PUC does NOTHING about Freeborn wind noise
July 13th, 2022
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.
Xmsn at House Climate & Energy Committee
February 10th, 2022
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2022/02/image-16.png)
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?
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2022/02/20140512_161913_1_resized-1024x576.jpg)
No thanks…
Needless to say, I should have pushed to get on the list to testify, a letter isn’t enough.
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2022/02/image-17.png)
PUC Rulemaking officially “withdrawn” … sigh…
December 28th, 2021
PPSA Annual Hrg – TOMORROW!
December 19th, 2021
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2015/11/mickeymouse.jpg)
And AGAIN! It’s the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing! You can attend in person, MASKED, or via webex or phone. Primary documents are posted below.
December 20, 2021 @ 9:30
PUC Large Meeting Room
121 – 7th Place East – 3rd Floor
St. Paul, MN
Comments? BE SURE TO NOTE DOCKET NUMBER FOR COMMENTS:
PUC Docket E999/PR-21-18 & OAH Docket 65-2500-37832
Written comments will be accepted through January 10, 2022, by 4:30 p.m.
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/12/image-34.png)
Note notice only to those “who have requested notice” above? Nope, notice should be to all who are on service and project lists for projects active in the calendar year. Thankfully EERA does give notice to a lot more than just those “who have requested notice” (see “Notice & Service Lists” link posted above).
From the EQB Monitor:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/12/image-33.png)
Here are the projects EERA’s Summary says were approved — note that for wind it does NOT list applicable parts of 216E, such as Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 7!
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/12/image-35.png)
Meanwhile, the update of rules for PPSA siting, Minn. R. ch. 7850, is stalled out again, WITHDRAWN by the PUC last Thursday, supposedly based on many comments made over the last few weeks by a bunch of people and orgs who were utterly absent through the NINE YEARS of this rulemaking proceeding. My grits are FRIED! The PUC Agenda Item starts at the very end of the meeting, and note the bogus statements about the “why” of this rulemaking. Let’s be clear here — it’s due to the 2005 legislative changes, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. See PUC Docket R-12-1246. Good grief… Discussion starts at 2:48:28:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2011/10/manurespreader2.jpg)
2021 Biennial Xmsn Projects Report
November 2nd, 2021
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/11/image-7.png)
It’s that time of the year, errrrrr, it’s that time of every other year… time for the Minnesota Transmission Owners:
It’s filed in Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket M-21-111.
The Biennial Transmission Projects Report is required by statute, but there are no longer public meetings, and I must admit, I had pushed and promoted a lot initially, but ran out of time and energy for such a … ahem… waste of time. See Minn. Stat. ยง216B.2425 for how it’s supposed to go.
If history is any guide, it seems Initial Comments are about a month and a half out, mid-January, with Reply Comments another month and a half out, so mid-March. I’ll put it on the calendar and send a reminder around.
There’s nothing really exciting that I see, at first glance, but I did enjoy seeing the NERC Report excerpts. Last time they included the NERC Reliability as a separate filing, this time they included excerpts at the tail end of the report, above.
Here’s the full NERC Report — it comes out every year, and has a great assortment of important info, about reliability margins, load forecasts, and predictions of generation mix for energy and peak demand. I LOVE THE NERC REPORT!! Here’s the most recent ones — they used to come out in October, now it’s December:
NERC 2020 Long-Term Reliability Assessment
This is how reliability was defined in the transmission world decades ago, circa 1999 NERC Long-Term Reliability Assessment:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/11/image-10-1024x223.png)
Keep in mind that now transmission is no longer about reliability — it’s about economics, so it’s a very different type of evaluation.
Who cares about the NERC Report? Over the decades, the NERC reports have looked at the various areas of the country, based on the grid’s organization, and it evaluates the system’s ability to provide electricity. What I like about it, though, is that the charts, graphs, circles, and arrows belie the party line, like all the talk about decreasing coal and fossil fuel generation, but look at projections for MISO:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/11/image-8.png)
Here’s the chart for MISO — the devil is in the details — look at the predominance of fossil fuel:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2021/11/image-9.png)
Remember how the utilities were blathering about the NEED for transmission, and that the transmission build-out would decrease need and reliance on reserve margin — at that time, MISO reserve margin was 15%.
They got their billions in transmission and we’re paying them way too much for it, and look at the reserve margin, the last line in that chart:
18%
Oh, well… I must have misunderstood… SNORT!
And yeah, the purpose of that big transmission build-out morphed into “IT’S FOR WIND!” yet remember, the CapX 2020 lines start at the coal plants and head east:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2014/06/CapX.jpg)
And the MISO MVP 17 Portfolio of projects supporting coal:
![](https://legalectric.org/f/2020/01/MVP-portfolio-map.jpg)
It’s exhausting, dizzying, seeing these scams spinning through, and yet here we go with “Grid North Partners.” Just NO!
Again, there will be opportunity for Initial and Reply Comments, expect Notice in a couple weeks, with Initial Comments probably due in mid-January. So later… in the meantime, look at the NERC report and compare with all the blather you’re hearing, particularly with COP26 in the works.