|
|
6-2500-15659-2
IP-6339/CN-03-1841
|
STATE
OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
|
In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need
for the Trimont Area Wind Farm
|
FINDINGS
OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATION
|
This matter came on for
evidentiary and public hearings on April 5, 2004, in the Triumph Hall, 546 Main
Street East, Trimont, MN. The
evidentiary hearing began at 1:00 p.m., and then there were public hearings at
3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. None of the
sessions lasted longer than 1.5 hours, and all persons were given an
opportunity to present their views. The
record closed on April 7, 2004, upon receipt of a late-filed exhibit.
Appearing on behalf of
the Applicant herein, Trimont Wind I, LLC, (“Applicant” or “Trimont”) was John
E. Drawz, of the firm of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 200 South Sixth Street,
Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425.
Appearing on behalf of
the Intervenor herein, Minnesota Department of Commerce, was Karen Finstad
Hammel, Assistant Attorney General, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul,
MN 55101-2131.
The Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board was represented by David E. Birkholz, and the staff
of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission was represented by David L.
Jacobson.
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that,
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.61, and the Rules of Practice of the Public
Utilities Commission and the Office of Administrative Hearings, exceptions to
this Report, if any, by any party adversely affected must be filed within 10
days of the mailing date hereof with the Executive Secretary, Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission, 350 Metro Square, 121 - 7th Place East, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55101. Exceptions must be
specific and stated and numbered separately.
Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order should be included, and
copies thereof shall be served upon all parties. Oral argument before a majority of the Commission will be
permitted to all parties adversely affected by the Administrative Law Judge’s
recommendation who request such argument.
Such request must accompany the filed exceptions or reply, and an
original and 12 copies of each document should be filed with the Commission.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will make the
final determination of the matter after the expiration of the period for filing
exceptions as set forth above, or after oral argument, if such is requested and
had in the matter.
Further notice is hereby
given that the Commission may, at its own discretion, accept or reject the
Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation and that said recommendation has no
legal effect unless expressly adopted by the Commission as its final order.
Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural History and the Parties.
1.
Trimont is an Oregon
limited liability company wholly owned by PPM Energy, Inc. (“PPM”), an Oregon
corporation. Trimont has entered into a
Development and Purchase Option with a second LLC, known as Trimont Area Wind
Farm (“TAWF”). TWAF, in turn, is owned
by more than 40 local farmers and landowners in the Trimont area who own land
covering 35 square miles straddling the Martin-Jackson County line. Exhibit 18, p. 1.
2.
The Department is the
state agency responsible for investigating the facts set forth in the
Applicant’s Certificate of Need application and providing the Commission
sufficient information and recommendations so that a final determination on the
Application can be made.
3.
The Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (“MEQB”) is the state agency responsible for the
permitting of power plant sites and transmission line routes under the Power
Plant Siting Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 116C.51‑69) and for the preparation of
the Environmental Report required in certificate of need proceedings (Minn.
Rules 4410.7020; Exhibit 9 at 1).
4.
On November 18, 2003,
Trimont filed its Application for a
Certificate of Need: Trimont Area Wind
Farm Project: Martin and Jackson
Counties, Minnesota (Exhibit 1), for a 100 megawatt (“MW”) LWECS (the
“Facility” or the “Project”) to be constructed near Trimont, Minnesota. The Company stated that all of the Project’s
energy would be sold to Great River Energy (“GRE”), Minnesota’s largest
generation and transmisson cooperative.
5.
On November 19, 2003,
the Commission issued its Notice of
Comment Period on the Request for Variance and Completeness of the Certificate
of Need Application (Exhibit 5).
6.
On November 26, 2003,
the Applicant requested that the MEQB prepare the Environmental Report (Exhibit
6).
7.
On December 1, 2003,
the DOC and the MEQB submitted comments on the request for variance and
completeness (Exhibits 7 and 8).
8.
On December 22, 2003,
the Commission issued two orders: (1)
Order Granting Exemption Requests in Part, Permitting Expedited Filing,
Accepting Application as of Date of Supplemental Filing, and Requesting
Preparation of Environmental Report (Exhibit 9); and (2) Notice and Order for Hearing (Exhibit
10), which referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings
(“OAH”). The Commission asked the DOC
to continue its examination of the merits of the Application and to provide a
recommendation on the reasonableness of granting the Application.
9.
The DOC intervened as a
matter of right.
10.
On January 12, 2004,
Trimont filed its Supplemental Filing (Exhibit 11) containing its responses to
the Commission’s requests made on December 22, 2003.
11.
A Pre‑Hearing
Conference was held on January 16, 2004.
12.
Notice of the public
and evidentiary hearings (as required by Minn. Stat. § 216B.243, subd. 4)
and the availability of the Environmental Report (as required by Minn. Rules
4410.7030, subp. 10) was published and served as follows:
Minneapolis Star Tribune, on February 19, 2004 (Exhibit 12)
St. Paul Pioneer Press,
on February 19, 2004 (Exhibit 13)
Fairmont Sentinel,
on February 19, 2004 (Exhibit 14)
Jackson County Pilot,
on February 19, 2004 (Exhibit 15)
State Register, on
Monday, January 5, 2004, at 28 S.R. 868 (Testimony of David Jacobson)
Service by mail, on February 12, 2004
(Exhibit 17)
EQB Monitor, on
January 19, 2004 (Exhibit 16)
- - - - - - - -
EQB Minitor, on March 29, 2004
Service by mail on March 26, 2004
Service on MPUC on March 29, 2004
Posting on MEQB web page on March 29,
2004
Applicable
Statutory and Rule Criteria.
13.
The Applicant’s
proposed Facility qualifies as a “large energy facility” under Minn. Stat. § 216B.2421, subd. 2(1), a “large
electric power generating plant” under Minn. Stat. § 116C.52, subd. 5, and a
“large electric generating facility” under Minn. Rules 7849.0010, subd.
13.
14.
Minn. Stat. § 216B.243
and Minn. Rules 7849.0010 through 7849.0400 set forth the criteria which must
be met by the Applicant to establish need for its proposed Facility.
15.
