetings, holding our own small group and public meetings about these rules, reviewing and commenting, and by we, I’ve been joined by Suzanne Rohlfing, of North Route Group (CapX 2020 intervenor group in Hampton-La Crosse docket) and Marie McNamara, of Goodhue Wind Truth (intervenor group in Goodhue Wind/AWA docket) who have hung in there all these years.  So early next month, we’re going before the Commission with the draft rules.  Four plus years!  It’s about time!

We sorely needed rulemaking, there were major statutory changes in 2005 (2005 Session Laws Ch 97 – Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell), and substantial holes in the process, which all came out in the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need and Routing dockets (CapX 2020 is why the 2005 statutory changes were rammed through, to facilitate Xcel’s transmission dream).  I’ve filed a few Petitions for Rulemaking to push these forward, the one below was 2011!

Overland – Petition 4 Rulemaking-7850

And we’ve been working on rules for Minn. Ch. 7849 and 7850 for over four years now.  The docket was opened and first Comments solicited in December 2012.  Finally, this Notice yesterday, that the drafts that will go to the Commission:

February 2017 Draft 7849

February 2017 Draft 7850

And notice of the Commission meeting issued today!

20172-129322-01_Notice of Commission Meeting

To look at the docket, go to the PUC SEARCH PAGE and search for docket 12-1246.  I’ve posted links to the drafts on this docket.  It’s important that the public be able to review what’s gone on over the last four years!

And after this, wind rules, Minn. Rules Ch. 7854, are next!  Yes, PUC, we will hold you to this!

Tuesday was the Annual Hearing for the Power Plant Siting Act.  I’ve been fighting off this sickness that Alan’s had for a week now, and not quite feeling right, more like life inside a pillow, everything’s rather dampened.  But I slogged out into the world, and raised a few of the recurring points, issues with the Power Plant Siting Act, particularly public participation issues common not just to the Power Plant Siting Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E ), but also to wind siting dockets under Minn. St. Ch. 216F, and pipeline routing dockets under Minn. St. Ch. 216G.

Here’s how to submit comments, deadline January 20, 2017:

Until this year, the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing has included a review, rundown, listing, of all the projects approved by the Commission, including wind and pipelines, and this was anticipated at this hearing per the notice:

The full Notice:

16-0433 Notice of the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing

HOWEVER… that report, “Projects Reviewed” section D, “Electric Facilities Not Subject to Power Plant Siting Act, did not occur.  I’d guess in large part it was due to the many issues raised by those intervening and participating, or attempting to participate, in wind siting dockets who have appeared at PPSA Annual Hearings over the years.  And I’m sure they did not want input from those participating and intervening in pipeline dockets, we’ve seen how Enbridge cancelled their “public informational meetings” up north after having to face the public and their legitimate issues the day before in Bemidji.  Alan Mitchell, formerly EQB PPSA staff, and now working for Enbridge, was there, so this was on Enbridge’s radar, but of course, that Alan didn’t have any comments for the record (I do wish I remembered more about the pipeline rules rewrite that he worked on during his time at the EQB, I think somewhere around 2002-2004?).

The ALJ is to write a summary of the Comments, both at the meeting, and those filed afterwards, and then?  What happens?  Experience says “not much.”  PUC staff responded to the “What happens” question saying that things that don’t require statutory changes or rulemaking, that those are things they want to impliment, to change, to improve, and to the extend that we can, we implement.  So he said.  When the report comes from the ALJ, they review it, they’ll have the transcript from this meeting, and will go over it.

There was a pretty crowded room, better attendance than for the last couple of years, with two new members of the public speaking up.  John Munter, who has been very active in opposition to the Sandpiper and now the Line 3 “replacement” pipeline issues, spoke about the difficulties of participating in the dockets, the difficult to untangle web of “need” and “route” dockets, and of the many pipeline projects ongoing.  Tina Carey spoke of the issues she and her neighborhood encountered during construction of the massive “largest in Minnesota” solar project that went up across the street, and that the complaint process was insufficient and ineffective, and the neighborhood’s complaints were disregarded.  Cynthia Warzecha, of the DNR, gave a solid synopsis of DNR activities in PPSA dockets, and I’ll note that the DNR and DOT have really gotten into the groove of reviewing projects and providing material and substantive comments for consideration, in the EIS and in the route or siting docket (and also in environmental review in Certificate of Need dockets).  Kristen Eide-Tollefson spoke as an individual with a 20 year history as a participant in routing and siting dockets, and noted for the record this legislative prelude to the transfer of environmental review from the EQB to the Dept. of Commerce:

2005 Session — Chapter 97, Article 3, lays out the purpose for transfer from EQB to PUC and DOC, of responsibilities for Siting, Routing and Environmental Review.

Environmental Review. Sec. 17. To ensure greater public participation in energy infrastructure approval proceedings and to better integrate and align state energy and environmental policy goals with economic decisions involving large energy infrastructure, all responsibilities, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 1, held by the Environmental Quality Board relating to power plant siting and routing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 116C.51 to 116C.69; wind energy conversion systems under Minnesota Statutes, sections 116C.691 to 116C.697; pipelines under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116I; and rules associated with those sections are transferred to the Public Utilities Commission under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, except that the responsibilities of the Environmental Quality Board under Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.83, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Rules, parts 4400.1700, 4400.2750, and 4410.7010 to 4410.7070, are transferred to the commissioner of the Department of Commerce. The power plant siting staff of the Environmental Quality Board are transferred to the Department of Commerce. The department’s budget shall be adjusted to reflect the transfer.