Legalectric

RIGHT NOW! It’s the PPSA Annual Hearing… sigh… here we go again.

Go to webex, Event # 146 311 2620. The powerpoint slides will be here (and will also be filed on eDockets).

To be able to comment, you have to get on the phone 866-609-6127, Conference ID: 4449079, and to comment, you need to press #1 and get in queue.

Here is the Commerce info about this year’s projects:

And for the record, folks, note that wind is not exempt from many of the parts of the PPSA:

On Wednesday, Association of Freeborn County Landowners filed an appeal of the Public Utilities Commission’s denial of AFCL’s Petition for and Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It was mailed Certified Mail yesterday, as required by statute, and today, filed on the PUC’s eDockets:

The PUC really screwed this up, in so many ways. Granted there are few Petitions for EAW to the Commission, and Commission staff may not be familiar with EQB rules and process. However, in the only other Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet/EIS, they denied a Motion and then a Petition for EAW forwarded by the EQB, and it was sent back to the Commission by the Appellate Court:

In the Matter of Minnesota Power’s Petition for Approval of the EnergyForward Resource Package

Lesson not learned. We’ve been trying to get environmental review of wind projects for how long now, particularly given the demonstrable impacts, actual and constructive notice, beyond the “potential” for environmental impacts. Bent Tree noise excedences and landowner settlements? What more is needed?

Bent Tree Order filed by PUC

In the Staff Briefing Papers, which is staff’s recommendation to the Commission, over and over it was said that the Petition was insufficient because there were not 100 signatures, but there were 380+ signatures! In the Staff Briefing Papers, over and over it was said that the Commission could declare the Petition insufficient, when it is NOT the Commission’s job to address sufficiency, that was already determined by the Environmental Quality Board, which validated the Petition and forwarded it to the Commission for action! Read the Briefing Papers… really, it’s that absurd:

I fired off a letter requesting correction, which never happened:

And even after denying AFCL’s Petition, they went further, and provided “notice” in an email to the EQB that the Board had made its decision:

And that “notice” was published in the EQB Monitor on February 18, 2020:

And yet to this date, they’ve not filed an Order or the Record of Decision on this decision! WHAT?!?! Yes, really!!

I’d sent a letter to the EQB about the Commission’s failure to file the Order and Record of Decision nearly a month ago:

STILL NO ORDER OR RECORD OF DECISION. There are no Findings of Facts to explain, to support, the Commission’s decision. I guess it’s harder to make them up than staff thought?!?!

Meanwhile, the appeal deadline of a decision on an EAW Petition is 30 days after the notice is published in the EQB Monitor. Minn. Stat. 116D.04, Subd. 10. It’s kind of hard to Appeal a decision without the necessary documents, so I can guess that’s one more reason the Commission has chosen not to file! Oh well… ONWARD!

Prior posts on AFCL’s Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet:

Freeborn EAW – more time!

EQB forwards EAW Petition to PUC

Petition for EAW – Freeborn Wind

Remember the Juhl Energy permit fiasco in Rock County earlier this month?

Rock County CUP granted

Now another Juhl project in the news, featuring Dan Juhl, who says he’s retired. HA! Doesn’t look like it… [After I published this, found another in the STrib, “Minnesota wind-solar hybrid project could be new frontier for renewable energy,” yup, “retired” guy on a big PR push!]

FYI, yes, distributed generation is where it’s at, siting small projects near load means that no new transmission is required, but because the massive transmission build-outs of CapX 2020 and MISO’s 17 project MVP portfolio have been built, well, it’s a little late.

BTW, Dan Juhl was present at the September 8, 2001 meeting at the Dinkytown Loring, after the first of Xcel’s 345kV transmission lines was proposed (Search for PUC Docket 01-1958) where Beth Soholt and Matt Schuerger asked a bunch of likely intervenors, “What would it take for you to approve of this project?” They never answered my question of what they were getting to promote it, but Matt Schuerger sure did get pissy and flustered and threatened to stomp out of the meeting! I did find documentation the $4.5 million (2001) and $8.1 million (2003) grants for “Wind on the Wires,” at that time a program of the Izaak Walton League. Clearly they got at least that much, and from other sources they got more, who knows how much… And all those transmission projects went through…

Anyway, here’s the recent report on a new project, from MPR:

New power generation: Rural co-op makes bet on wind, solar hybrid

The electricity we use is often generated hundreds of miles away. Dan Juhl wants to keep it local.