Minn. Stat. § 216B.243
prohibits siting or constructing a large energy facility without first
obtaining a certificate of need from the Commission. As set forth in Minn. Rules 7849.0120, a certificate of need must
be granted to the applicant if:
(A) the probable result of denial would be an
adverse effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy
supply to the applicant, to the applicant’s customers, or to the people of
Minnesota and neighboring states, considering:
(1) the accuracy of the applicant’s forecast
of demand for the type of energy that would be supplied by the proposed
facility;
(2) the effects of the applicant’s existing or
expected conservation programs and state and federal con-servation programs;
(3) the effects of promotional practices of
the applicant that may have given rise to the increase in the energy demand,
particularly promotional practices which have occurred since 1974;
(4) the ability of current facilities and
planned facilities not requiring certificates of need to meet the future
demand; and
(5) the effect of the proposed facility, or a
suitable modification thereof, in making efficient use of resources;
(B) a more reasonable and prudent alternative
to the proposed facility has not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence on the record, considering:
(1) the appropriateness of the size, the type,
and the timing of the proposed facility compared to those of reasonable
alternatives;
(2) the cost of the proposed facility and the
cost of energy to be supplied by the proposed facility compared to the costs of
reasonable alternatives and the cost of energy that would be supplied by
reasonable alternatives;
(3) the effects of the proposed facility upon
the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of
reasonable alternatives; and
(4) the expected reliability of the proposed
facility compared to the expected reliability of reasonable alternatives;
(C) by a preponderance of the evidence on the
record, the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will
provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural
and socioeconomic environments, including human health, considering:
(1) the relationship of the proposed facility,
or a suitable modification thereof, to overall state energy needs;
(2) the effects of the proposed facility, or a
suitable modification thereof, upon the natural and socioeconomic environments
compared to the effects of not building the facility;
(3) the effects of the proposed facility, or a
suitable modification thereof, in inducing future develop-ment; and
(4) the socially beneficial uses of the output
of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, including its
uses to protect or enhance environmental quality; and
(D) the record does not demonstrate that the
design, construction, or operation of the proposed facility, or a suitable
modification of the facility, will fail to comply with relevant policies,
rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local
governments.
16.
Minn. Stat. § 216B.243,
subd. 3, provides as follows:
No proposed large energy facility
shall be certified for construction unless the applicant can show that demand
for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation
and load-management measures and unless the applicant has otherwise justified
its need.
17.
Pursuant to Minn. Rules
4410.7020, the MEQB is responsible for preparation of an Environmental Report
on the Applicant’s proposed Facility in a certificate of need proceeding. See
Exhibit 9. According to the Rule, the
Environmental Report shall include:
A. A general description of the proposed
project and associated facilities.
B. A general description of the alternatives
to the proposed project that are addressed.
Alternatives shall include the no-build alternative, demand side
management, purchased power, facilities of a different size or using a
different energy source than the source proposed by the applicant, upgrading of
existing facilities, generation rather than transmission if a high voltage
transmission line is proposed, transmission rather than generation if a large
electric power generating plant is proposed, use of renewable energy sources,
and those alternatives identified by the chair.
C. An analysis of the human and
environmental impacts of a project of the type proposed and of the alternatives
identified.
D. An analysis of the potential impacts that
are project specific.
E. An analysis of mitigative measures that
could reasonably be implemented to eliminate or minimize any adverse impacts
identified for the proposed project and each alternative analyzed.
F. An analysis of the feasibility and
availability of each alternative considered.
G. A list of permits required for the
project.
H. A discussion of other matters identified
by the chair.
18.
Notice of the pending
project and the Environmental Report preparation process was provided as
required by Rule. The MEQB held public
scoping meetings on the Environmental Report on January 13 and February 3,
2004, in Trimont, Minnesota. The public
comment period ended on February 24, 2004.
Exhibit 18.
19.
The MEQB Chair issued
the required Scoping Order on March 1, 2004.
Notice of the Chair’s Order was mailed and published as required by
Rule. Exhibit 18.
20.
The MEQB completed the
Environmental Report on March 29, 2004.
Notice of the Environmental Report’s availability was mailed and
published as required by Rule. See,
Finding 12 and Exhibit 18, Appendix E.
The Environmental Report was made a part of the Certificate of Need
record as Exhibit 18, and David Burkholz of the MEQB appeared at all of the
hearing sessions in Trimont to answer questions about the Environmental Report.
The Project
21.
The proposed Facility
is expected to generate electricity using up to 67 1.5 MW wind turbine
generators. Exhibit 1 at 17. The combined nominal net electric generating
capacity of the proposed Facility will be approximately 100 MW. Id. The Project is designed to provide a dedicated source of renewable
energy to help GRE meet the State’s Renewable Energy Objective (“REO”), which
is codified atMinn. Stat. § 216B.1691.
Id. at 1, 7; Exhibit 9 at 2.
The proposed Facility will interconnect with an existing 345 kV
transmission line (the Lakefield-Wilmarth line) at Xcel Energy’s Martin County
Substation. Exhibit 1 at 8, 20. Trimont and GRE have entered into a
fifteen-year Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) whereby GRE will purchase all of
the Project’s energy for its member-consumers.
Exhibit 4.
22.
The Facility’s proposed
location was chosen to utilize existing transmission infrastructure and to
provide for efficient use of land and wind resources, thereby minimizing
environmental impact. Exhibit 1 at 8,
and 21-22.
23.
The Commission granted
several of Trimont’s requests for exemptions from the requirements of Minn.
Rules Chapter 7849. Exhibit 9. Because non-renewable alternatives to the
Project are inconsistent with the Project’s purpose, the Commission exempted Trimont
from discussing non-renewable alternatives or providing cost data for non-renewable
alternatives. Exhibit 9 at 3-4. Because of Trimont’s status as an
Independent Power Producer (“IPP”), the Commission exempted Trimont from
providing system-wide data, information on conservation programs, and
information relating to the preparation and accuracy of a demand forecast as
required by Minn. Rules 7849.0250.C, .0270, .0280, .0290, and .0300. Id.
The Commission’s Order stated that the relevant system was GRE’s and
that those rule requirements had been met through Trimont’s submission of GRE’s
Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) as an appendix to its Application. Id.
