Goodhue Wind Truth’s Complaint filed
November 13th, 2012
Love that billboard!
Today, Goodhue Wind Truth’s Complaint to the PUC about the Goodhue Wind Project f/k/a __________ (I forget… so many names…). It took a while, it took some digging, and here it is:
The short version? Revoke the permit. Check out the exhibits backing up the narrative.
Mesaba is baaaaaack!
June 11th, 2012
Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project has raised its ugly head again. There were rumors for a long time that Micheletti wanted to change it to a natural gas plant. Then they went to the legislature and got the “incentives” for their boondoggle “clean coal” plant, the “innovative technology” that doesn’t work… they went to the MPCA and their air permit was AGAIN rejected as incomplete, and now they’ve gone to the PUC, requesting confirmation that the permits they have are valid. Oh, PUH-LEEZE!
Here we go again…
mncoalgasplant.com will be filing comments, no doubt about it!
Would the PUC doesn’t transfer projects like this without amending the permit application, without verification of what indeed it is they want to do? If you take the original ALJ Decision, the Permit Order and the Permit itself, redact everything related to coal gasification, what’s left? Not much! We need to know what they’re planning (if anything, this remains the vaporware project from hell).
This is the letter filed by Excelsior Energy — I don’t recall having received it, but will dig through the piles here, they DO have my correct address (though I note that they sent to Excelsior’s Evans, Greenman and Harrington at their OLD address!):
Here is the PUC’s Notice of Comment Period, first round due June 29, 2012:
And what’s most disturbing is the legislative change in 2011, supported, DEMANDED, by Gov. Dayton:
Subd. 3. Staging and permitting.
(a) A natural gas-fired plant that is located on one site designated as an innovative energy project site under subdivision 1, clause (3), is accorded the regulatory incentives granted to an innovative energy project under subdivision 2, clauses (1) to (3), and may exercise the authorities therein.
(b) Following issuance of a final state or federal environmental impact statement for an innovative energy project that was a subject of contested case proceedings before an administrative law judge:
(1) site and route permits and water appropriation approvals for an innovative energy project must also be deemed valid for a plant meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) and shall remain valid until the earlier of (i) four years from the date the final required state or federal preconstruction permit is issued or (ii) June 30, 2019; and
(2) no air, water, or other permit issued by a state agency that is necessary for constructing an innovative energy project may be the subject of contested case hearings, notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, parts 7000.1750 to 7000.2200.
Here’s the link to the full Minn. Stat. 216B.1694.
Cupit’s retired… now what?
May 2nd, 2012
Bob Cupit, Energy Facilities Supervisor, is retiring from the Public Utilities Commission today… leaving me to wonder how… rephrase… he CAN’T be replaced… so what will happen now at the PUC?
Bob Cupit and Mike Casper are tied for “Most Influential” in subtle and not so subtle direction that helped get me to where I am today. I began wrangling with him at the very end of 1994 in Nuclear Waste Daze, so it’s been a long time, and as Bret Ekness said, “a long strange trip.”
From my perspective, Bob has always provided a voice of sanity in a process that isn’t working, and I hate to see him leave because I can’t imagine them finding someone who recognizes or attempts to fix the problems that he had on his plate.
Here’s the PUC Staff Organizational Chart, soon to have a big hole.
The most difficult thing I’ve encountered in dealing with the Commission, other than some obviously utterly dreadful “decisions,” is that siting and routing is now handled by the Dept. of Commerce, which has no charge to protect the environment, and which is not representing the public interest. The “work” by Commerce has been dreadful, process has been perverted, DEIS and EIS consistently leave out important information, and the public and the environment is left in the lurch. Over and over and over again, they’re bumbling along, or intentionally screwing it up (Which is it? I think it’s BOTH.). They’re doing the “staff” work on these permits and then present it to the Commission, presenting only part of the story, and leaving the Commission exposed, making decisions on inadequate or inaccurate information, without “the rest of the story.” I could go on and on (and I do elsewhere in this blog and at www.nocapx2020.info, search for more).
