PUC pulls plug on Goodhue Wind project!

PUC Webcast here

‘Bout time this project went down…  What a thorny long drawn-out heated and circular discussion, but after a long five years, the Public Utilities Commission said no to Peter Mastic’s New Era and its request for an extension of time to get the project in service and operational.  Did I mention this has been a long journey?  It took five long years of persistent work on so many fronts, dogged work on the part of so many people!  L-O-N-G!  I first met with Goodhue Wind Truth and started representing them in late 2008, early 2009.

Just from today I have 12 pages of notes, so here’s the nutshell version, from the two page Revised Decision Options:

Revised Decision Options 20136-88332-01

• After a protracted discussion, they first voted to DENY Todd Guererro’s Motion for another two weeks to prepare as he was just hired on.  Nope, says the Commission, we don’t buy it, New Era f/k/a/ f/k/a has had plenty of time.
• And after an even longer more protracted and circular discussion, the Commission voted UNANIMOUSLY decision options 2 I & J:

• Then came their vote on the Extension Request as a housekeeping matter:

• And then, at the bottom of page 2, adding “August 23, 2013” as the date certain for a response:

DONE!

GOOD RIDDANCE!

Todd Guererro, representing Peter Mastic f/k/a f/k/a, did a valiant job given what he had to work with, a client who didn’t bother to comply with PUC Orders, Information Requests, and laws — he deserves battle pay for  taking the hits hurled by the Commissioners, deserved, but he did the best job possible… well, except he apparently didn’t know that the Commission had made the determination that the project was a C-BED project many years ago, that it was not the Commissioner of Commerce.

I kept my trap shut, thinking “less is more.”

IT’S DONE!

IT’S REALLY DONE!

And an interesting sidebar, NSP had its crew there to monitor its interests (Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, and what a delightful Complaint it is!), and I learned that my arch-nemesis Mike Krikava is a horn player, has a big band of reknown, Nova Contemporary Jazz Orchestra (not Les Brown, perhaps Minnesota’s Toshiko Akiyoshi??), and even played with Ed Berger.  Mike brought it up, wondering how I knew the “real outside” Ed, but folks, it’s a small, small world… who knew?!?

And that after he ruins his reputation with his “heart-shaped” dot in his signature as noted by at least two of my GWT client’s cohorts:

Kinda skews my view, though the blustery honking of Bari fits him well.  It’s sort of like Mark Dayton being a shep nut — I will have higher expectations — we shall see… but if Krikava were a trumpet player, well, that’d be another matter entirely.

In the Rochester Post Bulletin tonight:

PUC commissioner:  It’s time to pull the plug on New Era project

By Brett Boese —  POST BULLETIN

June 20, 2013

 

ST. PAUL — After nearly five years in the permitting process, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission might have finally pulled the plug on the controversial New Era wind project.

After lengthy discussion during Thursday’s PUC hearing — including a few testy exchanges between commissioners and New Era attorney Todd Guerrero — the PUC unanimously approved five motions that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the project to move forward in its current form.

“I think this is definitely a David and Goliath story,” said rural Goodhue farmer Ann Buck, one of the project’s critics, who have spent six figures battling the project over health, environmental and aesthetic concerns. “But I don’t think it was one rock that got the giant. It was many over the last four, five years.”

Read the rest of this entry »

.

T. Boone Pickens , a/k/a AWA Goodhue Wind, a/k/a Mesa Power, is at it again, and here come the helicopters!

First, let’s take a look-see at the Complaint that AWA Goodhue served on Belle Creek Township, the little township that could, and CAN, and DOES:

AWA Goodhue v. Belle Creek Township

Monday, the Township had a meeting where they were to discuss the road agreement that’s in negotiations right now.  The Township controls township roads, and AWA’s project would require a lot of road upgrading to support the very heavy trucks and cranes, meaning that the roadbed has to be made a lot deeper, meaning that corners have to be filled in so that trucks can get around the corners, culverts could easily be damaged by the weight, and this is something within the township’s jurisdiction.  And the day after the Monday meeting, AWA Goodhue serves the Town Board Chair with a Complaint!  Here’s what AWA wants:

How’s that for a punch line?!?!  So the Township shouldn’t have any say over the roads, the Township isn’t able to protect its interests?  Right… we shall see!