Trimont was also exempted from discussing high-voltage transmission
lines, based on a finding that transmission facilities were not true
alternatives to the proposed Facility. Id.
at 4.
The Probable Result of Denial of the
Certificate of Need Would be an Adverse
Effect on the Future Adequacy, Reliability, and Efficiency of Energy Supply to
GRE, the People of Minnesota, and Neighboring States. [7849.0120.A]
24.
A certificate of need
can be issued only if the probable result of denial would be an adverse effect
on the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy supply to the
applicant, to the applicant’s customers, or to the people of Minnesota and
neighboring states. Minn. Rules
7849.0120.A. Since Trimont is an IPP
and thus does not have a “system” or “customers” as contemplated by the rule,
the Commission exempted it from providing system information. See Exhibit 9 at 3-4.
The factors to be considered in assessing adequacy, reliability, and
efficiency of energy supply are:
(1) the accuracy of the applicant’s forecast
of demand;
(2) the effects of conservation programs;
(3) the effects of promotional practices;
(4) the potential for facilities not requiring
certificates of need to meet the future demand; and
(5) making efficient use of resources.
Minn. Rules
7849.0120.A(1)-(5).
25.
The Project has been
designed from its inception to respond to GRE’s desire to meet the REO and to
obtain a low-cost renewable energy resource.
The Project was selected by GRE through a competitive bidding process
because of its ability to provide GRE with an efficient, cost-effective means
of meeting those goals. The
consequences of denial of the Application would be a significant impairment of
GRE’s ability to meet the REO. Exhibit
1 at 6-8.
26.
Trimont has negotiated
a fifteen-year PPA whereby all of the proposed Facility’s energy will be sold
to GRE. GRE is the second largest power
supplier in Minnesota and the fourth largest cooperative power supplier in the
nation. GRE provides power and energy
to 28 electric distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Their combined service territory stretches
from the farming communities in southern Minnesota through the northern lake
country and includes many of the outer-ring suburbs surrounding the Twin
Cities. The demand for electricity in
GRE’s regional service territory is growing, while supplies remain limited and
future deficits are apparent. In
addition to helping GRE meet the REO, the Project would serve to assist in
meeting GRE’s total future energy needs, which are projected to grow at an
average annual rate of 2.8 percent between 2003 and 2017. The Project would also reduce GRE’s expected
future deficits in resources, which are projected to reach 1,478 MW by
2017. It would provide a clean,
low-cost source for the region’s and the State’s renewable energy needs. Id. at 7, Appendix A.
27.
The Mid-Continent Area
Power Pool (“MAPP”) and the Department have in recent years consistently
reinforced the regional need for increased generating capacity in the coming
decade. Cost fluctuations and
reliability problems serve to reinforce the need for sufficient capacity,
low-cost energy, and diverse generation sources. Despite recent industry difficulties, IPPs remain an important
tool for meeting regional energy needs, stabilizing energy costs, and enhancing
energy reliability. The Project offers
GRE, Minnesota, and the MAPP region the opportunity to ensure that adequate
capacity exists, stabilize and perhaps lower wholesale power prices, and
provide added reliability through a clean, cost-effective renewable energy
generation facility. Id.
28.
GRE’s IRP states that
wind energy is currently the most cost-effective renewable energy resource in
Minnesota. Id. at 7. As a result of its most recent forecast
demonstrating a need for energy in the near-term, and its commitment to making
a good faith effort to meet the REO, GRE selected Trimont through a competitive
bidding process to supply wind energy to help satisfy its forecasted needs and
renewable energy objectives. Id.
at 7-8.
29.
Denial of Trimont’s
Application would adversely affect GRE’s ability to meet its energy
requirements in a cost-effective manner and would significantly hinder GRE’s
ability to meet the REO. Because the
Project offers Minnesota and the MAPP region a clean, low-cost, and efficient
renewable energy source, denial of the Application would also hinder Minnesota
in meeting its energy needs and maintaining its position as a national leader
in promoting and supporting an environmentally-sound renewable energy
policy. Id. at 8.
Accuracy of Forecast Demand for the Type of Energy
to be Supplied by the Proposed Facility.
[7849.0120.A(1)]
30.
The Commission’s
December 22, 2003, Order (Exhibit 9) exempts Trimont from providing information
on peak demand and annual consumption forecast and concludes that the
requirement set forth in Minn. Rules 7849.0270 is met by including GRE’s IRP in
the Application.
31.
The MAPP July 1, 2003, Load
and Capability Report (“Report”) forecasts a 221 MW deficit in the summer
of 2006 for the MAPP-US region that grows to 1,982 MW by the summer of
2012. Exhibit 20. In spite of recent committed or planned
resources, additional plants are needed in the near future. The Report shows that the regional supply
and demand situation is moving towards
deficits by an average of 380 MW per year.
The Report shows that the MAPP-US region load grows to 35,308 MW in 2013
from 29,933 MW in 2003, an average of 600 MW per year. Exhibit 20.
32.
In GRE’s most recent
IRP, GRE’s summer and winter demand were forecasted to increase by about 2.5
percent annually (2003 to 2017).
Exhibit 1, Appendix A. That
equals an average of 53.5 MW over the forecast period during the winter season
and 72.5 MW during the summer season.
System energy was forecasted to grow at an average annual rate of 2.8
percent over the forecast period. The
Department reviewed those forecasts and concluded they were reasonable, with
two qualifications. One cautions
against over-reliance on judgment and the other relates to conservation and the
forecast. DOC Comments in MPUC Docket
No. ET2/RP-03-974 (November 3, 2003).
33.
In GRE’s most recent
IRP, GRE provided information on its resources and the resulting surplus/deficit. GRE initially estimated its first deficit to
occur in 2004. The DOC revised that
estimate to occur in 2005 at 145 MW, growing to 1,473 MW by 2017. Id.
GRE later provided an update that moved the first deficit to 2007
(131 MW). GRE’s Updated IRP (September
26, 2003). Overall, the update
substantially reduced the deficits between 2005 and 2009, but did not change
the results in other years. The
Department reviewed those calculations and concluded that they were sufficient
but that an improvement could be made regarding conservation and the forecast,
which would have an impact. Id.