Years ago, when things were not going well, Kristen Eide-Tollefsen and I repeatedly riffed on obvious problems at public meetings and Cupit regularly responded with a measured lecture on the importance of all the aspects of permitting, the Certificate of Need, the Siting/Routing permit, and Environmental Review, that it was a three legged stool. As an editorial comment, at one point, we presented him with a gold-painted strap-on one-legged milk stool.
Yes, the system was NOT working then… and for other reasons, it’s NOT working now.
Despite that, Kristen and I knew that as he retired, we had to give him one with THREE legs. However, I had to give a disclaimer, that this is NOT to say that the system is working, because it isn’t.
Kate O’Connell, manager of energy regulation and planning for the Minnesota Department of Commerce (oh, I didn’t know that!), who worked in tandem with Bob, made comments from her “on the ground” perspective, heartfelt — and I wasn’t taking notes, so sorry, no specifics… but for sure over and over noted he will be missed.
Even LeRoy Kooppendrayer, former Commissioner and House Rep., and brother of current Commissioner and former Senator Betsy Wergin, came back to say goodbye:
Bill Grant, formerly of the Waltons, and now the Deputy Commissioner in charge of Energy Facilities Permitting, was there but thankfully didn’t get up to say anything — I’d forgotten to bring rotten tomatoes.
And the “Not Ready For Rate Base Singers” were on hand:
The room was packed, Bob said he was “overwhelmed” and so it appeared… and I am too… it’s a sad day for Minnesota, we’re losing too many MB’s of collective/institutional memory that we can’t replace.
Busy day for Goodhue Wind Truth
February 2nd, 2012
Yesterday was a busy day for Goodhue Wind Truth.
First was a Motion to the Appellate Court:
Goodhue Wind Truth – Motion for Intervention/Request for Participation as Amicus Curiae
Next was our Petition for Rulemaking, filed yesterday as a part of our Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing Comments, and formally filed with Dr. Haar at the Public Utilities Commission.
The PUC is in charge of the Wind siting rules, well, the EQB was directed by the legislature in 1995 to promulgate rules, and finally in January, 2008, the Commission finalized the siting rules for wind projects under 25 MW (and above 5 MW):
And for projects 25 MW and above, they haven’t done anything, that was 17 years ago, so here we are… do we have to get a Writ of Mandamus?
WAKE UP PUC! Time to do some wind rules!
(2) procedures that the commission will follow in acting on an application for an LWECS;
(3) procedures for notification to the public of the application and for the conduct of a public information meeting and a public hearing on the proposed LWECS;
(4) requirements for environmental review of the LWECS;
(5) conditions in the site permit for turbine type and designs; site layout and construction; and operation and maintenance of the LWECS, including the requirement to restore, to the extent possible, the area affected by construction of the LWECS to the natural conditions that existed immediately before construction of the LWECS;
(6) revocation or suspension of a site permit when violations of the permit or other requirements occur; and
(7) payment of fees for the necessary and reasonable costs of the commission in acting on a permit application and carrying out the requirements of this chapter.
Thursday – Annual Power Plant Siting Act Hearing
December 27th, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.
PUC – 3rd Floor Large Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place East
St. Paul, MN
Got that? Now QUICK! QUICK – put together your comments and let the PUC know just what you think of the Power Plant Siting Act.
Here’s what they suggested for last year, because this year, no suggestions, so let’s recycle and reuse:
l. In Chapter 216E, the Legislature directs the Commission to locate large electric power facilities so that any siting is orderly, efficient and compatible with environmental preservation. How well do the Commission’s procedures and practices meet these mandates?
2. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 7850 meet the mandates of Chapter 2l6E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
3. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 1405 meet the mandates of Chapter 216E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
Comments are invited through presentation of oral or written statements.
Written comments are due 4:30 p.m. on February 1, 2012 – REFERENCE DOCKET E999-/M-11-324 and send to:
Eric L. Lipman Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 64620 St.Paul, MN 55164-0620 Eric.Lipman@state.mn.usAnd here are comments from past years – for guidance, check these out:
2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733
2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579
2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426
2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351
2010 Lipman Report to PUC – Comments Summary – Docket 10-222
For Hearing Exhibits, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, search docket 10-222
Now’s the time!