OAH Docket No. 7-2500-19143-2
PUC Docket No. ET-2/GS-07-715
STATE OF
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE
|
In the Matter of the Application of |
findings
of fact, conclusions
and recommendation |
The above-entitled matter came on for
hearing before Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Luis on January 8, 2008, in
the Large Hearing Room of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)
in
Michael Bradley, Moss & Barnett,
appeared for and on behalf of Applicant Great River Energy (GRE).
Karen Hammel, Assistant Attorney
General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Commerce (Department).
Bill Storm, Planning Director for the Department,
appeared for the purpose of presenting evidence concerning GRE’s site permit
application.
Robert Cupit and David L. Jacobson, Analysts
for the Commission, appeared on behalf of the staff of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 14.61 and the Rules of Practice of the Commission and the
Office of Administrative Hearings, exceptions to this Report, if any, by any
party adversely affected, must be filed within 15 days of the mailing date
hereof with the Executive Secretary, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121
Seventh Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Exceptions must be specific, and must be
stated and numbered separately. Proposed
Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order should be included, and copies thereof
must be served upon all parties. Replies
to exceptions are not permitted. Oral
argument before a majority of the Commission will be permitted to all parties
requesting such argument who are adversely affected by the Administrative Law
Judge’s recommendation. Such request
must accompany the filed exceptions, and an original and 15 copies of each
document must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission will make the final
determination of the matter after the expiration of the above-set forth period
for filing exceptions, 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.
1. Should
the Commission grant a Site Permit for the 175 megawatt simple-cycle combustion
turbine plant GRE proposes to build in
2. Should the Commission approve the location
of the proposed plant at GRE’s campus situated in
3. Should the Commission approve GRE’s
alternative site location in
The Administrative Law Judge concludes
that the Commission should issue the Site Permit as requested by GRE, at
Based upon all of the proceedings
herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
Procedural
History
1.
GRE is a
2.
On May 18, 2007, GRE filed a Certificate of Need Application
(CON) with the Commission. Because the
proposed plant would be fueled by natural gas, the project qualifies for
alternative review under Minn. Stat. § 116C.575, subd. 2.
3.
On June 14, 2007, GRE applied for a site permit to be used
for adding a simple-cycle combustion turbine plant to be built at the site of
GRE’s existing Elk River Station, located in the City of
4.
The Department issued a Notice of Public Meeting on July 12,
2007, to provide information to the public regarding both the CON Application
and the Site Permit Application, to afford the public an opportunity to ask
questions and present comments, and to solicit input on the scope of the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The Department
published a notice of the filing of the application, a description of the
proposed project, directions for obtaining a copy of the application, and a
notice of the public meeting to be conducted on July 12, 2007. in the Star Tribune,[3] The public meetings were held as provided for
in the Notice, on July 31, 2007, at the Elk River City Hall,
5.
The proposed facility is a large energy facility within the
meaning of Minn. Stat. § 216B.2421, subd. 2(1).
6.
On August 1, 2007, the Commission ordered that the CON be
considered under the alternative review process. The only portion of the CON process referred
to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was for the convening of a public
hearing and collection of public comment.
The Commission ordered that the remaining CON process be conducted using
the Commission’s notice and comment process.[5]
7.
On the same date the Commission ordered that site permit
application be referred to OAH for contested case proceedings. Both the applications were found to be
complete as of August 1, 2007. Only GRE
was named as a party to the proceeding at the time of referral .[6]
8.
On November 26, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of
Public Meeting in this matter. The purposes
of the public meeting were to compile the record for the Commission to consider
in making a final decision on the CON Application and the Site Permit
Application, and to receive public comment on the Draft EIS.[7] The Notice was published in the Star Tribune on November 29, 2007.[8] The Notice was published in the EQB Monitor on December 3, 2007.[9] The Notice was published in the Elk River Star News on December 5, 2007 and the
9.
The public meetings were held as provided for in the Notice,
on December 19, 2007, at
10.
GRE's preferred site for the Project is adjacent to the
existing Elk River Station in the City of
11.