34.
A dual need for both
additional capacity and energy exists in MAPP.
The MAPP-US region is expected to be capacity deficit by 221 MW in
2006. Exhibit 20. The proposed Facility can help to meet that
need. Forecasted GRE load growth and
expiration of existing capacity purchases justify the proposed Facility.
The Effects of Conservation Programs. [7849.0120.A(2)]
35.
The Commission’s
December 22, 2003, Order exempts Trimont from providing information on
conservation programs and their potential for reducing the need for new
generation and transmission facilities and concludes that the requirement set
forth in Minn. Rules 7849.0290 is met by including GRE’s IRP in the
Application. Exhibit 9.
36.
Conservation programs,
such as new or expanded Demand Side Management (“DSM”) programs, would be
unlikely to provide a timely, cost-effective substitute for the type and
quantity of electric capacity or energy provided by the proposed Facility. The stated need for the proposed Facility is
primarily to help GRE meet the REO. As
such, energy saved from conservation projects is not a direct substitute for
Project energy. Moreover, achieving
additional reduction of the magnitude needed to impact the need for the
proposed Facility is not feasible considering that the reduction would need to
be 10 to 15 MW and 340 MWh and occur before the end of 2004. Exhibit 4.
37.
The annual goals for
DSM selected by GRE in its most recent IRP are 7.6 million kWh and 17.5
MW. The Department reviewed those goals
and concluded that they were both reasonable and achievable. Moreover, the stated need for the Project is
to help GRE meet the REO. As such, it
would not be possible for DSM to equate to the Project’s energy production in
the manner proposed by the Project.
The
Effects of Promotional Practices.
[7849.0120.A(3)]
38.
Trimont has not conducted promotional
activities that have measurably contributed to the need for the proposed
Facility or increased demand for wholesale power in the region. Exhibit 1 at
15; Exhibit 11 at 15; Exhibit 4.
The
Ability of Current and Planned Facilities Not Requiring Certificates of Need to
Meet Future Demand. [7849.0120.A(4)]
39.
The primary
alternatives to the proposed Facility that would not require certificates of
need are power purchases from existing renewable facilities, purchases from
renewable plant facilities outside Minnesota, or construction of renewable
Minnesota facilities that are small enough not to require certificates of need
(less than 50 MW). MAPP forecasts
indicate that existing and known new facilities, both renewable and
non-renewable, will not be able to meet forecasted requirements beginning in2006. Exhibit 1 at 39; Exhibit
20. Therefore, purchases from existing
renewable facilities within MAPP are likely to be cost prohibitive. See Exhibit 1 at 39. In addition, purchases from new or existing
renewable generating facilities outside Minnesota would likely require new
transmission infrastructure as well.
New renewable facilities that are small enough not to require a
certificate of need would have to be very numerous to meet GRE’s and the
region’s needs for renewable energy.
Exhibit 11 at 6; Exhibit 4.
40.
A major factor in GRE
adding significant wind energy to its portfolio and choosing the proposed
Facility to provide that energy was the cost savings that wind energy from the
proposed Facility would provide over purchasing energy on the open market. GRE currently purchases energy year round at
a price averaging approximately $36/MWh.
Exhibit 4. In 2005, GRE projects
that it will need to purchase 1,123 GWh of energy at various times of the year
on the short-term or spot market, at an average estimated cost of
$37.62/MWh. Exhibit 4. GRE has concluded that the proposed Facility
would provide energy to GRE at a price lower than prices available on the spot
market. Exhibit 1 at 21; Exhibit 4.
41.
Short-term capacity
options are continuously being evaluated and purchased by GRE as transmission
resources become available. GRE
projections have indicated, however, that there are inadequate amounts of
available energy from other regional utilities through 2004. Furthermore, growing transmission
constraints make it more likely that schedules to import energy from outside
the region will be cut. The proposed
Facility would enable GRE to obtain energy and meet the REO at a price lower
than it could achieve by purchasing energy on the market, even if market resources
do not encounter transmission difficulties.
Exhibit 1 at 21.
42.
Trimont does not possess existing generation
and transmission facilities or distributed generation and does not have a
load-management program. It has thus
been exempted by the Commission from providing information relating to the
same. Exhibit 9 at 3. GRE has examined the potential for it to
increase the efficiency of and upgrade its existing energy generation and
transmission facilities and load-management programs and has concluded that it
cannot meet its need for 100 MW of renewable energy by those methods. Exhibit 4.
The Effect of the Proposed Facility in
Making Efficient Use of Resources.
[7849.0120.A(5)]
43.
The proposed Facility
would make efficient use of existing resources. Wind energy resources offer the ability to generate large amounts
of energy with little to no negative effect on the environment. The Project’s proposed location was selected
to best utilize existing transmission infrastructure and make efficient use of
land and wind resources, thereby minimizing environmental effects. By connecting to Xcel’s Martin County
Substation, the same substation that GRE’s Lakefield Junction Generating
Station uses, the Project is designed as an efficient and highly cost-effective
means of interconnection. The Project’s
proximity to and ability to interconnect with existing transmission
infrastructure was a primary factor in GRE’s decision to select Trimont’s
proposal to GRE’s renewables Request for Proposals (“RFP”). Exhibit 1 at 8; Exhibit 4.
44.
Joint use of transmission
is not the only benefit of the Project’s proximity to GRE’s existing peaking
plant. Adding 100 MW of wind energy
that would use the same transmission facilities as the peaking plant would
allow GRE the flexibility to manage both energy costs and transmission
demand. GRE has 550 MW of firm peaking
capacity that is only operated approximately five percent of the year. Demand on the peaking plant and the
associated transmission facilities is at its height in the summer months. The Project is expected to produce more
energy in the late fall, winter, and early spring than in summer months. Because wind resources are the most scarce
in the summer months and plentiful during the times when the peaking plant is
not an essential GRE resource, an optimal transmission arrangement is
achieved. Since GRE has the choice of
which facility to use at any given time, neither facility is expected to place
excess demand on the transmission system at any one time. See Exhibit 1 at 8-9; Exhibit 4.
45.
