OAH
Docket No. 12-2500-20615-2
PUC Docket No. ET-6657/CN-07-1425
PUC Docket No. ET-6675/WS-08-573
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISION
In the Matter of the
Application of
Power and Light Company for
a
Certificate of Need for a
Large Energy Facility,
A 200 Megawatt Wind Farm
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
In the Matter of the
Application of
Power and Light Company for
a
Site Permit for the 400MW
Bent Tree Wind
Project in Freeborn County
This matter began on August 27, 2008, when
the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC or Commission) issued an Order
accepting Wisconsin Power and Light Company’s (WPL or Company) application for
a Certificate of Need (CON) for 200 Megawatts of the proposed phased 400 MW
Bent Tree Wind Project and approved the use of an informal review and requested
the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to coordinate the processes
associated with the project with MPUC staff and to hold at least one public
hearing on the project.
On September 16, 2008, the MPUC issued an
Order accepting WPL’s application for a site permit application for the
proposed 400 megawatt Bent Tree Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS)
Project in
Administrative Law Judge Steve M.
Mihalchick conducted a public hearing on the project on June 29, 2009, at 2:00
p.m. and continuing at 9:00 p.m. at the Freeborn County Government Center, 411
South Broadway, Albert Lea, Minnesota. Approximately
thirty members of the public attended the hearing, twenty of whom offered
testimony. Additionally, approximately
ten WPL employees attended the public hearing.
The ALJ was present at the hearing and provided those members of the
public an opportunity to present their views regarding the need for and
proposed routing for the project. The
period for written comment closed on July 14, 2009.
NOTICE
This
report contains a summary of public testimony.
It is not a final decision. Pursuant to Minn. R. 7849.5720, the
Commission will make the final determination of the matter within 60 days after
the receipt of the record from the administrative law judge.
Description of the Project
The Project is being proposed by WPL, a
Wisconsin public utility and wholly owned subsidiary of Alliant Energy
Corporation. WPL’s Integrated Resource
Plan demonstrates a need for 300 MW of new wind resources between 2008 and
2010. The Company will obtain the first
100 MW of new wind resources from a 27.5 MW Purchased Power Agreement with
Forward Energy and by constructing the 68 MW Cedar Ridge Windfarm in
The Project’s first phase will be a large
wind energy conversion system, as defined in Minn. Stat. §§ 216F.01 — 216F.07,
of up to 200 MW, consisting of up to 121 1.65 MW wind turbine generators. The towers will be 262.5 feet high, and the
rotor diameter will be 269 feet. The
maximum overall height will therefore be 388.8 feet when one rotor is in a
vertical position at the top of the rotation.
If the second phase is constructed in the future, the entire project
could involve 242 1.65 MW turbines with a nameplate capacity of approximately
400 MW.
The electrical collector system will
consist of underground 34.5 kV collection lines feeding into a collector
substation with two 34.5/161kV transformers and a 161kV switch station with two
terminals. One of the terminals will
connect to the new 18-mile long 161 kV high voltage transmission line going to
the Hayward ITC-Midwest substation, located east of
Assuming an estimated net capacity of
approximately 38%, projected average annual output will be 666,000 megawatt
hours (MWh), although the actual annual capacity will depend on a number of
variables, including weather conditions, operational and maintenance issues,
final design, site-specific features, and equipment.
The Project will be located within a 50
square mile area northwest of the City of
Procedural History
1.
On November 6,
2007, WPL filed a request with the MPUC for an exemption from certain data requirements
in connection with a CON application that the Company intended to file.[1] The Department of Commerce’s Office of Energy
Security (OES) recommended that the Commission grant the exemption in part and
deny it in part,[2]
and on January 17, 2008, the Commission issued an Order granting WPL’s request
for an exemption to the extent recommended by the OES.[3]
2.
On June 27,
2008, WPL filed a CON application for Phase I of the Bent Tree Wind Project,
consisting of a 200 MW wind generation facility and an 18-mile 161kV radial
line to connect the Project to the transmission grid.[4]
3.
