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.

“Sandpiper” decision – OPa150016-091415

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.”

Because the decision to grant a certificate of need for a large oil pipeline constitutes a major governmental action that has the potential to cause significant environmental effects, we conclude that MEPA requires an environmental impact statement to be completed before a final decision is made to grant or deny a certificate of need.

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:

Alternate Review of Applications – Minn. Stat. 216E.04

And in this statute, there’s a subdivision authorizing an “environmental assessment.”

Subd. 5.Environmental review.

For the projects identified in subdivision 2 and following these procedures, the commissioner of the Department of Commerce shall prepare for the commission an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment shall contain information on the human and environmental impacts of the proposed project and other sites or routes identified by the commission and shall address mitigating measures for all of the sites or routes considered. The environmental assessment shall be the only state environmental review document required to be prepared on the project.

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:

August 3 2015 Draft Minn. R. Ch. 7850 (Siting & Routing)

And Certificate of Need draft rules:

August 3 2015 Draft Minn. R. Ch. 7849 (Certificate of Need)

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.

I’ve been saying this for so many years, that electric demand is down, down, down, and instead, Xcel Energy (and all the others) have been saying it’s going UP, UP, UP (even though Mikey Bull said years ago that they wouldn’t need power for a while), and they’re applying for and getting Certificates of Need for all these permits for utility infrastructure that are obviously designed to market and sell the surplus, and the Public Utilities pretends to be oblivious (I say “pretends” because I cannot believe they’re that unaware and uninformed.).

This is a must read:

Xcel Compliance Filing_CN-13-606_20149-103251-02

Here’s the short version from Xcel:

2024 is expected to be about what it was back in 2007, the industry peak year.  DOH!  But note this — there’s a “small capacity surplus in 2016.”  DOH!

And given the surplus which we’ve known has been present and looming larger, that’s why they then ask for withdrawal of the Certificate of Need for the Prairie Island uprate because it isn’t needed (and really, that was just what, 80 MW or so?  Or 80 MW x 2 reactors, 160 MW?).  If they don’t need that small uprate, why on earth would they need so much more?

But what do I know…

Hollydale Transmission Line was clearly not needed, and they withdrew that application…

CapX 2020 transmission was based on a 2.49% annual increase in demand, and for Hampton-La Crosse in part supposedly based on Rochester and La Crosse demand numbers, yeah right, we know better, but that was their party line.  Again, DOH, it didn’t add up to needing a big honkin’ 345 kV transmission line stretching from the coal plants in the Dakotas to Madison and further east, but who cares, let’s just build it…

ITC MN/IA 345 kV line — the state said the 161 kV should be sufficient to address transmission deficiencies in the area, but noooooo, DOH, that wouldn’t address the “need” for bulk power transfer (the real desire for the line).

Here’s a bigger picture of the bottom line (I’m accepting this as a more accurate depiction, not necessarily the TRUTH, but close enough for electricity), keeping in mind that these are PROJECTIONS, and that they’re adding a “Coincident Peak adjustment” which should be included in the “peak” calculations):

Notice the only slight reduction in coal capacity, just 19 MW, nuclear stays the same, a 320 MW decrease in gas, a 128 MW reduction in Wind, Hydro, Biomass, which I hope includes garbage burners and the Benson turkey shit plant , slight increase in solar of 18 MW, and Load Management also a slight increase of only 80 MW.  This is Xcel Energy with its business as usual plan, which has to go.  We can do it different, and now is the time.

Will someone explain why we paid so much to uprate Monticello, and paid to rebuild Sherco 3?

From the archives:

500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind

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 »

“Double Trouble” taken by Marie McNamara on her organic dairy farm within the AWA Goodhue project footprint.

I know, too much alphabet soup in the title… but the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued the Order denying the AWA Goodhue Avian and Bat Protection Plan week before last, and I’ve been drowning in CapX and didn’t get it posted, so…

AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN

DNR Comments on ABPP

USFWS Comments on ABPP

Revised AWA Goodhue Avian and Bat Protection Plan

The DNR and USFWS wrote blisteringly negative comments, like nothing I’ve ever seen before, and AWA revised their plan, but not enough.  This was the scenario where Commerce wrote staff briefing papers for the Commission and didn’t even tell them about the agency comments, and didn’t update their “recommendation” even after the meeting had been cancelled twice for their failure to allow time for comments on the Revised Plan and failure to disclose DNR and USFWS comments and then rescheduled yet again for the PUC’s failure to provide legal notice of the meeting, an amazing series of screw-ups.  Finally, the PUC meeting was held, it lasted almost all day, and they rejected it.