The Project’s turbines are designed to be
powered by the wind. Exhibit 1 at 20,
23. Distinguishing between capital
costs and energy costs, the energy costs would include obtaining easements for
the wind rights on the land where the turbines are located, along with operation,
maintenance, and similar costs. Id.
at 23. The Project would not require
any land for water storage. Id.
at 25. Only domestic-type water supply
would be needed to provide potable water for Project workers. Id. at 26. No wastewater discharges would occur as a result of the
construction or operation of the Project except for domestic-type sewer
discharges associated with construction personnel and ongoing operations and
maintenance personnel. Id. Surface water runoff would be managed in
accordance with a construction storm water management plan that would be
prepared prior to commencement of construction activities and would take
advantage of the existing county and judicial ditch system. Id. at 27. Thus, the Project would have a minimal impact on existing
environmental resources.
46.
In view of the
foregoing, the ALJ concludes that denial of the Certificate of Need application
would adversely impact the future adequacy, reliability, and efficiency of
energy supply for GRE, its members, the people of Minnesota, and neighboring
states.
A More Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative to the Proposed Facility Has Not Been Demonstrated by a
Preponderance of the Evidence on the Record, Considering Its Size, Type,
Timing, Cost, Environmental and Socioeconomic Effects, and Expected
Reliability. [7849.0120.B]
47.
A certificate of need
can be issued only if a more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed
facility has not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence on the
record. Minn. Rules 7849.0120.B. The factors to be considered in assessing
alternatives are:
(1) the appropriateness of the size, the type,
and the timing of the proposed facility compared to those of reasonable
alternatives;
(2) the cost of the proposed facility and the
cost of the energy to be supplied by the proposed facility compared to the
costs of reasonable alternatives and the cost of energy that would be supplied
by reasonable alternatives;
(3) the effects of the proposed facility upon
the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of
reasonable alternatives; and
(4) the expected reliability of the proposed
facility compared to the expected reliability of reasonable alternatives.
Minn. Rules
7849.0120.B.
48.
The Commission’s
December 22, 2003, Order exempts Trimont from providing information on and
discussing non-renewable alternatives to the proposed Facility, since
non-renewable alternatives could not fulfill the proposed Facility’s purpose of
increasing the supply of renewable generation as directed by statute. Exhibit 9 at 3. The Order states that non-renewable generation is not a true
alternative to the proposed Facility and thus information about non-renewable
generation is unnecessary to determine need.
Id.
49.
Trimont’s proposed Facility was selected by
GRE as a result of GRE’s competitively bid RFP for renewable energy supply
resources. Exhibit 1 at 21; Exhibit 9
at 2; Exhibit 4. Sixty-two bids were
submitted from twenty-five developers.
Fifty-six of the bids were wind energy projects. All five of the short-listed bids were wind
projects. Exhibit 1 at 2, 21; Exhibit
4. After analyzing renewable energy
resource costs and availability, GRE determined that wind is the ideal resource
to meet the greatest percentage of its renewable energy objectives at the
lowest cost. Exhibit 1 at 8.
50.
The only alternatives
to the Project considered by GRE were those that could meet GRE’s plan to
fulfill the REO. Id; Exhibit
4. GRE examined all of the alternatives
to the Project that were proposed in the responses to its renewables RFP. It concluded that none of them is preferable
to the proposed Facility because they are not commercially available on the
scale of or schedule for the proposed Facility, they would not be as cost-effective,
or suitable sites are not available.
Thus, through its renewables RFP process, GRE determined that no
renewable alternative provided a more cost-effective, timely, and efficient
solution to its needs than would the proposed Facility. Cost was the primary factor that eliminated
the biomass facilities. GRE selected
the Trimont Project over the other wind proposals based on cost, location,
proximity and ability to interconnect with existing transmission facilities,
the quality of the Trimont proposal, the strength on Trimont’s management team
and ownership structure, and the fact that it best satisfied the RFP
criteria. Exhibit 1 at 17; Exhibit
4. The proposed Facility would be less
expensive, including environmental costs, than power generated by reasonably
available renewable energy sources.
Exhibit 1 at 8-11.
51.
Since there are no
non-wind renewable alternatives that can reasonably meet the Project’s
objectives, the Applicant undertook a general, rather than detailed, cost
analysis of renewable alternatives.
52.
An analysis of the
renewable alternatives appears in the Application. Exhibit 1 at 21-29. The
Applicant has met the criteria of exploring the possibility of generating 100
MW of power by means of renewable energy sources.
The
Appropriateness of the Proposed Facility’s Size, Type, and Timing Compared to
those of Reasonable Alternatives.
[7849.0120.B(1)]
53.
The proposed 100 MW
Facility is intended to meet GRE’s and the region’s need for renewable energy
by late 2004. Exhibit 1 at 17. The Project’s proposed in-service date will
be between December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2005. The date (and the entire project), is dependent upon renewal of
the Production Tax Credit.
54.
Trimont’s winning bid in GRE’s competitive
bidding process for renewable generation is for a 100 MW facility. Trimont has proposed no alternatives to GRE
nor does it intend to do so. GRE’s IRP
sets forth GRE’s analysis of all available generation and its rationale for
selecting wind as its preferred means for meeting the REO. Exhibit 11 at 6.
55.
Only renewable alternatives
are appropriate for comparison. Exhibit
9 at 3; Exhibit 4. In addition to wind
proposals, GRE also received responses for biomass projects. Based in part on GRE’s IRP, biomass projects
were available but were not selected because of factors including pricing,
location, and size. Based on other
projects that have been constructed, it is unlikely that a single biomass
facility on the scale of the proposed Facility would be economically feasible. The three biomass projects that have
undergone the MEQB environmental review process range in size from 28.5 MW to
65 MW. Biomass facilities large enough
to meaningfully assist GRE in satisfying the REO were not cost-effective. Id.
Expansion of existing or development of new conservation and/or load management
programs of the necessary size would be difficult to achieve in a timely
manner. Exhibit 4.
The Cost of the Proposed Facility and
the Energy Supplied by It Compared to Reasonable Alternatives.
[7849.0120.B(2)]
56.