And as that’s happening, I started getting calls about very low flying airplanes, startling cows and horses, and residents too!  One scared a calf, which climbed over its stall and ran off — they were able to get it, and were lucky it was not injured as it climbed over.  Then today, it’s helicopters, with horses running every which way, windows rattling:

AWA Goodhue’s attorney did admit they were “their” aircraft.  We got the number, N144BH, which “upon information and belief” is owned by  “Brainerd Helicopter Service.”  AWA Goodhue’s attorney says that they’re doing avian work as specified by their (filed yesterday) Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP), which states:

You tell me, does this look like 200 feet?  And anyway, exactly how is this the ABPP last word on anything?

Suffice it to say, the Sheriff is on it, and they’ve called in the FAA, apparently the FAA inspector is on it too.

Check the PUC filings yesterday — there goes Todd Guererro with his disposition problem!

As you know, the PUC issued an PUC’s Order – Referral to OAH in which the AWA Goodhue wind project was sent to an Administrative Law Judge to address the following issues:

1. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to develop a record on every standard in Article 18 that is more stringent than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS and make recommendations regarding each such standard whether the Commission should adopt it for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Goodhue County. The Commission has identified two such standards in this Order (Section 4 and Section 6) but is not by this Order restricting the ALJ from developing the record and making recommendations regarding additional standards in Article 18 that upon further examination meet the “more stringent” qualification.

2. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to allow the parties to develop a factual record on the question of “good cause” as that term appears in Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 and to provide recommendations on whether, with respect to each standard in Article 18 identified in the course of her review as “more stringent” than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS, there is “good cause” for the Commission to not apply the standard to siting LWECS in Goodhue County.

3. As the ALJ addresses the issues identified in the previous two sections, the ALJ is requested to include (but not limited to, by this Order) whether there is sufficient evidence regarding health and safety to support a 10 rotor diameter set-back for non-participating residents and the stray voltage requirements.

AWA Goodhue is not happy about this, and have filed this:

AWA Goodhue’s Motion for Summary Disposition

Here are a couple snippets for the gist of their argument:

… the county’s ordinance applies only to small wind projects up to 5 MW and therefore does not set standards that apply to the AWA Goodhue project. In addition, because the county has chosen not to regulate wind projects up to 25 MW, it has no authority under Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 to adopt “more stringent wind standards” and, as a result, there are no county standards for the Commission to consider or apply…

Interpreting the statute so that it is limited only to counties that have assumed permitting authority for projects up to 25 MWs is the most reasonable interpretation in light of the established regulatory framework for siting wind turbines in Minnesota. The legislature has designated the Commission as the primary siting authority for large energy projects, including LWECS.13 Even in the limited circumstance where a county assumes responsibility for permitting LWECS under 25 MWs, the default under section 216F.08(c) is that the Commission’s general siting standards (which are based on the Commission’s
expertise and past experience) apply unless the county adopts more stringent standards.

It is wholly inconsistent with this framework to then read section 216F.081 to require the Commission, when making a decision on a project located in a county that has not adopted permitting authority, to apply the county’s more stringent standards. Moreover, it makes little sense for a county to adopt standards for LWECS if the county has no intention of regulating LWECS (up to 25 MW) in the first place. And, it makes even less sense for the Commission to have to apply those standards if the county itself is not inclined to do so.

Last, interpreting section 216B.081 to allow any county to adopt more stringent standards is at odds with section 216F.07, which expressly states that a site permit from the Commission preempts all county rules, regulations and ordinances. Rules of statutory construction require that every law be interpreted, to the extent possible, to give effect to all of its related provisions.14 Accordingly, to give effect to section 216F.07, county standards must be applied only where a county has assumed permitting authority for LWECS up to 25 MW. Any other interpretation would allow the exception to swallow the general rule.