On August 22,
2008, WPL filed a revised site permit application with the Commission for a proposed
400 megawatt Bent Tree Large Energy Conversion System project in
4.
On August 27,
2008, the Commission issued an Order accepting WPL’s CON application as
complete, contingent upon compliance filing, and also approving an informal review
process. That Order also requested the
Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct a public hearing to take public
testimony concerning the CON application.[6]
5.
On September 16,
2008, the Commission accepted WPL’s site permit application as complete and
made a preliminary determination that a draft permit could be issued for the
Project.[7]
6.
Thereafter the
Commission received requests for contested case hearings in connection with
both WPL’s CON application and its site permit application. By an Order issued on March 24, 2009, the
Commission denied the request for a contested case hearing on WPL’s site permit
application; that Order also ordered a public hearing on issues relating to
siting and permitting to be held in conjunction with the public hearing that it
had previously ordered for WPL’s CON application.[8]
7.
By an Order
issued on April 9, 2009, the Commission also issued an Order denying the
request for a contested case hearing in connection with WPL’s CON application.[9]
8.
On July 30,
3009, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin issued a Final Decision
approving WPL’s application to construct, own, and operate the 200 MW first
phase of the Bent Tree Wind Farm.[10]
Hearing Notice and Public Comment
Process
9.
On June 22,
2009, WPL served a Notice of Public Hearing giving advance notice of the public
hearing to parties on the service list, interested persons, landowners, and
governmental units.[11] On June 26, 2009, WPL filed an Affidavit of
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing.[12]
10.
The undersigned
ALJ conducted the public hearing on June 29, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. and continuing
at 9:00 p.m. at the Freeborn County Government Center, 411 South Broadway,
Albert Lea, Minnesota. Approximately 30
members of the public appeared at the public hearing. 21 members of the public offered testimony
about the proposed transmission line and related issues. After the hearing, the record remained open
for fifteen days to allow all interested persons to submit written
comments. Thirteen written comments were
filed by members of the public. The
record was closed on July 14, 2009.
11.
The Commission
will issue an order on WPL’s applications for a site permit and a Certificate
of Need after examining this Summary, the hearing transcripts, all written
filings submitted by the public, and all filings and argument submitted by WPL,
the Minnesota Departments of Commerce, Natural Resources, and Health, and other
persons and entities interested in this matter.
Summary of Public Testimony
Tricia DeBleeckere, a staff
representative from the MPUC, explained that the Commission is the final
authority in determining whether to issue both the site permit and the CON. She indicated that the MPUC had ordered an
informal review of the Certificate of Need in August, 2008, that this public
hearing was part of that review, and that its purpose was to obtain the public
views on WPL’s applications. Ms. DeBleeckere
stated that the PUC will make a decision on the WPL’s applications after
receiving the ALJ’s report summarizing testimony at the public hearing.[13]
Larry Hartman, the Project Manager assigned
to the Project by the OES, discussed the OES’s responsibility for conducting
and processing WPL’s site permit application and for conducting an
environmental review on the Company’s CON application. Mr. Hartman indicated that the OES had previously
held two informational meetings on the Project, as well as “scoping meetings,”
to obtain public comments on the issues to be addressed in the environmental
report. During the course of those
meetings, the OES had received 28 public comments. Mr. Hartman also noted that a
white paper prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) had been
included in the OES’s environmental report.[14]
The environmental review performed by the
Department is summarized in a document entitled Environmental Report: Bent Tree Wind Project.[15] The Environmental Assessment is a general
document discussing the potential human and environmental impacts of the
Project, as proposed, as well as any alternatives to the Project. The Department also assessed possible
mitigation of potential adverse impacts of the Project.