The responses to GRE’s
RFP demonstrated that the Project is expected to provide energy to GRE at
prices substantially less than those of other renewable resources. Exhibit 1 at 9; Exhibit 4. GRE determined that wind energy is currently
the most cost-effective renewable energy resource in Minnesota. Exhibit 1 at 8.
57.
Industry literature
estimates the cost of energy from biomass to range from 5.6 to 11.6 ¢/kWh in
1996 dollars. The cost range of the
biomass alternatives in GRE’s bidding process was from $44.75 to $53.60/MWh. The MEQB’s biomass alternative is based on
NGPP’s Waseca facility. Xcel Energy’s
competitive bidding for biomass phase II resulted in Xcel contracting for 35 MW
from NGPP’s 38.5 MW Waseca facility at an average price of $104.35/MWh. Xcel Petition in MPUC Docket No. E002/M-04-91
(January 16, 2004). Assuming the
availability of the Production Tax Credit for wind energy, Trimont’s proposal
would be a far more cost-effective means of assisting GRE in meeting the REO. Id. at 7.
58.
Biomass fails to meet
reasonable Project objectives. Biomass
resources use a wide variety of renewable fuels. Renewable fuels may be used via burning in a steam cycle,
gasified for use in a combustion turbine, or burned in a combustion turbine or
other internal combustion device. Solid
biomass fuels include wood and waste wood, switchgrass, and alfalfa stems. Ethanol derived from corn is also considered
a renewable fuel. Having 100 MW of
solid fuel biomass capacity available in 2004 is unlikely due to fuel
availability, cost, and siting issues. GRE’s
RFP demonstrated that biomass facility alternatives offered prices ranging from
$44.75-$53.60/MWh, substantially higher than the proposed Facility. Accordingly, biomass is not a reasonable
alternative.
The Effects of the Proposed Facility on the Natural
and Socioeconomic Environments Compared to the Effects of Reasonable
Alternatives. [7849.0120.B(3)]
59.
The overall effects of
the proposed Facility on the natural and socio-economic environments are less
invasive, basically benign, and preferable to those of any alternatives. Exhibit 18, Section 4.
Air
Emissions
60.
The proposed Facility
will have no air emissions, unlike biomass alternatives, which produce nitrogen
oxides, low levels of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon dioxide,
volatile organic compounds, and other pollutants. Exhibit 11 at 11.
Water
Use
61.
The proposed Facility
would not use substantially more water than any reasonable alternative and will
use substantially less than a biomass facility. It would not require any water to be used for an alternate
cooling system. Exhibit 1 at 26;
Exhibit 11 at 11. There would be no
groundwater pumping or appropriation associated with the Project, other than a
domestic-type water supply to provide potable water for Project workers. Exhibit 1at 26, 30. A well may be installed adjacent to the
Project operations building in accordance with applicable regulations. Id. at 26. A biomass facility of 38.5 MW would require a supply of water for
cooling tower makeup, boiler makeup, and potable water. The majority of water use at the site would
be for the cooling towers. If well
water were used, the average flow rate would be a maximum of 592 gallons per
minute for the biomass facility.
Exhibit 18, p. 18.
Land Use
62.
The proposed Facility
is expected to be located on land that is zoned for agricultural use and is
expected to occupy approximately 40 acres.
Exhibit 1 at 24. No relocation
of people or businesses is expected to
be necessary. Id. The proposed Facility would require no land
use for water storage or a cooling system.
Id. at 25. It would
require minimal space for a maintenance facility for the storage of used oil
and other lubricants, as well as for spare parts and tools. Id.
Typical wind farms remove one-half acre of land from productive use for
each turbine, or approximately 40 acres for the Project. Id. at 24. When access roads and a maintenance facility are considered, the
Project’s land use would be consistent with typical wind farms. The land requirements for electric power
plants fueled by biomass depend on the characteristics of the individual
facility, such as the size of the fuel storage and processing area, the amount
of process water required, and the type of combustors and associated equipment
and storage for solid waste. Id. Recently permitted biomass facilities in
Minnesota have ranged in size from approximately 36 to approximately 90
acres. Id; Exhibit 11 at 9. When compared to the alternatives, the
Project is consistent with industry standards regarding land use and will
remove no more land from agricultural use than is necessary.
63.
The Applicant has
stated that it will comply with MEQB Site Permit conditions that, among other
things, preserve the wind resource on adjacent lands that are not a part of the
Project footprint. This will be
addressed during the permitting process.
Exhibit 18, p. 29.
Transportation
and Traffic Requirements
64.
During Project
construction, there is expected to be increased traffic on nearby county and
township roads. This increase in
traffic is not anticipated to exceed the level of traffic that can safely be
accommodated. During the construction phase, several types of light, medium, and
heavy-duty construction vehicles would travel to and from the site, as well as
private vehicles used by construction personnel. The existing state, county, and township road system
should be adequate for ongoing access to the Project areas. Low maintenance gravel access roads are
proposed to be constructed for access to each turbine location during the
Project’s construction phase. Traffic
generated during construction and operation of other wind energy alternatives
would be expected to be the same as for the Project. The amount of traffic generated by the construction of a biomass
facility would be greater than that generated by construction of a wind
farm. The operations traffic generated
by a biomass facility would depend largely upon the type and location of the
biomass fuel, but it would be more than that generated by a wind farm because
there would be more employees and the need for fuel delivery would be constant.
The transportation requirements
of the proposed Facility and the traffic generated by it are expected to be no
more than necessary and less than or equal to that of reasonable
alternatives. Exhibit 1 at 25-26;
Exhibit 11 at 9-10.
The Expected Reliability of the Proposed Facility
Compared to Reasonable
Alternatives. [7849.0120.B(4)]
65.
The Project is comparable to all reasonable
alternatives in terms of reliability.
Technological advances in turbine design and a better understanding of
wind resources have produced major improvements in wind energy
reliability. The proposed facility’s
turbines are designed to be available to provide energy to GRE 95 percent of
the year. However, the intermittent
nature of wind resources typically requires other generating sources to back up
the wind resource when the wind does not blow.
GRE already has a peaking plant installed that uses the same
transmission facilities as would the proposed Facility, resulting in a
complementary pairing of the proposed Facility with GRE’s existing gas-fired
combustion turbine peaking facility.
