Legalectric

Yesterday was the Scoping Meetings for the Rochester pipeline project, winding around the NW down and around to the SE of town.  There was quite a large turnout at the afternoon session, probably 50 people, but that may have included Commerce staff, etc.

Comments on the Scope (what all should be included) of the environmental review are due by 4:30 p.m. on April 13, 2016:

larry.hartman@state.mn.us

… or by snail mail:

Larry Hartman, Environmental Review Manager

Minnesota Dept. of Commerce

85 – 7th Place East, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN  55101

I was really surprised to learn that Larry Hartman, the Commerce project manager, did NOT know about the Rochester Public Utilities gas plant proposed at the NW terminal of this project!  And I was also surprised to learn that Northern Natural Gas is running a new gas pipeline into the west side of Rochester, to join with this line at the middle purple blob on the west side of the map.

The RPU plant is not exactly a secret, it was an issue in the 2008 CapX 2020 Certificate of Need hearing:

RPU chooses Boldt to build new $62 million plant

A New Generating Station for Rochester

New Rochester Energy Project Approved

Westside Energy EPC

The RPU studies:

2015_Update_RPU_Infrastructure_Study

2005 RPU_34945_Report on the Electric Utility Baseline Strategy for 2005 – 2030_June_2005 (CapX 2020 CoN Exhibit 157)

This is old, old news…

As to the proposed Northern Natural Gas line that’ll connect to this Rochester project, which it appears is part of its “Northern Lights 2017 Expansion” project narrative, in press release-based industry puff pieces, but it’s not on the Northern Lights 2017 Expansion project map or described, other than “Rochester 1D TBS rebuild” and “Rochester branch line” in any of the FERC filings or other documents I can find.

What about safety?  The environmental review document needs to address the burn radius, which is large for such a large and high pressure pipeline:

• Model for Sizing High Consequence Areas Associated With Natural Gas Pipelines
• Safe Separation Distances From Natural Gas Pipelines

This project is in an area where future development could be, should be, expected, and I sure don’t want to see a scenario like that along the natural gas pipeline along, roughly parallel, to Hwy. 14, where cities have platted developments over the pipeline, and where builders have built homes over the pipeline, and people bought those newly constructed homes with pipelines through their yards, and worse, Minnesota law does not require disclosure for newly constructed homes.

Minn. Stat. 513.54, Subd. 10

Platting new subdivisions over a natural gas transmission pipeline should be criminal… and yet I see another such scenario developing.

Thursday, June 30, the last day before the state government shuts down, the Public Utilities Commission will hear oral arguments and deliberate and likely decide fate of the AWA/Goodhue Wind Project.

PUC Staff Briefing Papers

The Staff Briefing Papers matter-of-factly point out a couple of things that make a huge difference in this case:

In the ALJ’s December 8, 2010 First Prehearing Order, Order point #13 noted:

13. As noted above, the parties may submit legal argument on how the good cause standard should be applied, if at all, in their closing memoranda. In particular, the Administrative Law Judge would like the parties to brief the issue whether Minn. Stat. 216F.081 (2008) is intended to apply only to counties that have assumed the responsibility to process applications and issue permits for LWECS with a combined nameplate capacity of less than 25 MW pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216F.081. …

This is not an issue that the Commission referred to the ALJ. The ALJ’s findings on this issue are included in her report as findings #39 – 47.

And shortly after that:

Staff recommends that the Commission consider all parties‟ positions on this matter and their previous November 2, 2010 Order for Hearing (cited above).

Staff believes that if the Commission comes to the same conclusion as the November 2, 2010 Order, it should strike ALJ findings #40-46 on the basis that the Commission has already considered this matter and the matter was not referred to the ALJ. Findings #39 and 47 are general in nature and staff doesn’t believe the findings would need to be omitted.

The recommendation of staff to the Commissioners?  Hold on to your seats:

Staff recommends adopting the ALJ’s Report with the following changes:

1) modifications to findings #10, 60 and 71 as outlined in Attachment B under “Staff”;
2) striking findings #40-46, as discussed above; and
3) providing for other modifications the Commission deems necessary.

YEAAAAAAA! From there to where this should be isn’t all that far…

To watch the oral arguments and PUC’s deliberation, CLICK HERE and then click the blue button to “Watch Webcast!” Or come on down, Thursday, 9:30 a.m. ( a little after, we’re 2 and 3 on the agenda), at 121 – 7th Place East, 3rd Floor, Large Hearing Room, St. Paul, MN, 55101.

9:30 a.m. on February 1, 2010

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

Large Hearing Room

121 – 7th Place E., 3rd Floor

St. Paul, MN  55101

Remember the PUC’s docket that they opened after release of:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Apparently they’re looking at doing something — and here’s what the staff Briefing Papers say:

Staff Briefing Papers – Feb 1, 2010 Meeting

Here’s how staff defines the issue before the PUC:

Should the Commission find that current permit conditions regarding setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable in light of recent concern and the Minnesota Department of Health’s White Paper, Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines?