The equipment required for the Project includes:
·
a simple cycle combustion turbine (“CT”) using "F"
class technology, such as a Siemens Model 5000F, with a nominal summer capacity
of approximately 175 MW under Midwest Area Power Pool (“MAPP”) summertime
peaking conditions while operating with natural gas, and a nominal winter
capacity of approximately 211 MW operating with distillate fuel oil;
·
a generator step-up transformer;
·
less than 500 feet of transmission line from the
transformers to the existing substation at the
·
a new lateral natural gas pipeline, town-border-station and
meter;
·
an evaporative cooler; and
·
an exhaust stack with silencer.[14]
12.
The
13.
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator
("MISO") studies indicate that upgrades to sections of the 69-kV line
will be needed to accommodate the interconnection of the Project. Using the Elk River site will require
upgrading approximately 5.41 miles of 69-kV transmission line in Sherburne and
14.
In the event that the alternative Rosemount site is used, GRE
would construct a switchyard adjacent to the plant to convert the electricity
voltage to 345 kV in order to utilize the existing 345-kV transmission line
that crosses the site. No additional transmission system modifications would be
necessary.[17]
15.
The Project will use natural gas as its primary fuel, with
ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil as a back up fuel.[18] At either site, natural gas will be delivered
to the Project via the Northern Natural Gas ("NNG") system. NNG will construct and own a new one-half
mile, 12-inch lateral pipeline branching from its existing 16-inch pipeline
located northeast of the
16.
At the
17.
The back up fuel oil will be offloaded from tanker trucks to
an onsite above-ground storage tank. At
the
18.
Water at the
19.
At the
20.
The greatest demand for water use from the operation of the
Project arises from control of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") emissions when
the CT is operating on fuel oil. The
water used for NOx control will require treatment with a demineralizer water
treatment system. Source water will be
treated in a rented trailer-mounted demineralizer system and pumped to an
onsite storage tank. Demineralized water demand by the CT when operating on
fuel oil is approximately 100 to 120 gpm depending on the CT's operating load.
Approximately 460,000 gallons of water would be used for NOx control if fuel
oil were used for 76 hours in a year.[24]
21.
The second largest demand for water is the CT evaporative
cooler. The evaporative cooler is used
on hot days to cool and increase the density of air being used by the CT, thereby
increasing the CT's power output and efficiency. When the evaporative cooler is in operation, approximately
60 to 85 gpm of water is required, depending on the ambient air temperature,
the relative humidity, and the faculty operating power level. Approximately 1,000,000 gallons of water would
be used if the evaporative coolers were operated for 300 hours in a year. Evaporative cooling water use could coincide
with ERMU's peak summer demand. Evaporative
cooling is not critical to the Project's operation. In the event that ERMU could not operate a
well due to maintenance or other reasons, GRE expressed willingness to
coordinate with ERMU by not running the evaporative coolers during periods of peak
water demand.[25]
22.
Untreated source water will also be used to supply fire
suppression water. The maximum instantaneous use rate for fire suppression
water is expected to be 1,500 gpm. Peak demand
for drinking water, sanitary water, and other ancillary plant water uses is
expected to be approximately 50 gpm. [26]
23.
The anticipated sources and types of wastewater discharges
include the evaporative cooler blow down, compressor section wash water,
demineralizer concentrate, sanitary waste, and storm water runoff from the
site.[27]
24.
At the
25.
At the Rosemount site, the evaporative cooler waste stream
would be discharged to a Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services
("MCES") sanitary sewer line that runs northwest of the site. A pretreatment permit will likely be required
from MCES for the waste water discharge. Alternatively, a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permit would be obtained to allow
discharge directly to the
26.
The main source of operations wastewater would be the
evaporative cooler. When the evaporative
cooler is in operation, approximately 30 to 60 gpm of blow down wastewater would
be generated, depending on the ambient air temperature, the relative humidity,
and the facility operating power level. The
wastewater stream would be piped to an onsite lift station that will discharge
to the sewer system.[30]
27.