Exhibit 1 at 9-10.
66.
The proposed Facility
would use the most modern wind energy generating technology available. Current plans are to use the 1.5 MW GE wind
turbines, which are designed to operate at wind speeds between 3 and
25m/s. The average 7.5m/s wind speed at
the proposed Facility’s site provides an optimal match of energy resource to
equipment technology. This design would
enable the proposed Facility to deliver energy at a very competitive
price. Id. at 10.
The Proposed Facility Benefits Society in a Manner that Is Compatible
with Protecting the Natural and Socioeconomic Environments, Including Human
Health. [7849.0120.C]
67.
The assessment of need
criteria set forth in Minn. Rules 7849.0120.C require a determination that, by
a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the proposed facility, or a
suitable modification of the facility, will provide benefits to society in a
manner compatible with protecting the natural and socioeconomic environments,
including human health, and specifically considering the following:
(1) the relationship of the proposed facility,
or a suitable modification thereof, to overall state energy needs;
(2) the effects of the proposed facility, or a
suitable modification thereof, upon the natural and socioeconomic environments
compared to the effects of not building the facility;
(3) the effects of the proposed facility, or a
suitable modification thereof, in inducing future development; and
(4) the socially beneficial uses of the output
of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, including its
uses to protect or enhance environmental quality.
68.
The MEQB’s
Environmental Report demonstrates that the proposed Facility is compatible with
protecting the natural and socioeconomic environments. Exhibit 18.
The Relationship of the Proposed
Facility to Overall State Energy Needs.
[7849.0120.C(1)]
69.
Existing resources in
MAPP beyond 2006 cannot meet the region’s capacity deficit. Exhibit 20.
Additionally, MAPP and GRE have a need for economic renewable electric
energy. Exhibit 4. Existing MAPP resources and recent additions
to the pool have generally been fossil-fuel facilities. Exhibit 20. Therefore, based on the REO, a need for
renewable energy exists. Exhibit
4. The proposed Facility would fill
such a need in a relatively economic manner, represent an important source of
new capacity and energy for Minnesotans, and help to ensure that Minnesotans’
growing demand for electricity is met.
70.
Given the projected
deficits in electrical energy and generation capacity within Minnesota
beginning in 2006, not constructing the Facility is likely to reduce the
reliability of the electrical generation system in Minnesota. Exhibit 1 at 7; Exhibit 20. MAPP has been projecting a tightening
balance of load and capacity for several years and the committed new generation
projects that have been announced or pursued do not change that
projection. Exhibit20.
71.
Trimont’s Project is the winning proposal in
GRE’s competitive bidding process for renewable generation. Trimont’s proposal was for a 100 MW LWECS
and nothing else. GRE has agreed to
purchase the entire Project output. The
purchase price would be lower than the $36/MWh that GRE is currently paying on
the spot market, and lower than the average of $37.62/MWh that it projects it
will need to pay in 2005 for the over 1,000 GWh of energy that it anticipates
purchasing at various times throughout the year. Exhibit 1 at 26. Since
there is little to no excess capacity in MAPP, the proposed Facility’s effect
would be to make available to other utilities the spot energy that GRE will not
need, due to its purchase of project energy from Trimont. Exhibit 11 at 4.
The Effects of the Proposed Facility on
the Natural and Socioeconomic Environments Compared to No Build. [7849.0120.C(2)]
72.
The proposed Facility
is designed to use wind power to generate electricity. The result is expected to be a facility that
will be environmentally friendly.
However, it would have some impact on the surrounding environment. Exhibit 1 at 24-29; Exhibit 18. Whenever the Project’s energy displaces
energy from fossil-fueled units, the environment would benefit through the
elimination of greenhouse gas emissions.
Not building the Project would result in greater consumption of energy
from sources with air emissions, something that would not be produced by the
Project. Exhibit 11 at 11.
73.
Negative effects on the
natural environment would include some traffic and noise pollution during
construction, and some noise pollution during operation. These environmental effects are relatively
benign and are subject to the permitting activity of various governmental
agencies. Exhibit 1 at 24-29, 32-33,
Table 3; Exhibit 18. Not
building the Project would eliminate such negligible effects at the proposed
location but would likely displace such effects to other generation locations.
74.
The MEQB’s
Environmental Report confirms that the Project’s environmental impact is
minimal, fundamentally benign, and does not represent a significant additional
burden on the natural environment when compared to the No-Build
alternative. Exhibit 18. A nearby landowner, whose property lies just
outside the Project’s “footprint,” expressed concern about the Project’s
effects on both the environment and land values. He urged the Commission to take a “hard look” at the Project to
be sure that there are no unforeseen negative consequences that would result
from the Project. He illustrated his
concern by comparing the Project to the
widespread drainage of wetlands in the last century, which had unforeseen
negative consequences, such as increased flooding and reduced habitat. He admitted that he couldn’t identify any specific
negative outcomes, but urged the Commission to examine the project for possible
unforeseen consequences. (Testimony of
Tony Thompson). The Environmental
Report states that these types of concerns can be further addressed during the
permitting process. Exhibit 18, p. 29.
75.
The Project is expected
to have socioeconomic benefits from the investment of approximately $120
million. The Project is expected to
provide 50 to 100 jobs during peak construction periods. Exhibit 1 at 25. The proposed Facility anticipates adding approximately three to
five full-time equivalent positions to the local economy. Id. at 28. Additionally, it would contribute to the local tax base over its
30‑year life. Not building the
Project would mean that none of those benefits would occur.
76.
The Project would
provide significant benefits to local communities in Martin and Jackson
Counties, as well as additional tax revenues for the counties. The Project’s structure would translate into
local residents receiving economic benefits while at the same time providing
added value to the Project. The Project
would also provide significant income opportunities to local landowner-member
owners, area residents, and state and local government entities, while also
providing a large supply of low-cost renewable energy with minimal impact on
the environment. Exhibit 1 at 11.
77.
The principal
consequence of not building the Project would be to stall and encumber GRE’s
ability to meet the REO. Because the
Project was the winning bid, GRE would be required to secure renewable
resources to meet the REO by moving to more costly or less attractive renewable
energy sources. Exhibit 11 at 5.