Arshia Javaherian, a regulatory attorney with
Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., offered a brief history of the
application process and provided background on the need for the Project. Mr. Javaherian indicated that the Project is a
response to a State of
Dick Swanson asked why WPL had not sought
a CON for the full 400 megawatts in the current application process. Mr. Javaherian explained that the difficulty
in applying now for a CON for a 400 MW Project was that it would have involved
trying to establish a need for an amount of energy that exceeded WPL’s current
needs. To avoid that difficulty, WPL only
filed an application for half of the site’s potential capacity. Mr. Javaherian also noted that there are time
limits on a CON and that WPL needed to ensure that it would be able to proceed
with the first phase in the event that there were problems during construction. Mr. Swanson also inquired about how the Project
would be financed and whether WPL would have to seek funding in the capital
markets. Mr. Javaherian replied that
WPL’s parent company, Alliant Energy, sufficient the financial resources to develop
the Project, and that there were no plans to sell bonds to fund the Project.
Jana Grimm from WPL stated that Alliant remains in a good credit position and
does not expect any problems in obtaining financing.[17] Later during the public hearing, Mr. Swanson expressed
his support for the Project and emphasized the favorable economic impact the
wind farm will have in the
Francis Pfefser expressed concern about
whether the Bent Tree wind farm would tie up
Carol Overland, an attorney for
Ms. Overland also sought clarification of
the business relationships between the various entities involved in the Project.[24] In response, Mr. Javaherian explained that
Alliant owns both WPL and Interstate Power and Light (IPL), and that WPL’s service
area is exclusively within
Dean Otterson talked about his interactions
with a Wind Capital representative, stating that the representative assured him
that there would be compliance with setback requirements. Mr. Javaherian
confirmed WPL’s compliance with the state requirements. Mr. Otterson expressed
his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Wind Capital representative had
informed him about the setback requirements and how it would impact his home
and farm property.[28]
Mark Anderson asked when the appropriate
governing body would approve one of the three transmission line options. Mr. Javaherian responded that the Freeborn
County Planning Commission favored the two more southerly routes, but that the
Freeborn County Board of Commissioners would make a decision on the route after
the MPUC made a decision on the CON. He
also indicated that the
Bernard Hagen asked whether WPL had
engaged in eminent domain proceedings or had obtained other permission to use
the last three miles on the ITC line. Mr. Javaherian reported that WPL was still
negotiating with landowners, but that negotiations could not be completed until
after WPL’s applications were approved.
However, Mr. Javaherian indicated that WPL felt confident about being
able to reach agreement with property owners.[32]
Mr. Hagen also asked how he personally would benefit from WPL building a wind
farm in
Mr. Hagen then asked how the production
tax worked. Mr. Javaherian explained that the tax is a credit per kilowatt of
energy produced, with the money flowing from WPL to
Finally, Mr. Hagen indicated that he had developed
tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, while in the Army. He indicated that he had met with his doctor
to learn whether the wind turbines would affect his condition. Mr. Hagen stated that his doctor told him that
living in close proximity to a wind turbine would aggravate his tinnitus and
adversely affect his health; he then submitted a letter from his doctor for
inclusion in the public hearing record.[35]
Ms. Overland questioned WPL’s data
relating to
Ms.
Overland also questioned WPL officials about “shadow flicker” from the turbines
and sought assurances that if residences are in the “zone of impact” for
flicker, that the company will consider alternative turbine locations.[38] Siting standards for wind turbines indicate
that shadow flicker is generally not noticeable beyond about ten rotor
diameters from a turbine, and Mr. Engels expressed his belief that that was a
“very safe statement.”[39] Mr. Engels also indicated that WPL had
already done a lot of work on shadow flicker mitigation, including traveling
throughout the proposed site, assessing the effect of the flicker on specific residences,
and in some cases moving turbine locations.[40]
Ms. Overland then offered for the public
hearing record a partial transcript of testimony in a prior proceeding before
the Environmental Quality Board concerning the annoying nature of low frequency
noise as evidence to support an objection to any variance of setback
requirements.[41]
Mr. Javaherian responded that the
Company had removed its request for a variance from its application in a prior
proceeding before the MPUC.[42] Mr. Rovino of WPL assured Ms. Overland that
WPL is following all state and local standards for setbacks—namely, at least 500
feet from residences and 250 feet from township roads.[43]
Ms. Overland then outlined a number of
conditions that Speaking for
Cheryl
