Ice throw from turbine hits truck cab!
February 24th, 2018
Photo of TNT, LLC truck cab taken at the scene
On Thursday, just as we were leaving the hearing for the Freeborn Wind project at the Albert Lea Armory, a large chunk of ice flew off one of the Bent Tree turbines and hit the drivers side of a truck going south on Hwy. 13 towards Albert Lea. Put a scratch and lite dent in the door, and took a big chunk out of the faring near the gas cap. That’s a big piece of plastic that costs way, way too much to replace.
A chunk of ice also hit the Langrud’s shop nearby. Others???
The ice last week was unreal, I’ve never experienced that level of ice coating my vehicle as last Monday, it was raining all the way from Red Wing to Albert Lea, and in places it was an inch thick. I can just imagine how it was caked on the turbines.
It’s been reported in both the Albert Lea Tribune and KAAL TV 6:
Complaint: Ice From Freeborn Co. Wind Turbine Hit Semi – KAAL
Turbines temporarily shut down after ice … – Albert Lea Tribune
And here is the letter sent by Alliant/Wisconsin Power & Light Company regarding the ice throw:
Freeborn Wind hearing just ended…
February 22nd, 2018
KAAL’s star witness!
It’s over, only two days, well, three, the public hearing was on Tuesday, lots and lots of people attended and spoke up.
This was before the public hearing started, and not long after it started they added two more sections o seating over on our side to my right. It was a god crowd, articulate and well spoken.
The AP article about this project is all over the country.
New rebellion against wind energy stalls or stops projects:
Enough, you get the idea…
Plains & Eastern Clean Line Dead?
January 24th, 2018
From Alison Milsaps and Dave Ulery, Block Plains and Eastern Clean Line:
To recap the events of recent weeks: Plains & Eastern, Clean Line’s regulatory crown jewel and the only of its projects to be fully (if questionably) permitted, is DEAD in Arkansas. Hallelujah. Don’t take our word for it, though. Let’s look at a little evidence:
Hubris: Clean Line’s Michael Skelly and the End of the Plains and Eastern Project…
You know, I love it when this happens.
Under the agreement, Clean Line Energy retains project assets east of Oklahoma, and NextEra Energy Resources owns only the project assets in Oklahoma.
Clean Line Energy added that the transaction will continue the project’s forward momentum and install a new sponsor to a transmission solution to the burgeoning wind sector in Oklahoma and the Southwest Power Pool.
A Clean Line Energy spokesperson on Dec. 22 told TransmissionHub of the deal, “We cannot disclose financial information.”
Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based developer of five major transmission lines for wind-generated electricity, has dropped its interconnection agreement with TVA for one of its most promising projects after the federal utility declined to buy what Clean Line officials said would be cheaper and cleaner power for TVA…
… But after years of study, TVA said the Clean Line project didn’t make economic sense for the nation’s biggest government-owned utility, since TVA already has enough power-generating capacity and is on path to get more than half of its power from carbon-free sources. TVA President Bill Johnson said the intermittent nature of wind power would require TVA to build other backup power generators, including natural gas plants, that would offset the promised savings from the wind-generated power sources alone.
“We’re looking at a power demand in the future that is flat, or declining slightly, so we don’t anticipate needing major additions to power generation for a decade or more,” Johnson said.
“We all are wondering at this point” what is going on, said Julie Morton, of Van Buren. “We are disconnected on the western end now. The TVA was going to take 3,500 of the 4,000 megawatts it was going to generate, but now it is disconnected on that end.
“We are stuck in the middle, unplugged at both ends, and the only way out for us is if Clean Line completely implodes, which I think is happening, and the Department of Energy withdraws from the project.”
and now…
Using powers contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the department moved the project forward over the objections of Arkansas leaders.
Among other things, the law would enable the use of eminent domain to obtain property from unwilling sellers.
But the participation agreement allows the department to back out of the deal if “the Commencement Date has not occurred by December 31, 2018.”
In the letter, delegation members urged Perry to “pause the Project to either study or terminate its participation before the deadline.”
Since it was unveiled, the power line project has generated controversy.
Arkansas lawmakers ask DOE to block Clean Line transmission project
Don’t know what more we could possibly need to show that this project is O. V. E. R. I do wonder if the appellate case was dismissed so there would be no precedent, and then, immediately after it was dismissed, all this happens. Then, if they or someone else wants to try a Section 1222 project, the door remains open????
Look who’s in the news!
January 5th, 2018
Yes, we all know that Mike Bull wrote most of the energy law now in place! But there’s no mention of those many years of work at House Regulated Industries Committee though…
And we all know that there are some big holes and problems with the wind siting statutes, rules, and standards. What will it take to get some of the problems worked through, like some respectful wind siting standards? We’re just starting to see, at long last, after years and years of complaints, some Public Utilities Commission action on wind noise issues.
Bent Tree_Noise Monitoring and Monitoring Report_20179-135856-01
Siting will have to be addressed, because despite sound modeling that says “no problem,” there are indeed problems. Despite shadow flicker modeling that says “no problem,” there are indeed problems.
Preventative siting is long overdue and needs to start NOW! And what about those already affected? “Buy the Farm” for wind? It’s overdue. Action after the fact is not the best of options, prevention is always the key, but for those now attempting to live in untenable circumstances, foisted on them by the nuisance moving into their community, and permitted by the Commission, what are the options?
Wind project in southern Minnesota gets pushback
Hey Mikey, how ’bout helping get to some solutions???
Routing Alternate Review — Environmental Assessment isn’t enough
September 23rd, 2015
Transmission over Red Wing’s Westwood subdivision
In routing permitting using “Alternate Review” and in wind siting permitting under Minn. Stat. Chapter 216F, exempted from environmental review, the environmental review is inadequate. An Environmental Impact Statement is necessary! DOH!
Looking at Minnesota’s draft Rules for Transmission/Utility Infrastructure siting and routing, it’s clear that the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision remanding the Sandpiper pipeline case to the Public Utilities Commission has implications beyond Certificate of Need.
The Court’s bottom line was:
This was based on its holding that a Certificate of Need decision by the Public Utilities Commission was a “major governmental action.”
Just as a Certificate of Need is a major governmental decision, a Siting Permit or a Routing Permit is a major governmental decision. The Minnesota statute and rules provide for “Alternate Review” for siting and routing:
And in this statute, there’s a subdivision authorizing an “environmental assessment.”
Subd. 5.Environmental review.
Throughout this rulemaking, a number of us participating have been stressing that this “environmental assessment” does not comply with MEPA. Under the logic of the “Sandpiper” decision – OPa150016-091415, the Court would agree.
Yet here are the draft rules for Siting and Routing — search for “environmental assessment” in the draft:
And Certificate of Need draft rules:
And regarding wind permits, also a major governmental decision, these are statutorily exempted from environmental review by exempting it from PPSA – Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 5 “Environmental Review.”
216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.
Wind siting permits are exempt from environmental review? Public Utilities Commission issuance of wind project siting permits is a major governmental action. Nope, not compliant with MEPA.