Compressor section wash water will be generated periodically
during cleaning of the turbine compressor. This cleaning is necessary to promote
efficient, reliable operation of the CT. Compressor wash water will be discharged to an
onsite storage tank. The wash water will
be analyzed and proper disposal options will be determined based on the
analytical results.[31]
28.
Spill containment is provided around oil-containing
equipment. During rain events, rainwater
can collect in the spill containment areas. The containment basins are visually inspected during
routine site checks. If there is water within the containment and there is no
visible oil sheen, the water is discharged to the ground surface where it will infiltrate
into the ground and possibly flow to the onsite storm water pond. If there is a visible sheen, the water is
pumped to the plant's oil/water separators for treatment. The oil recovered in the separator is
reclaimed and processed offsite.[32]
29.
Some storm water will also be discharged into the sewer
system. The oil/water separator will discharge to the pumping station along
with any evaporative cooler blow down and ultimately piped to the sewer system.
Some wastewater is also generated from
sanitary waste. This wastewater will be
discharged to the sanitary sewer system.[33]
30.
The Project will employ simple cycle combustion turbine
technology using both natural gas and fuel oil as the fuel sources, which
require air pollution control measures. The
CT will be equipped with Best Available Control Technology ("BACT")
for NOx, particulate matter ("PM") and carbon monoxide
("CO") emissions.[34]
31.
The CT air pollution controls are inherent to its design. GRE will propose BACT as dry 10w-NOx
combustors when firing natural gas and water injection for NOx control when firing
fuel oil. The proposed BACT for PM and
CO will be good combustion control.[35]
32.
BACT will ultimately be defined by the air emissions
permitting process, which is administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency ("MPCA"). Siting the
Project at Elk River will require a major amendment to the existing air permit
for the
33.
Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 7(a), provides that the
Commission shall be guided by the state's goals to conserve resources and
minimize environmental impacts, minimize human settlement and other land use conflicts,
and ensure the state's electric energy security through efficient,
cost-effective power supply and electric transmission infrastructure. Subdivision 7(b) states that to facilitate the
study, research, evaluation and designation of sites and routes, the Commission
shall be guided by the following considerations:
(1) Evaluation
of research and investigations relating to the effects on land, water and air
resources of large electric power generating plants and high-voltage transmission
lines and the effects of water and air discharges and electric and magnetic
fields resulting from such facilities on public health and welfare, vegetation,
animals, materials and aesthetic values, including baseline studies, predictive
modeling, and evaluation of new or improved methods for minimizing adverse
impacts of water and air discharges and other matters pertaining to the effects
of power plants on the water and air environment;
(2) Environmental
evaluation of sites and routes proposed for future development and expansion
and their relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the state;
(3) Evaluation
of the effects of new electric power generation and transmission technologies
and systems related to power plants designed to minimize adverse environmental
effects;
(4) Evaluation
of the potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed large
electric power generating plants;
(5) Analysis
of the direct and indirect economic impact of proposed sites and routes including,
but not limited to, productive agricultural land lost or impaired;
(6) Evaluation
of adverse direct and indirect environmental effects that cannot be avoided
should the proposed site and route be accepted;
(7) Evaluation
of alternatives to the applicant's proposed site or route proposed pursuant to
subdivisions 1 and 2;
(8) Evaluation
of potential routes that would use or parallel existing railroad and highway
rights-of-way;
(9) Evaluation
of governmental survey lines and other natural division lines of agricultural
land so as to minimize interference with agricultural operations;
(10)
Evaluation of the future needs for additional high-voltage transmission lines
in the same general area as any proposed route, and the advisability of
ordering the construction of structures capable of expansion in transmission
capacity through multiple circuiting or design modification;
(11)
Evaluation of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should
the proposed site or route be approved; and
(12) When
appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other state and federal agencies
and local entities.[37]
34.
Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 7(c) requires that the Commission
apply existing regulations of a federal agency where: 1) the utility in this
state is subject to that regulation, and 2) the Commission's rules are
substantially similar to the federal regulations. Subdivision 7(d) prohibits designation of any
site or route that violates state agency rules.