Hagen stated that she and her husband live on acreage in northwestern
Katie
Troe, another representative of Safe Wind, expressed concern about the Bent
Tree Project and offered a packet of documents dealing with the adverse effects
of wind turbines for inclusion in the public hearing record[47] Ms. Troe suggested that in the past, the PUC had
not adequately considered the effects of having a large wind farm in close
proximity to dwellings and building sites. She was pleased that the Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH) appeared to have taken Safe Wind’s concerns about the potential
health effect of wind turbines seriously, and she expressed the hope that during
the approval process for the Bent Tree Project, the PUC would begin to address
concerns over the effects of noise and shadow flicker in permit conditions.[48] She remarked that her “hope for Minnesota is
that we will be at the forefront of science and innovation, while at the same
time moving forward with respect and consideration for those living next to
wind projects.”[49]
Ms. Troe summarized the results of her own
research on the effects of wind turbines on nearby human and animal
populations. She concluded that research
showed the wind turbine blades displace air and thereby produce a low frequency
noise that “contributes to the overall audible noise, but also produces a
seismic character which is one of the common complaints from neighbors when
they say that not only can they hear the noise, but they can feel it.”[50] Ms. Troe also cited studies that found that
the percentage of people annoyed by noise from a wind farm increases more
rapidly than with stationary noises once the noise levels exceed 35 decibels.[51] She indicated that one study found that the
reaction of individuals exposed to wind turbine noise represented an “intrusion
into [the] private domain,”[52] and
she quoted another study that reported that while people can adjust to certain
noises, wind turbine noise is different because of its “pulsating nature,
varying harmonic[s], and low frequency components,” all of which continue long
term without abatement.[53]
Ms.
Troe went on to cite a report from the United States Air Force Institute for
National Security Studies that found the “transmission of long-wavelength sound
creates biophysical effects” and a National Research Council study indicating
that the “effects of low frequency vibration and noise less than 20 hertz on
humans are not well understood, but have been asserted to disturb some people.”[54] Finally, Ms. Troe also referred to the
conclusion in MDH’s White Paper[55] indicating
“aerodynamic noise” from wind turbines may be “underestimated” in the project
planning stages because developers measure wind speed at ten meters above
ground level, whereas in some areas the wind speed near the top may be much
faster than the ground level measurement.[56] The White Paper also noted that low frequency
noise is generally not heard well beyond a half mile.[57] On the other hand, the terrain, buildings, and
varying wind conditions may cause “aerodynamic modulation” and thus cause wind
turbine noise to be heard at greater distances.[58]
Additionally, Ms. Troe cited a World
Health Organization recommendation that nighttime and late evening hour sound
levels should be under 30 decibels to safeguard children’s health.[59] Ms. Troe also cited a report that noted that
low frequency noise does not decrease with distance, is not mitigated by common
building designs, may resonate inside a room’s loud points, may be picked up
better by the elderly, and may cause lightweight elements of a building to vibrate.[60] In one study that Ms. Troe cited, students
expressed the same annoyance level with wind turbine noise at low A-weighted
sound pressure levels as other sources of noise, such as motor vehicle traffic
noise.[61] Based on the studies that she had read, Ms.
Troe expressed the belief that low-frequency noise is significantly strong to
warrant immediate concern and that low frequency noise may be more severe than
other types of community noise. Ms. Troe
believed that the studies that warned of problems with new turbine technology and
those that recommended considering wind turbine noise emissions as
environmental noise pollution had not been considered in the past., despite the data on the physical, mental,
and behavioral effects of wind turbine noise.[62]
Finally,
Ms. Troe proposed measures in siting wind turbines that could minimize noise impacts. Those measures could include instituting a
moratorium on the installation of large wind turbines until test trials assess
the noise produced.[63] They
could also include a wind turbine setback of 1.5 kilometers (or about one mile)
from residences, an “immediate and mandatory minimum buffer of two kilometers”
between a human dwelling and a large wind turbine, and “greater separation from
a dwelling for a wind turbine with greater than two megawatts installed
capacity.”[64]
Ms. Troe advocated establishing “a
multi-disciplinary team of experts independent of the wind industry
to…investigate the health impacts on people where industrial wind turbines have
been located too close to their dwelling.”[65] Ms. Troe also advocated the use of a method
used by other countries for establishing sound level limits.[66]
In response to Ms. Troe’s comments, Mr.