The longtime energy developer is convinced that small, hybrid solar-and-wind projects are the future of electricity generation in rural areas.  Much of the renewable electricity in the system now is generated by large wind farms or giant fields of solar panels. But Juhl envisions turning that approach on its head by creating dozens of small wind-and-solar sites that feed energy to consumers nearby. 

“The time is coming. The technology is there. It’s reliable, it’s efficient,” said Juhl, who has for years been developing renewable energy in Minnesota. “We’re not a bunch of wild-eyed hippies anymore. It’s the real deal.”

His concept: Pair two wind turbines and an array of solar panels to generate electricity that flows into the local energy grid.

The ultimate test of whether the approach is sustainable is the cost of the electricity it produces — and Juhl is certain that small solar-and-wind sites scattered around the state can produce electricity that’s cheaper than current market rates. 

To prove his theory, Juhl’s company — Juhl Energy — has built what he calls the first hybrid generating system in the country.

Making renewable local

To make this hybrid wind-and-solar approach work economically, Juhl first had to streamline the conversion process. Wind turbines and solar panels produce electricity differently, and that electricity must be converted before it can be sent to consumers. Juhl had to find a way to convert wind energy and solar energy into electricity through the same process.   

So, he partnered with electric behemoth General Electric to build the technology that would route the energy generated from wind turbines and solar panels through the same power conversion process, cutting the cost of combining wind and solar power at a single location. 

“We can produce and deliver clean power for less than the existing system,” Juhl said. He estimates the savings at about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity. The average residential price of a kilowatt-hour of electricity in Minnesota is about 14 cents.

The challenge, said Juhl, is convincing rural electric cooperatives that renewable energy can save them money. 

Tim Thompson is convinced. He’s CEO of Pelican Rapids, Minn.-based Lake Region Electric Cooperative, which serves west-central Minnesota and is buying the electricity that’s being produced from the first Juhl Energy hybrid system. 

Juhl’s single wind turbine and solar array hybrid near Rothsay, Minn., has only been operating since March, but Thompson said he expects his co-op will save about $150,000 annually because the electricity is cheaper than the market price the co-op pays for the rest of the electricity it uses.  

“Any time we can produce renewable energy at the local level, [and] our members consume that locally, we can save them a little bit of money in the process,” Thompson said. “That’s a perfect project for us.”

The electricity generated here flows into an existing Lake Region Electric substation 3 miles away. The power stays local: It’s used by the roughly 1,200 customers in the 150 square miles served by the substation. 

This $4.5 million project is smaller than what Juhl envisions as the ideal hybrid generation unit. The full system he’s designed would include solar panels combined with two wind turbines — double the amount at the Rothsay site.

A smaller scale for energy resilience

Renewable energy is often produced by massive wind farms or large fields of solar panels that generate electricity that’s transported onto the grid and used hundreds of miles away.  

But the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts significant growth in smaller, locally produced electricity, known as distributed power generation, in the next 30 years, as solar panels become less expensive to buy and install. 

Juhl said the small distributed model of electrical generation makes the system more reliable — and resilient.

“If it’s not windy or sunny here, it’s probably windy or sunny [somewhere else],” he said. “And so a distributed model adds a much higher reliability to renewables than central station renewables.” 

The idea is that many small power generation units spread the risk when compared with large facilities that focus generation in a single area.

“I mean, there’s no fuel, no emissions, no waste, no water and no transmission costs,” Juhl said. “How can it not be economical to deliver power like that?”

Juhl envisions eventually adding battery storage in rural communities to help utilize the locally generated power. 

A customer in co-ops

While Juhl sees reluctance among many rural electric cooperatives to embrace the hybrid model, Thompson has no reservations. 

“As a member-owned cooperative, we really pay very close attention to what our members want and need,” Thompson said. “And the feedback from members is that they do want more renewable energy.”

Does that mean Thompson expects to see more of these projects on the Lake Region Electric system? Probably not — at least not in the short term. 

Lake Region Electric buys the bulk of the electricity it distributes to customers from Great River Energy, and — as is the case with most co-ops’ contracts with big power producers — its contract with Great River limits how much renewable electricity the cooperative can buy from other sources. This hybrid project with Juhl makes up about half the total allowed. 

Great River Energy produces 58 percent of all the electricity it sells from coal, and 25 percent from renewable energy sources like wind or solar. 

Most rural electric cooperatives are locked into long-term contracts that limit how much electricity they can buy from other sources. That would make expanding the hybrid model on a large scale fairly difficult. 