35.
A. effects on human settlement,
including, but not limited to, displacement, noise, aesthetics, cultural
values, recreation, and public services;
B. effects on public health and
safety;
C. effects on land-based
economies, including, but not limited to, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and
mining;
D. effects on archaeological and
historic resources;
E. effects on the natural
environment, including effects on air and water quality resources and flora and
fauna;
F. effects on rare and unique natural
resources;
G. application of design options
that maximize energy efficiencies, mitigate adverse environmental effects, and
could accommodate expansion of transmission or generating capacity;
H. use or paralleling of existing
rights-of-way, survey lines, natural division lines, and agricultural field
boundaries;
J. use of existing transportation,
pipeline, and electrical transmission systems or rights-of-way;
K. electrical system reliability;
L. costs of constructing,
operating and maintaining the facility which are dependent on design and route;
M. adverse human and natural
environmental effects which cannot be avoided; and
N. irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources.
36.
The application and the Environmental Impact Statement
contain adequate information to allow the Commission to consider these factors.
(a) Effects
on Human Settlement
37.
The Project will not displace any residences or businesses. Work on the Project will not displace any
other existing or planned land use, including residential land uses. The proposed
38.
Impacts to land used as a result of the Project are expected
to be minimal.[40]
39.
Some noise would be generated during the construction and
operation of the Project. Construction
noise would be predominantly intermittent sources originating from diesel engine-driven
construction equipment. Potential noise
impacts would be mitigated by proper muffing equipment fitted to construction
equipment and restricting activities conducted during nighttime hours.[41]
40.
Noise from the turbine operation is a result of air flow
through the combustion air intake and from the exhaust gases discharging from
the stack. The Project air inlet will be
appropriately sized and fitted with diffusers to minimize velocity and,
therefore, the noise of air moving into the inlets. The stack will be fitted with silencers to
reduce the noise of exhaust gases leaving the plant. [42]
41.
Current ambient noise detectable at the
42.
Current ambient noise detectable at the Rosemount site
consists of intermittent traffic along the local roads, traffic from US Highway
52 and Minnesota Highway 55, operation of agricultural equipment, small
aircraft, and birds and insects.[44]
43.
The Project will not result in any violation of the
Minnesota Noise Standards at residences located near the site.[45]
No mitigative measures are necessary to
address noise.[46]
44.
Area aesthetics will not be significantly changed by the
Project if it is located at the
45.
The Rosemount site is visually dominated by lands used for
row-crop agriculture to the south and east. A landfill is to the north, with mixed
native/non-native vegetation around the perimeter. A golf course is to the west. Industrial
properties dominate further north and northeast, including an oil refinery. The
peaking station will provide a strong visual impression given the current
landscape. The proposed facility will change the view of the people living in
or working around the farm houses nearest to the site or traveling along US
Highway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55. These
people will see a commercial/industrial looking building.[48]
46.
The Project transmission line upgrades associated with the
47.
Use of the Elk River site is compatible with the City of
48.
No significant recreational resource exists on or
immediately adjacent to the Project at either site. Regardless of the site chosen, area tourism
and recreation will not be adversely impacted by the Project.[53]
49.
Infrastructure on the GRE Elk River campus includes water
and sewer facilities. Public sewer and
water are in the vicinity of the Rosemount site. Both sites would be served by local
fire and police.[54] No mitigative measures are required to address
issues regarding infrastructure.[55]
50.
Traffic near the proposed facilities will increase during
construction. Local motorists may be
temporarily inconvenienced by the increase in large construction vehicles on
the roadways and possible delays in traffic. Traffic due to the commutes of construction
workers could be expected to produce local impacts over a 30-minute period at
the beginning and end of the day and each time a change in shift occurs.[56]50
51.
Due to the likelihood that traffic levels will be only slightly
increased during construction and no increase is expected during facility
operation, no mitigation is necessary. The
operation at the site will have no impact on traffic patterns or usage.[57]
52.