Javaherian indicated that WPL was obliged to comply with the siting rules adopted
by the MPUC, and he further indicated that all of the turbines that are
currently being designed for the Project and being arrayed meet or exceed the
siting requirements in Minn. R. 7836.[67]
Dr. Carl Herbrandson of the Department of
Health clarified aspects of the Department’s White Paper.[68] He indicated that MDH was not recommending
that additional noise testing should be done for the Project because at this
point noise testing would occur too late in the process for this Project to be
effective.[69]
Rather, he expressed the opinion that
modeling would be the more appropriate approach because it would “come up with
the information on what to expect your exposures to be” after which the state
and local authorities and citizens could make decisions on the acceptable
levels.[70] Dr. Herbrandson also clarified that MDH had
not made any specific evaluation of the Bent Tree Project, and that the White
Paper had not been directed at that particular project but rather at developing
a general process and at setting the framework for future processes.[71]
Stan Stocker asked the OES how many wind
turbines had already been sited and how many complaints the OES had received
about them. Mr. Hartman responded that
Gene Smith understood that Iowa landowners
who had wind turbines on their land had to sign an agreement not to discuss any
problems they encountered, and he wondered if that was the reason why the OES had
not received any complaints. Mr. Hartman
reiterated that there was a complaint process in
Helen McNamara stated that her husband
had talked to a town supervisor in
Dick Swanson re-emphasized the favorable
economic impact that the Project on
Marie McNamara expressed her concern
about the apparent secrecy surrounding the development of wind projects in
southeastern
It was the opinion of Kristine Johnson
that the low incidence of eagle mortality resulted from eagles avoiding wind
turbines by relocating to more hospitable habitat, and that the studies of bat
may have understated actual mortality.
More generally, Ms. Johnson expressed concern that current setback
requirements do not allow people to be a safe distance away from the noise that
wind turbines produce.[81] She also expressed concern about blade
flicker.[82] In response, Messrs. Javaherian and Rovino
provided Ms. Johnson with a detailed explanation of how WPL had used acoustic
modeling studies to establish its minimum setback requirements for residences.[83] Finally, Ms. Johnson later submitted a copy
of a newspaper advertisement in which a
In response to a question from Mr.
Hartman, Mr. Engels indicated that WPL was planning to start Phase 1 at the
southern half of the site and then build to the north until it had 122
confirmed turbine locations. The
northern portion of the site would then be reserved for future development in a
Phase 2.[85] Mr. Engels also estimated that there were
between 300 and 325 landowners within the Project boundaries and that 226 of
them were participating in the Project.[86]
In response to a question from Jason
Jacobusse, Ms. DeBleeckere stated that MDH’s white paper, which was
incorporated into the Environmental Statement as Appendix D, would be among the
document reviewed by the Commission in making its decision on the permit
application and on any conditions imposed on the applicant.[87] Mr. Jacobusse later asked about WPL’s
response to the results of MDH’s white Paper.
Mr. Javaherian responded that WPL had already responded by establishing
1,000-foot minimum setback requirements for residences in comparison with the
500-foot minimum in current standards.[88] Mr. Hartman further indicated that a number
of variables would be involved in determining the siting of each wind turbine,
but in every case the setback would have to meet MPCA standards.[89]
Allan Raynan inquired where the
transmission line would be located with reference to property that his wife
owned. Mr. Javaherian reiterated that
three routes were being considered, and that the Freeborn County Planning Board
had recommended that one of the two southern routes be selected, but that the
Citing a number of examples, it was the
opinion of Peter Reinarts that the Environmental Report for the Project and the
data on which it was based were inadequate.[91] Mr. Reinarts also expressed concern that the
report did not address all of the possible alternatives. In response, Mr. Hartman indicated that the
Environmental Report was intended to be a general document, and not a detailed
one.[92] Mr. Reinarts later asked whether WPL would
act on MDH’s recommendation to upgrade the PCA’s rule on setback
standards. Mr. Javaherian indicated that
no decision had been made.[93]
Scott Ryan expressed a number of the
concerns about the Project that other speakers had raised. Specifically, Mr. Ryan stated that he and his
wife had been given agreements by other wind resource developers that contained
nondisclosure agreements. Mr. Hartman
advised Mr. Ryan to get satisfactory answers to all of his questions from a
wind developer before signing an easement agreement.[94] Mr. Ryan also expressed concern that the
existing setback requirements would be inadequate to prevent noise
problems. Additionally, he was concerned
that stray voltage carried by ground wires would interfere with the milk
production of his dairy cows. Mr.