We have to respond by January 14, 2010!

To check out the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “Search eDockets” and search for docket 08-1233.

Today on the PUC’s agenda? AWA Goodhue’s request for Reconsideration of the PUC’s remand to an Administrative Law Judge.

Here’s their remand Order and subsequent filings:

PUC’s Order – Remand to OAH

And from that Order, here’s what the PUC wants from the ALJ:

1. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to develop a record on every standard in Article 18 that is more stringent than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS and make recommendations regarding each such standard whether the Commission should adopt it for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Goodhue County. The Commission has identified two such standards in this Order (Section 4 and Section 6) but is not by this Order restricting the ALJ from developing the record and making recommendations regarding additional standards in Article 18 that upon further examination meet the “more stringent” qualification.

2. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to allow the parties to develop a factual record on the question of “good cause” as that term appears in Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 and to provide recommendations on whether, with respect to each standard in Article 18 identified in the course of her review as “more stringent” than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS, there is “good cause” for the Commission to not apply the standard to siting LWECS in Goodhue County.

3. As the ALJ addresses the issues identified in the previous two sections, the ALJ is requested to include (but not limited to, by this Order) whether there is sufficient evidence regarding health and safety to support a 10 rotor diameter set-back for non-participating residents and the stray voltage requirements.

To which AWA Goodhue said  …. “NOOOO, we want you to undo that decision” …

AWA Motion – Text only – maps are too big

… and to which we said, “PPFFFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBT!” …

Goodhue Wind Truth – Response to Motion for Reconsideration

… including a section you really ought to read:

III. THERE IS A SYSTEMIC FLAW IN THE PROCESS BY WHICH MATERIAL INFORMATION IS NOT FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION

… and from Goodhue County:

Goodhue County – Response – late filed

… and then the AWA Goodhue’s Reply – quite pissy, eh?

AWA Goodhue Reply

… and some others on behalf of AWA:

“Wind on the Wires” Izaak Walton League Comment

GE Energy Comment – late filed

… and PUC staff weighs in:

Staff Briefing Papers (a separate revised cover sheet filed later)

… and then at 8:21 a.m. this morning, served by eFiling, and Document Properties show it wasn’t pdf’d until 4:03… TODD GUERERRO, WHATEVER ARE YOU THINKING… this from AWA Goodhue trying to wiggle into mediation somehow rather than a proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge.  Mediation???  Mediation has it’s place, but… well, anyway, here’s what they said:

AWA Goodhue Last Minute Letter

The Commission was probably not pleased, the timing of that latest filing was duly noted, and after a short discussion about the availability of mediation in any contested case, under the administrative rules it’s always an option, the discussion led by Commissioner Reha, who as an ALJ had mediated the Chisago Transmission Project (were any of the Commissioners around then?  Perhaps Pugh?):

Deal – NSP – Taylors Falls – St. Croix Falls

That’s one result of that mediation, one which I certainly wouldn’t be proud of, because though it did underground down the banks of the St. Croix River, it DOUBLED the capacity, and I don’t think anyone other than our friends at NSP had any clue what dropping voltage but bundling BIG conductors meant.  Well, Art Hughes, Ph. D., of course, but he’s dead… And at the time,  it was disturbing the way ALJ Phyllis Reha and George Crocker were on the stage of the Festival Theatre in St. Croix Falls stumping for the deal and urging Concerned River Valley Citizens to adopt the deal.  WHY, what’s in it for them?  For CRVC, nothing!  And why would Reha and Crocker want CRVC to adopt that deal?  Enough to be promoting it on stage before CRVC?  CRVC said NO, and the rest is history…

So anyway, to make a short story long, the PUC talked about Reconsideration and the referral to OAH a bit, Commissioner Reha mentioned some things she is concerned about as material facts at issue, they expressly stated they did not want to Reconsider, and they all (4, Betsy Wergin was missing) said NO to AWA Goodhue’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Onward!