The local community will benefit from the Project construction
at either location. Construction of the
generating facility, the transmission line upgrades, and the substation
improvements (for the
53.
The Project will contribute to the county's tax base. The
state and county will also benefit from income and sales taxes paid as a result
of the construction of the Project. The operating
staff associated with the Project will pay payroll taxes.[59]
54.
GRE estimates the total cumulative economic statewide
benefits to be $61 million.[60] This calculation is based on a 30-year
operating period.[61]
(b) Health and Safety
55.
If the Project plant is constructed on the existing Great
River Energy campus in
56.
Security at the Rosemount site would be provided through the
use of security gates and surveillance cameras.[63] At either site, fire alarms and emergency
fire suppression equipment will be located throughout the facility to provide
early detection of fire and enable initial response to reduce the risk and
spread of fire. Emergency first aid
equipment including eyewash stations and first aid kits will also be installed
throughout the facility. In either
location, employees would have regular training in safety and first aid. Severe weather shelters will be designated and
clearly identified.[64]
57.
Primary access to the Great River Energy campus is off of
U.S. Highway 169, U.S. Highway 10 or
58.
There are no mitigative measures necessary to address human
health and safety at either location.[66]
(c) Land-Based Economies, Including
Agriculture, Forestry, Tourism and Mining
59.
The Project will be located on either the existing GRE plant
site or on land owned by GRE and currently being used for agricultural purposes;
and transmission will utilize existing transmission facilities in the existing
transmission corridor. No timber
management, tourism or mining activities will be displaced by the plant or by
transmission line or substation upgrades.[67]
60.
There are no prime farmland units associated with the
Project at the
61.
Impacts to land use as a result of the Project are expected
to be minimal.[70]
(d) Effects
on Archaeological and Historical Resources
62.
No archaeological or historical resources would be affected
by the Project.[71] No mitigation is necessary.[72]
(e) Effects
on the Natural Environment
63.
The Project will not impact the geology at either site. Potential
impacts of construction are increased impervious surfaces, soil compaction and
exposure of the soils to wind and water erosion. Impacts to physiographic features will be
controlled and minimal during and after construction activities; these impacts will
be short term. No long-term impacts on
the natural environment are anticipated from the Project.[73]
64.
At the
65.
The Rosemount site and its vicinity have been logged,
ditched, tiled, and tilled. These
activities have effectively removed all evidence of the pre-settlement
vegetation. The native vegetation was almost
entirely replaced with agricultural crops, dominated by corn and soybeans. The remaining nonagricultural areas were
replaced by industrial development.[75]
66.
Any disturbance to vegetation due to the Project
transmission line upgrade will be minimal and limited to the areas immediately adjacent
to pole placements.[76] No mitigation would be required at either
site.[77]
67.
The Project is not expected to impact area wildlife adversely.[78] The Project transmission line and substation
upgrades and the switch installation are not expected to impact area wildlife adversely.[79] No mitigation for fauna is necessary.[80]
(f) Effect on Rare and Unique Natural
Resources
68.
The Project will not adversely impact federal or
state-listed threatened or endangered species. No plants or animals of concern were
identified that would be adversely impacted by the Project.[81] No mitigation would be required at the
69.
At the Rosemount site, consideration of maintaining or
creating loggerhead shrike habitat within the facility/site buffer area should
be given.[83] Protecting such habitat would be an
appropriate condition for issuance of a Site Permit.
(g) Design Options That Maximize Energy
Efficiency, Mitigate Environmental Effects, and Accommodate Expansion
70.
The proposed Project will be designed to utilize one of the
most efficient CTs in the region. Typical
full load heat rates (higher heating value) are 10,395 British Thermal Units
per kilowatt-hour (BtuWh), while utilizing natural gas during the summer
months, and 9,751 BtuWh while utilizing ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel during the
winter months. These heat rates equate to
an efficiency of approximately 33% and 35%, respectively.[84]
71.