78.
The development of wind energy in
southwestern Minnesota has been important in diversifying and strengthening the
area’s economic base. When the
Project’s minimal negative environmental impacts are considered in light of the
fact that it would help GRE achieve the REO and provide economic stimulus to
the local area, the Parties conclude that the Project’s societal benefits are
evident and are superior to the No Build alternative.
The Effects of the Proposed Facility in
Inducing Future Development.
[7849.0120.C(3)]
79.
The Project would not
have a significant impact on inducing future development in the Project region
beyond the economic benefits associated with the Facility and potential
expansions. The availability of power
is a prerequisite to development in general, but the Project is not tied to any
development of a particular use, zoning category, or location. Exhibit 1 at 15.
80.
Additional wind energy
infrastructure in the Project area would likely provide significant benefits to
the local economy and local landowners.
Landowners in the Project area are expected to benefit from the participatory
opportunities that the Project ownership structure affords them. Additional wind energy infrastructure would
also increase the local property tax base in the counties in which the Project
is sited. Id.
The
Socially Beneficial Uses of the Proposed Facility’s Output. [7849.0120.C(4)]
81.
Energy produced by the
Project would provide significant, numerous, and varied societal benefits. It would provide a substantial amount of
renewable energy with minimal negative environmental impacts. GRE has noted that the Project’s energy
would be sufficient to meet the average needs for 29,000 households. Exhibit 1, Appendix A. Overall national security and energy
reliability can both be enhanced through the development of diversified
generation resources such as wind.
Exhibit 1 at 13.
82.
The Project would
provide a supplementary source of income for local landowners and farmers in
the form of wind easement payments and additional revenue received by the
Trimont Area Wind Farm LLC members’ interest in the Project’s gross revenues. Id. at 15; Exhibit 11 at 14.
83.
GRE has recently met
its increasing energy obligations through purchases available in MAPP, paying
approximately $36/MWh. Exhibit 1 at
21. Since there is little to no excess capacity
in MAPP, the Project’s effect would be to make available to other utilities the
spot energy from the other generation sources that GRE will no longer need, due
to its purchase of the Project’s energy.
Exhibit 11 at 4.
The Record Does Not Demonstrate that
the Design, Construction, or Operation of the Proposed Facility Will Fail to
Comply with Relevant Policies, Rules, and Regulations of Other State and
Federal Agencies and Local Governments.[7849.0120.D]
84.
The assessment of need
criteria set forth in Minn. Rules 7849.0120.D require that the record not
demonstrate that the design, construction, or operation of the proposed
facility, or a suitable modification of the proposed facility, will fail to
comply with relevant policies, rules, and regulations of other state and
federal agencies and local governments.
85.
The Applicant provided
a list of the potential permits and approvals required for the construction and
operation of the proposed Facility.
Exhibit 1 at 33-34. There is no
indication in the record that the design, construction, and operation of the
proposed Facility would fail to comply with relevant policies, rules, and
regulations of other state and federal agencies and local governments. Id. at 11-14.
The
Demand for Renewable Energy Cannot be Met More Cost-Effectively Through Energy
Conservation and Load-Management Measures and that the Need for the Proposed
Facility Has Otherwise Been Justified.
[Minn. Stat. Sec. 216B.243, subd. 3]
86.
Minn. Stat. § 216B.243,
subd. 3, provides as follows:
No
proposed large energy facility shall be certified for construction unless the
applicant can show that demand for electricity cannot be met more cost
effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures and unless
the applicant has otherwise justified its need.
87.
The record demonstrates
that GRE has explored, implemented, and continues to implement renewable
energy, energy conservation, and
load-management measures and that the need for the renewable energy to be
produced by the proposed Facility cannot be met through further expansion of
conservation and load-management measures.
Exhibit 1 at Appendix A.
88.
The record demonstrates
that there is a need for the renewable energy to be produced by the proposed
Facility. The addition of the proposed
Facility’s output to GRE’s energy portfolio would substantially enhance GRE’s
ability to provide its member-consumers with electricity generated by an
eligible energy technology within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1691
[Renewable Energy Objectives].
Based on the foregoing facts, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Commission and the
Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § § 216B.243 and 14.50 (2002).
The Applicant and the Commission have complied with all substantive and
procedural requirements of law and rule needed to enable the Commission to act
on the Application.
2. Based on the forecast
testimony, the State’s Renewable Energy Objective, and MAPP’s surplus/deficit
projections, there is a need for the proposed Facility.
3. Increasing planned
conservation and load management efforts are not a cost‑effective
alternative to the proposed Facility.
4. The Applicant does not
promote electricity consumption in Minnesota or elsewhere.
5. Current and planned
facilities, including purchased power, not requiring certificates of need are
not adequate to meet projected needs.
6. The proposed Facility
would make efficient use of existing resources.
7. Denial of the certificate
of need would likely have an adverse effect upon the future adequacy,
reliability, and efficiency of energy supply to GRE’s member‑cooperatives,
to the people of Minnesota, and neighboring states.
8. Considering size, type,
timing, cost, natural and socioeconomic environmental effects, and reliability,
there is not a more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed
Facility.
9. There is a growing demand
for electricity in Minnesota, and additional sources of generation are
necessary.
10. The proposed Facility is
needed to meet the growing electricity demands of Minnesotans.
11. The proposed Facility would
provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural
and socioeconomic environments, including human health.
12. The design, construction,
and operation of the proposed Facility would not fail to comply with relevant
policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local
governments.
13. The Applicant has
demonstrated that it has explored the possibility of generating power by means
of other renewable energy sources and has demonstrated that the proposed
Facility is less expensive (including environmental costs) than power generated
by other renewable energy sources.
14. The requirements for a
certificate of need set forth in Minn. Stat. § 216B.243 and Minn. Rules
Ch. 7849 have been satisfied.
Based on the entire record of the proceeding and the Findings and
Conclusions above, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
That the
Commissioner GRANT a Certificate of Need to the Applicant for the Project.
|
Dated this
|
14th
|
day of
|
April
|
2004.
|
|
/s/ Allan W. Klein
|
|
|
|
Administrative Law Judge
|
Reported:
Tape-recorded.