But Juhl said he’s been getting more inquiries from members of electric cooperative boards since the Rothsay project went online — and he’s hopeful that soon, his vision for locally generated renewable energy will power more rural communities.

****************************************

New Power Generation? Just saw the reincarnation at the Sheldon last year…

Oh… nevermind…

Here they are, the two County Attorneys bookending the three developer reps, probably congratulating themselves on the County’s granting of the “Juhl Energy Development in partnership with Agri-Energy/GEVO” Conditional Use Permits for Sections 17 and 19 in Rock County.

What’s the big deal? Well, let’s start with the application, which was “fluff” — incomplete to put it mildly, and yet it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, a hearing was held without necessary information and documentation, and then it went to the County Board. Really, no exaggeration. Here’s the full board packet:

And what’s odd about this? The “conditions” proposed in the Board packet:

These are things that are to be included with an application, and if not, the Ordinance says that the application is not complete. FYI, this Ordinance was adopted in 2018, but is NOT posted on the County’s Website with the other Ordinances — really — check the link. WTF? Here it is (the County Attorney sent me a pdf, but it was only the even pages! Another WTF! Thankfully a little birdie sent the full Ordinance.):

NOTE in the heading: “An application to the County for a permit under this section is not complete unless it contains the following…” with all those 1-19 requirements constituting “the following.”

Take another look at the “application” in the board packet, two “applications” and a total of 10 pages! What a farce.

On behalf of the Jarchows, I’d sent a letter to the County Attorney, Administrator, and Zoning/Land-Use Administrator, and the County Board, laying out the problems, particularly stressing the egregiously incomplete application, together with an Affidavit of John Jarchow explaining their concerns with the potential nuisance coming to their property, a pre-existing permitted use:

And a Data Practices Act Request:

On to yesterday’s meeting. The County Attorney admitted that the Board had only the materials of the posted pack in front of them. As to the many missing items necessary for a complete application, one Commissioner asked about the Ordinance requirement of completeness, and the County Attorney said (not exact quote, but close) at least twice:

Oh, I wouldn’t be concerned about what the Ordinance says.

Really… I’d reminded the Commissioners of their Oath of Office, and I wonder if they thought about that. What’s the point of an ordinance if it’s ignored by the Board, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning Administrator who referred that incomplete application forward?

There were unstated claims that the biofuel plant needs this project to be able to sell to a California company. There’s a deadline approaching as the developers say this will be operational by year end.

IF THIS PROJECT IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE PLANT, AND TO THE COMMUNITY, why would the developer submit such an inadequate application? It’s on them, if they want to grease the skids and make it sail through, to do it right. But they didn’t.

Why would the Zoning Administrator forward such an inadequate and non-compliant application to the Planning Commission to review? Why would the Planning Commission hold a hearing and recommend it be approved when there is no record on which to base its “Findings.” Why would the County Board approve a CUP with so little record, and make a decision that has no record to support it? Why would the County allow a developer to put it in this position?

It’s on the developer to provide a complete application. If this project is so important, why would a developer make this strategic decision not to provide what’s required in an application?

Because they could? Because they couldn’t/can’t provide the information required? Because they knew the County wouldn’t make them follow the County Ordinance?

“Oh, I wouldn’t be concerned about what the Ordinance says.” Don Klosterbuer, Rock County’s County Attorney

Follow up Data Practices Act Request #2:

The Minnesota Department of Commerce issued the Draft EIS for the Dodge County wind project, and about the “C” and “D” route proposals for a 345kV line through the heart of Dodge Center, they had this to say:

Here’s the full DEIS Narrative:

This is an example of why it’s crucial to get involved early, that comments must be made at the outset before they have moved into evaluating a proposed route, so that they can consider the input of people on the ground in the initial evaluation. Here, at least 14 people weighed in on the impacts of the C and D routes on their homes and their lives, and that message was heard.

Now’s the time for the City of Dodge Center to acknowledge that it was Tom Applegate’s efforts, alerting the City of Dodge Center and the residents effected by this project’s Route C and D possibility, helping generate the many comments that were filed, that made Commerce’s rejection of these routes a reality.

And I sure hope Commissioner Tuma acknowledges what a bad idea routes C and D were and that next time he has a routing idea, that he commits to spend at least an hour on google earth along the route to know what he’s proposing. These two proposed routes were the worst I’ve seen for a 345kV line.