GRE anticipates the proposed Project will have an annual
capacity factor of approximately five to ten percent. The plant will have a short start-up sequence,
which is characteristic for an "F-Class" machine. The short start-up sequence and rapid loading
rate offer significant efficiencies for the peaking service intended for the
Project.[85]
72.
The addition of the peaking CT and the upgrades to
transmission lines and substations/switches will not result in significant
adverse environmental impacts to either site or the site surroundings.[86]
Both sites offer a viable option for the
Project with minimal effect on natural, cultural and socioeconomic resources,
and neither site presents any significant adverse environmental impacts.[87]
73.
GRE noted the following as examples of the mitigation that
are incorporated into the design choices made for the Project:
·
Noise from the turbine operation is a result of air flow
through the combustion air intake and from the exhaust gases discharging from
the stack. The Project air inlet will be
appropriately sized and fitted with diffusers to minimize velocity and (therefore)
the noise of air moving into the inlets. The stack will be fitted with silencers to
reduce the noise of exhaust gases leaving the plant.[88]
·
Water supply can be provided at either site without notable
stresses on water availability, and storm water discharge is minor and
controlled at the site.[89]
·
The CT's primary fuel will be natural gas, chosen for its
low air emissions and ready availability from a nearby pipeline. Dry low
nitrogen oxide (NOx) combustion technology will be employed to minimize
emissions when utilizing natural gas for fuel. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel will
be used as a back-up fuel when natural gas is unavailable. Demineralized water
injection will be employed to minimize NOx emissions when utilizing diesel fuel.[90]
74.
The
75.
While either site could be used, the Elk River site is
preferable because the size of the proposed plant fits the
(h) Use or Paralleling of Existing
Rights-of-Way, Survey Lines, Natural Division Lines, and Agricultural Field
Boundaries
76.
Locating the Project at
(I) Use of Existing Large Electric Power
Generating Plant Sites
77.
The Project will use an existing plant site in Elk River in
(j) Use of Existing Transportation, Pipeline,
and Electrical Transmission Systems or Rights-of-Way
78.
The Project, if located at the
79.
GRE will obtain natural gas for the Project from an existing
Northern Natural Gas Company ("NNG") pipeline. A new lateral will need to be built by NNG of
approximately 0.5 miles in length that would be required at either site.[98]
(k) Electrical System Reliability
80.
This Project is necessary to ensure that GRE has adequate
generating capacity in 2009 and beyond to meet reliably its forecasted customer
demand for electricity.[99]
This issue will be more directly
evaluated and determined by the Commission in the companion Certificate of Need
docket.[100] No site permit can be issued unless a Certificate
of Need has also been issued.[101]
(l) Costs of Constructing, Operating and
Maintaining the Facility Which Are Dependent on Design and Route
81.
Total construction costs for the addition of the Project at
the
(m) Adverse Human, Natural and Environmental
Effects Which Cannot be Avoided as a Result of Construction and Operation of
the Plant
82.
No significant adverse human, natural or environmental
effects have been identified at either location that arise from the Project.[104]
(n) Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources
83.
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources
have been identified at either location as arising from this Project.
Locations
Which Must be Avoided Under the
84.
Minn. Rule 7849.5940, subp. 1, identifies areas that are
prohibited from plant siting or excluded from that siting unless there is no
feasible and prudent alternative.
Neither site proposed for the Project has any of the prohibited or excluded
uses present.[105]
Adequacy of the
Environmental Impact Statement
85.
Pursuant to
86.
The Final EIS is adequate for the Commission to make its
decision in this matter.
Based on the Findings of Fact, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction
over this matter, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.08 and 216E.02, subd. 2.
2.
All relevant procedural requirements of law and rule have
been fulfilled.
3.
The Project could be lawfully sited at either the
4.
The
5.
Siting the Project at either location will provide benefits
to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural and socioeconomic
environments, including human health.
6.
The record does not demonstrate that the design,
construction, or operation of the project will fail to comply with relevant
policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local
governments.
7.