And here’s the bottom line, what staff thinks should happen:

Staff recommends that the best approach to mitigate the issues discussed above would be comprised of two modifications to our current process.
1) Increase setbacks from non-participating landowner residences
a. Continue to use the existing 500-foot or noise standard residential setback (whichever is greater) to allow participating landowners to maximum their land use.
b. Increase the setback required from non-participating landowner residences to 1,000 feet or the state noise standard (whichever is greater) or some other number deemed appropriate by the Commission.
2) Require additional information from developers during the siting process to provide accurate and specific information to the Commission on the impacts of the project. Staff will continue to work on refining the specifics of these requests, additional information is anticipated to be (at a minimum, but could be subject to change):
a. During the application process:
I. noise modeling report (at different frequencies and at various distances from the turbines at various wind directions and speeds) throughout the project area;
II. if flicker is to occur on non-participating residences, shadow flicker modeling report, indicating anticipated maximum;
b. Preconstruction (submitted at time of final site layout):
I. final noise modeling report of final layout and noise monitoring proposal (both at different frequencies and at various distances from the turbines at various wind directions and speeds) throughout the project area;
II. final shadow flicker modeling report;
c. Post construction:
I. noise monitoring reports of the development (at different frequencies and at various distances from the turbines at various wind directions and speeds) throughout the project area.

To check out the whole docket and look at the various comments, CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH PAGE , then scroll down a bit to the “Search” button and below that enter 09-845 and then click “Search.”  Voila, there it all is!

So, be there or be square.

9:30 a.m. on February 1, 2010

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

Large Hearing Room

121 – 7th Place E., 3rd Floor

St. Paul, MN  55101

Last night, Rep. Steve Drazkowski and Rep. Tim Kelly (who wasn’t there!) hosted a meeting about CapX 2o2o.

But Rep. Randy Demmer, 29A was.

As one person said, he had a “deer in the headlights” look as he sat in the front of the room.  Did he have any idea what he’d be in for?  I’d talked with him a bit when he came in, and he said he hadn’t heard from many constituents about CapX… oh… OK, well, we can do something about that!  And it’s good he showed up to find out what was going on and hear the word on the streets and in the fields.

Short version of the meeting:

• Bill Glahn gets roasted for MOES “Minnesota_Resource_Assessment” report, which is utter crap, the report, that is… the roasting was well-deserved.

• PUC, Commerce, and DOT show up en mass and toady for process and project.

• Rep. Drazkowski utters words of placation, but did not promote Nov. 4 joint committee hearing on repeal of Minn. Stat. 117.19.  HE’S ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES, EARTH TO MARS!!!

• Affected landowners don’t buy it,  they get that fundamentally CapX 2020 is not needed and are pissed-off at the crap (see above).

• CapX said they were not going through or around Rochester.

There were two things I let slide, can’t take on everything:

1.Their statements about Big Stone were odd, theywell knows that Big Stone could not interconnect without CapX, and I have the electrical studies which prove it, which after trying 5 times to make it work with a line to nowhere (Granite Falls) then assumed CapX in try #6…   But I also wonder whether CapX Brookings (hence all of CapX) can go forward without Big Stone.

2. They kept saying “this is all about local load” and denying the LaX to Mad line, and kept talking about Rochester as the driver, yet they did not note, of course, the new gas plant at West Side sub or the four 161kV lines that are planned.

Overland’s Scorecard (concept stolen from Deb!):

CapX:     0
PUC:     -5
DOT:       1
Commerce:   -4
The People: +1

Longer version, bigger photo:

The people did a good job of expressing their displeasure and disbelief.

Bill Glahn brought up the Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey!  Bad move…  He  got one of my awards for that Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey, and here’s Maccabee – Presentation to LEC 10/23/09 , another voice saying it’s outrageous.  Last night  Alan Muller got him good about it, told him” it was  an unsatisfactory report, basically just a regurgitation of the business plans of MN… no independent thinking and not in the interests of the citizens of Minnesota …”  Alan does have a way with words.  When asked for a response Glahn looked abashed and admitted that he knows many people are unhappy with it.  AS WELL HE SHOULD!  I mean really… to use as an example that phony “chart” of Steve Rakow’s on p. 6:

… with no ID of meaning of X or Y axis, it’s deceitful, but they pulled that in CapX when faced with decreased demand, entering this chart, then citing its entry in the CapX 2020 Certificate of need record as if it means something.  Oh, pleeeeeeeeze…  We’re way below the 2004 actuals, and this forecast, for the Blue Lake expansion, it’s CapX 2020 era forecasts, we’re about 1,500MW down and growing, down 15% so far, down 2.5% in 1&2Q 2009, SEC 3Q filing and investor call due any second now will take it down further:

After last night’s meeting, Bill Glahn is certainly under fire, but I also got the feeling due to the cadre of state employees stumping for CapX, that it’s their perception that it’s in trouble.  It could be something as simple as they have no financing to do it, that demand is so far down that it makes no sense even to PUC and applicants to build it, or …  The DOT was distancing itself, there’s been a lot of pressure on DOT.  The DOT has its “Policy of Accomodation” (at issue in Chisago Transmission Project III, or IV, the last round, where Xcel stuck poles, BIG poles, right in the middle of the new plan for US Hwy. 8, in one example, right next to and over a business), and here it is:

DOT Policy on Utility Accomodation

…and I don’t think they’re going to change that anytime soon.  At the Legislative Energy Commission meeting in September, there was mention of an October 13 meeting with the DOT, but Dave Sykora, DOT, mentioned that was cancelled, and instead they met last week.  There were no specifics disclosed, but the feeling I got from what was said was that it didn’t go the way legislators wanted it to, DOT didn’t cave.  Legislators are looking, from Rep. Drazkowski’s statements last night, and from Rep. Westrom’s comments at the LEC meeting, for a way to do the project with minimal landowner pain.  I don’t think that’s doable, and it’s sure not desirable.   CapX 2020 is a project that shouldn’t be built, and if it is, it will cause considerable pain, for landowners, applicants and legislators!

Also noteworthy last night was the general failure to accept “need” and a high level of understanding, and for the most part, people are getting the broader picture.  (there was an odd comment by Burl Haar that if there were questions about the appeal of the CapX decision, that they post most things on the docket, and to check with him!).  So is the PUC’s argument that this belongs at the District Court, and not the Appellate Court (despite what Cupit says) on display in the docket for the world to see?  I doubt it, but I’ll check.

Last night, Drazkowski kept referring to efforts to alter the eminent domain law, but he was evasive and didn’t disclose important info, like the upcoming November 4 hearing before Energy & Civil Justice (he’s on Civil Justice!) (Upcoming hearing on repeal of eminent domain exemptions), and he didn’t advise on how to advocate for change, dropped the ball, wouldn’t even pick it up.

Here’s the info on the hearing:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

Anyone wishing to testify should contact Andy Pomroy at andy.pomroy [at] house.mn
Last night’s meeting in Mazeppa on CapX 2020  follows on the heels of one last Monday night in Chisago, about an 855MW gas plant proposed by LS Power, the Sunrise River Energy Station.  Click here for  Report on Monday Chisago meeting.  They’ve  proposed at least three gas plants before at that site, and they didn’t go far, this is the biggest, and most public, and will need mega transmission, BUT LS Power’s Blake Wheatley admitted at the Chisago meeting that they don’t have a plan, don’t have a PPA, don’t have anything but a tax exemption (est. $9-10 million) from legislators who should have known better than to sell out their constituents for nothing, and then after being caught, for a very small “Host Fee.”  At that meeting, Mike Bull said Xcel won’t need any power for a long time, 2016-2017 (and if he’ll admit that at long last, we know it’s really a lot further out).  As with last night’s meeting, at the Chisago meeting there was, despite heavy lobbying and presence of unions like IBEW and Building & Trades, a clear understanding that the LS Power plant is not needed, and that peak demand is down.  Granted LS Power made the mistake of walking into an energy educated community, but even Bob Cupit was surpirsed by the turnout, said he’d never seen such a large crowd, ~500, standing room only in a hockey rink sized room (Also, FYI, Bob stated to the audience that “If citizens feel the system still failed to consider issues, the decision of the PUC can be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.“)

There is a theme.  Minnesota doesn’t need more transmission, and we won’t, in the words of Xcel’s Mikey Bull, need an generation anytime soon.  Am I paraphrasing correctly, Mike? (Duck & cover — the You Tube of that is forthcoming!!!)  The MOES Minnesota_Resource_Assessment is a crock.

Here are the LEC members — it’d be good to contact all of them, and let them know what you think about “need” for generation and transmission, decreasing demand, and CapX 2020 in particular:

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lec/members.htm
Here’s Senate member info:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/index.php?ls=#header
Here’s House member info:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/hmem.asp

And about CapX and eminent domain, contact:

rep.steve.drazkowski [at] house.mn

rep.tim.kelly [at] house.mn

rep. randy.demmer [at] house.mn

Once more with feeling — Get thee to the House Energy and Judiciary Committee meeting:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

Failed Suzlon turbine scattered on Minnesota snow

The PUC’s Wind Investigation looking at the MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines report and setbacks is moving forward. Here’s the report that apparently got them thinking:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

The initial Comments are in.  To see them:

1. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us
2. Click on eDockets
3. Search for Docket 09-845

Reply Comments are due October 13th, and you’ll find reminders here!