Hartman explained that stray voltages are normally a problem with local
distribution systems that have grounding issues. It was his belief that stray voltages should
not occur with a wind farm. For the most
part, wind farms are grounded properly and only interconnect to a high voltage
distribution grid.[95]
Dana Christiansen commented that he had
been close to operating wind turbines and had not detected a noise
problem. He also believed that there
were not many dairy cattle in
It was Marvin Christiansen’s opinion that
the Project would be good for
Finally, Katie Troe asked Dr. Herbrandson
why wind turbines are noisier at night.
In response, Dr. Herbrandson indicated that unstable atmospheric
conditions during the day tend to result in the same wind speed at the top of
the turbine blade rotation as at the bottom, which minimizes noise. However, at
nighttime, the relative calm tends to cause a high speed at the top of the
rotation and a low speed at the bottom, which produces noise. Whether that phenomenon causes a noise
problem depends on what the setback is.[98]
Summary of Written Comment
After the public hearing, Dr. Herbrandson
submitted a written comment responding to a question from Mr. Hartman about
whether the noise analysis in the noise assessment for the Blue Sky & Green
Field Wind Project was the type of analysis that MDH was recommending in its
White Paper. Dr. Herbrandson stated that
he found the noise estimates in that report to be reasonable, but that he would
want to validate the calculations that were made before relying on them. He continued by stating that one way to
quantitatively evaluate wind turbine noise is to use the current
Melvin Hobbiebrunken commented that the
Project was a valid one and that permits should be issued to allow
construction.[100]
Francis and Becky Pfeffer are homeowners
along the Project’s boundary and expressed concerns about its need, safety, and
other factors that would affect the community.
They believe that open land for wind production should be reserved for
Jason Jacobusse also submitted a comment
urging the Commission to require a minimum half mile setback from human
dwelling and from the property lines of non-participating property owners.[102]
Peter Reinarts submitted a written
version of the testimony he gave at the public hearing.[103]
Amy Wasson is an attorney for Safe Wind
and submitted written comments on behalf of that organization. It is Safe Wind’s recommendation that the
Commission deny WPL’s requests for a CON and site permit unless certain
specified changes are made to the Conditions currently set forth in Section III
of the Draft Permit.[104]
Ann Buck’s family farm is in the
footprint for projects being proposed by two other industrial wind
companies. She is concerned that wind
farms generally case families to relocate from communities because of health concerns,
lower property values, and their visual impact.[105]
Bruce and Marie McNamara submitted
written comments that amplified Mrs. McNamara’s testimony at the public
hearing. Although they are residents of
Helen McNamara also submitted written
comments to supplement her public hearing testimony. In Ms. McNamara’s view, the problem is not a
lack of adequate energy supplies, but our country’s appetite for energy. She urges the Commission to consider a
“no-build” option and deny certification because she believes that the demand
for electricity can be met more cost effectively though energy conservation and
load management measures. Ms. McNamara
also submitted a copy of an article titled “Living better, but wasting less”
for the Commission’s consideration.[107]
Kristine Johnson also supplemented her
public hearing testimony with written comments.
She stated that she remains concerned about prolonged exposure to noise
from wind turbines, and she believes that models need to be developed for
analyzing potential dB(C) exposures before proceeding with the Bent Tree
Project or any other wind farm. Ms.