GRE’s proposed sites are acceptable under the provisions of
Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 7, and
8.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement addressed the
issues identified in the Scoping decision and is adequate.
9.
Any of the Findings which contain material which should be
treated as a Conclusion are adopted as Conclusions.
Based on the Conclusions, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that, upon the issuance of a Certificate
of Need for the Project, the Commission issue a Site Permit for the 175 MW
simple-cycle combustion turbine large electric power generating plant to be
located as proposed by GRE at Elk River, with any appropriate conditions.
Dated: March 18, 2008
_/s/
Richard C. Luis___________
RICHARD
C. LUIS
Administrative
Law Judge
Reported:
Janet Shaddix Elling, R.P.R.
Shaddix & Associates
One Volume
Under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd.
1, the agency is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the
Administrative Law Judge by first class mail or as otherwise provided by law.
[1] Exhibit 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 1.2 (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4385377).
[2] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, Introduction and section 1.1.
[5] ITMO the Application of
[6] ITMO the Application of
[10] Ex. 15.
[11]
[12] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 2.1, and 2.2.
[13]
[14] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.1, and Figure 3-1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.3 (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4897680).
[15] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.2.
[16] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.4.
[17]
[18] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 3.1.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.5.
[19] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 1.4.7,3.1.3 and Figures 3-4 and 3-5; Ex. 11, Draft EIS,
section 1.5 and Figures 1-9 and 1-10.
[20] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 3.1.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.5.
[21]
[22] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 3.1.4 and 4. I .2.1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.6.
[23] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 3.1.4 and 4.1.2.1 and Table 3-1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.6 and Table 1-1.
[24] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.4 and Table 3-1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.6 and Table 1-1.
[25]
[26]
[27] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.5 and Table 3-2; Ex. 11 Draft EIS, section 1.7 and Table 1-2.
[28] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.5; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.7.
[29] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.7.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.6; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.8.
[35]
[36]
[37] Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 7(b).
[38] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.4.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.6.
[39] Rosemount Public Meeting Transcript, p. 60.
[40] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.6.
[41] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.2.
[42]
[43]
[44] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.2.
[45] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.2.
[46] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.2.
[47] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.4.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.3.
[48] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.3.
[49] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.4.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.3.
[50] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.3.
[51] Ex. 1, Application, sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.4.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.6.
[52] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.6.
[53] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.4.4; Ex. 1 I, Draft EIS, section 4.4.
[54] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.5.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.13.
[55] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.13.
[56] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.5.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.5.
[57] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.5.
[58] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.5.4; Ex. 1 I, Draft EIS, section 4.1
[59]
[60] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, Table 4-3.
[61] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.1.
[62] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.5.1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.13.
[63] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.13.
[64] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.5.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.13.
[65]
[66] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.13.
[67] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.6.
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.5.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.10.
[72] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.10.
[73] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.7.
[74] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.6.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.8.
[75] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.8.
[76]
[77]
[78]Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.6.4; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.8.
[79]
[80] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.8.
[81] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.6.6; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.9.
[82] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.9.
[83]
[84] Ex. 1, section 3.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.10.
[85]
[86] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, chapter 4.
[87] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, chapter 4.
[88] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.1.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.2.
[89] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.3.
[90] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.1; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.3.
[91] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 2.5.
[92] Ex. 21, Herda Direct, page 2 (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4883550).
[93]
[94] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3.1.2; Ex. 1 I, Draft EIS, section 1.4.
[95] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 2.2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.2.
[96] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 2.3; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.2.
[97] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 3. I .2; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.4.
[98] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, sections 3.1.3, 1.4.7; Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 1.5. Ex. 1, Application for Site Permit, Figures 3-4 and 3-5, indicate the location of the new lateral.
[99] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 1.1.
[100]
ITMO the Application of
[101] Minn. Stat. § 216B.243, subd. 2.
[102] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 2.4.
[103] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.3.
[104] Ex. 1, Application for a Site Permit, section 4.3; Ex. 1 I, Draft EIS, chapter 4.
[105] Ex. 11, Draft EIS, section 4.6.