Legalectric

The Notice of Comment Period has been issued:

Here’s the plan to review:

2021 Biennial Xmsn Projects Report

Here’s the poop:

How to file comments? See below, and be sure to ask to be on the service list! If you want live links to make it easier, use link to Notice above.

The Xcel Energy Freeborn Wind post-construction noise modeling equipment is up, this time at the tree line, not behind it.

Just filed today at the Public Utilities Commission:

Xcel Energy has 14 days to respond, and then off to the Public Utilities Commission for consideration. The Commission needs to take a hard look at what they’re doing, because these wind projects sited without rules and too close to people is harming those living in the project footprint.

Noise remains a problem for those trying to live in the middle of a wind project. No surprise when the owner uses a 0.5 ground factor to model bigger, louder turbines, several hundred feet above the ground (these have rotor diameter of 120 meters, or 393.701 feet!). This has been ongoing for so long, going on 5 years, I find I’m forgetting crucial details. But what’s happened in this docket, and what has happened in other dockets, all adds up, particularly with the Bent Tree noise exceedences demonstrated, and resulting settlements, and the Blazing Star noise issues going on right now.

Noise was a problem in Bent Tree with Vestas V-82 for the Hagens and Langruds.

Bent Tree Noise report confirms permit violations!

Wind turbine noise is a problem for the Blazing Star wind project with these bigger and louder Vestas V-120:

Blazing Star Wind NOISE!

More on Blazing Star noise

Freeborn Wind noise has long been an issue. Noise was a problem when the Freeborn Wind ALJ recommended denial of the permit because they had not demonstrated, using 0.0 ground factor, that they could comply. Yes, do not forget that we won that round, first recommendation of denial of wind permit application ever:

WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or…

So then the PUC changes the rules, moves the goal posts, and allows use of 0.5 ground factor in modeling to predict noise, and don’t forget, these are now Vestas V-120 turbines, bigger and louder.

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation

Can you spell U-N-D-E-R-E-S-T-I-M-A-T-E ?? GI-GO???

Tried for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and got the gong:

PUC Freeborn Mtg 2-6-2020

Filed a MERA claim (Minn. Stat. 116B.03) and we were booted out of court:

Association of Freeborn County Landowners v. Public Utilities Commission

And we appealed the Commission’s final decision on Freeborn:

Freeborn Wind appeal – we lose…

We are persistent. The noise numbers are too high, and they’re higher than pre-construction noise modeling predicted. Yeah, well, DOH, using the wrong ground factor.

The Commission needs to address this obvious problem and deal with the consequences. Avoidance just doesn’t cut it. This is real, and it’s not going away.

ONWARD!

The Office of Attorney General’s Residential Utility Division (OAG-RUD) has told the gas utilities in search of recovery for its EXTREME supply expenses during the natural gas price spike in February where to go… or more correctly, where NOT to go — that this should NOT come out of ratepayer pockets — that it’s the on the shareholders. YES! Love it when this happens.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has an “investigation” into the massive gas price spike in February, and how the huge price spike and increased costs should be handled (Many other states’ Commissions have opened an investigation too). Thus far, it’s appeared that the Commission’s intent is to pass it on to the ratepayers and spread it out so it’s not so painful. But not so fast folks! It’s so heartwarming to read a pleading, particularly one filed by Office of Attorney General – Residential Utilities Division, where they say “NO!”

Read it HERE:

There are three ongoing dockets at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission looking at the “gas crisis” from February.

Now pay attention, because this HUGE gas spike was only 2-3 days:

Some background Legalectric posts:

Texas — it’s a gas — natural gas… DOH! February 17th, 2021

It’s still a GAS! February 28th, 2021

The PUC is looking at a few questions, but what troubling is that the Commission seems to presume that the utilities will recoup from ratepayers! This presumption was evident in previous Commission meetings, and was disturbing, to put it mildly!

There are three dockets trudging along on the same path, and to look at all the filings go to eDockets and look up the dockets:

• 21-135
• 21-138
• 21-235

In May, the Commission issued another Notice of Comment Period and noted these issues, followed by a laundry list of topics for comments:

The AG’s Office minced no words and told them “NO!” For example:

Once more with feeling — ENJOY!

OAG_20217-175863-02

I’m particularly interested in storage, because a client lives above Minnesota’s only gas storage dome, an at least 10 square mile just north of Waseca, with 7 billion c.f. of natural gas stored below. A gas intermediate (not peaking) plant was proposed there, first a very small one, then one 10 times that in MW, and thankfully neither was built.

Knowing about that storage (and too many Minnesotans do not), storage was the focus of my comment in this docket last February:

OAG-RUD did address the failure of the gas utilities to utilize storage:

Bottom line to the OAG-RUD?

Just wow… It’s the sort of thing that makes my head burst!

Association of Freeborn County Landowners has been challenging the invasion of Freeborn Wind, a/k/a Xcel Energy a/k/a Northern States Power into this existing community.

Hundreds of meetings, filings, over the last FOUR YEARS, and we got the first contested case hearing ever for a wind project in Minnesota… the first in 20+ years of siting wind projects, and the first time a projects comes to the test, the ALJ recommends the permit be denied!

The Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge:

The Public Utilities Commission does a perverse and contorted 180 and lets Freeborn have their way, and the public, residents be damned.

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation

Then 17 turbines left for Iowa, but 24 remain.

… we get tossed out by the appellate court, which affirmed the Commission’s decisions and Orders.

Freeborn Wind appeal – we lose…

And earlier this week, they serve this:

Let’s see… they have open access to ratepayer pocketbooks, they’re reimbursed for their costs! BY US! We ratepayers have to pay! Meanwhile, for the public to show up, and to challenge for FOUR YEARS on this project, or any project, like the Mesaba project, or CapX 2020!, people hold garage sales, put grain in at the elevator, a silent auction in a tornado, and plain old arm-twisting to cover our comparatively nominal costs.

Our objection just filed:

NOW THEY THINK WE SHOULD PAY THEM $3,312.75?

Meanwhile, don’t cha wonder how’s Xcel Energy doing these days? Their 1Q report just out… More customers, decreased sales, and stock soars:

Hmmmmmmm, remember that Texas storm? Here’s the impacts:

Xcel easily tops earnings estimates

Ain’t capitalism grand…

… sigh… Totally ignores ALJ Recommendation after contested case hearing, setting up the issues that followed:

A new noise study not provided until AFTER the initial permit was granted, there was NO demonstration that they could comply, and what they provided after the first permit granted, and before the second decision, was NOT subject to a contested case. Earth to Mars, it’s “material issues of FACT,” not “issues” that must be demonstrated to get a contested case, and these are thousands of pages of facts not in evidence and not subject to contested case.

This is just so wrong, an application is NOT environmental review:

And this — how could issues and facts NOT part of the contested case have been addressed in the contested case?

New material issues of FACTS – FACTS not in existence for initial contested case, FACTS not provided until AFTER the initial permit was granted. “…relator therefore alleges no new material facts beyond those raised at the first contested-case hearing.” WHAT?!?!

How’s this for new material FACT beyond those raised at the first contested-case hearing:

How many hundred pages of NEW material FACTS? All this was part of PUC record, AFTER the first permit was issued. All this was included as new material issues of fact in our request for a second contested case. All this was included in appeal. Yet:

“As to these issues, relator therefore alleges no new material facts beyond those raised at the first contested-case hearing.”

My head is going to explode. Such deceptive word games, summarized with a demonstrably false statement.