HERE IS THE PUC’s ORDER:

PUC Order Denying AWA Goodhue’s ABPP

AWA Goodhue did NOT expect this, that was obvious.  The PUC was pretty clear that AWA had not complied, that “good enough” just wasn’t.

The Commission, too, is concerned about the extent of missing bat data because collecting a full season of data prior to construction would enable the parties and the agencies to make determinations as accurately as possible about the presence of bat species. That process has been severely compromised, and the permit condition was not met. The Commission will therefore direct AWA Goodhue to complete the acoustic bat monitoring required under the site permit and to conduct an additional season of monitoring in 2013.

And trumpeter swans!  They’re paying attention to trumpeter swans!

In August 2011, the DNR confirmed a report of trumpeter swans nesting within a two mile buffer of the Project’s footprint. AWA Goodhue stated that it will visit the nest site early in the 2012 breeding season to determine whether it is again used for nesting. AWA Goodhue also stated, however, that the Project area encompasses very little habitat potentially suitable for nesting by trumpeter swans. The DNR stated that swans are not likely to move substantially during the breeding season and that monitoring should be conducted during the breeding season, summer post fledging, and fall migration.

The Commission must ensure that the potential impacts to trumpeter swans, which were previously considered eliminated in Minnesota, are understood and addressed. The Commission concurs that future monitoring will be useful in making those determinations.

DNR’s Non-Game Wildlife – Trumpeter Swan page

Bottom line?  Here ’tis:

ORDER

1. The Commission hereby denies approval of the AWA Goodhue revised avian and bat protection plan.

2. AWA Goodhue shall conduct the bat monitoring required under the site permit.

3. AWA Goodhue shall conduct an additional season of acoustic bat monitoring in 2013 from July 1 to October 15 using the methods specified in site permit condition 13.1.2.

Note this is an old map – I pulled it up at the Windfinder site and this is what it looks like today:

Anyway, the news from Friday is that the Obama Administration and some, but NOT all, of the Great Lakes States signed a Memorandum of Understanding, oh, also many federal agencies, like U.S. Fish & Wildlife.

I think this is an important step.  Lake Superior is too deep, but Lake Michigan and Lake Erie are the ones I’ve heard most often discussed as having high potential, and what’s particularly good about it is that they’re right near load centers.  Offshore would remove the “too close to neighbors” health concerns that are a significant issue.  But as with the Delaware Bluewater project, the environmental work needs to be done, and I hope it’s done more thoroughly than for on-shore wind.  What are infrasound impacts on marine life?  I’d asked Rick James, I.N.C.E., about this when he was here a couple years ago, and he hadn’t heard of any research on this point.  Hmmmmmm… big gap.

Google of  “impacts of infrasound on marine life”

So there’s a start… An interesting one is “The effects of human-generated sound on fish” which among other thing notes that it’s been suggested that birds use infrasound for migration, the waves bouncing of geological features!

Anyway, here’s the Memorandum of Understanding:

Great Lakes Offshore Wind Energy Consortium Memorandum of Understanding

And the Press Release:

Press Release (cut & pasted!)

Note that Wisconsin did NOT sign, which is consistent with WPPI’s testimony in the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse docket that they want to get their RPS wind from outside WI, despite the fact that the model assumptions include an estimated 103,757 MW of wind generation potential at or above 30% capacity and 20,741 MW at or above 35% capacity, not including any Lake Michigan development.  Despite this potential in Wisconsin, his testimony was that he had his heart set on getting their RPS from west of Wisconsin!  His own Burns & McDonnell study, Exhibit 2, said:

If our understanding of current transmission planning results is correct, it is generally more expensive (than this breakeven indication) to build additional power transfer capability over such a long distance.  There may be other reasons that could justify such a build0out, but capacity factor differential alone does not.

Well DUH!

Here’s his testimony and Exhibits, worth a look:

Noeldner WPPI Direct Testimony

Noeldner – Exhibit 2 – Wind Economics Study & Model Produced for WPPI Energy

Noeldner – Exhibit 3 – Wind Assessment Model Results (see fn. 6)