Johnson is also concerned that turbulence caused by wind turbines will limit
her potential access to the Mayo Clinic’s helicopter. Another major concern for her is the possible
adverse impact on the
Katie Troe of Safe Wind also submitted
supplementary written remarks. She
specifically requested that the MPUC prohibit the inclusion of nondisclosure
agreements in landowner agreements as a siting permit condition, and she
included copies of Bent Tree Wind Farm’s “Wind Farm Cooperation Agreements”
that Safe Wind had obtained, as well as a copy of “Landowner Guidelines for
Evaluating Wind Energy Production Leases” prepared by Michigan State’
University’s Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.[109]
Adam M. Sokolski, a Business Developer
with Iberdola Renewables (IBR), submitted a letter dated and received by email
on July 14, 2009. IBR has approximately
400 MW of wind turbines operating in
On July 14, 2009, WPL efiled written Post
Hearing Comments.[111] Attached to its submission was data on the
Project’s total parcel count, including participating landowners and
non-participating landowners, which the OES had requested during the public
hearing. Also attached were non-redacted
versions of WPL’s Certificate of Need Application and Site Permit
Application. In its comments, WPL
emphasized that it has developed the Bent Tree Project in strict compliance
with the MPCA’s Noise Standard rule (Minn. R. 7030.0040), and that is has been
running a noise model and has graphically analyzed the results on a sound
contour map with the turbines to determine if any residences would experience
noise above the MPCA standards. WPL has
also voluntarily designed the wind farm so that there are no turbines closer
than 1000 feet to any occupied residence, which in all cases is above the level
required by the rule.[112]
No other written comments
from the public were received.
Dated: August 25th, 2009.
_/s/
Steve M. Mihalchick _
STEVE
M. MIHALCHICK
Administrative
Law Judge
Reported: Janet Shaddix Elling, R.P.R.
Shaddix & Associates
Two Volumes
[1] Request for Exemption.
[2] OES Recommendation.
[3] Order Granting Exemption.
[4] Application for a Certificate of Need
[5] Site Permit Application
[6] Order Accepting CON Application
[7] Order Accepting site Application
[8] Order Directing Public Hearing
[9] Order Denying Contersted Case.
[10] Ex. 29.
[11] Notice of Public Hearing.
[12] Affidavit of Publication.
[13] Transcript (Tr.) Vol. I, pp. 7-9.
[14] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 9-10; Exhibits 3-6.
[15] Exhibit 4.
[16] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 12-20.
[17] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 22-24.
[18] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 128-130.
[19] Tr. Vol. I, p. 25.
[20] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 25-26.
[21] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 27-29.
[22] Tr. Vol. I, p. 29.
[23] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 30-31.
[24] Tr. Vol. I, p. 31.
[25] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 31-32.
[26] Tr. Vol. I, p. 32.
[27] Tr. Vol. I, p. 33.
[28] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 34-37.
[29] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 39-40.
[30] Tr. Vol. I, p. 41.
[31] Tr. Vol. I, p. 42.
[32] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 43-44.
[33] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 46-47.
[34] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 47-51.
[35] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 51-52; Exhibit 8.
[36] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 54-59.
[37] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 61-64
[38] Tr. Vol. I, p. 65.
[39] Tr. Vol. I, p. 70.
[40] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 66-70.
[41] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 70-74; Exhibit 10.
[42] Tr. Vol. I, p. 74.
[43] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 77-78.
[44] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 79-80.
[45] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 81-82.
[46] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 82-83.
[47] Exhibit 11.
[48] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 83-84.
[49] Tr. Vol. I, p. 85.
[50] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 85-86; Exhibit 11.
[51] Tr. Vol. I, p. 86; Exhibit 11.
[52] Tr. Vol. I, p. 86; Exhibit 11.
[53] Tr. Vol. I, p. 87; Exhibit 11.
[54] Tr. Vol. I, p. 89; Exhibit 11; see also Exhibit 4, Appendix D.
[55] Exhibit 4, Appendix D.
[56] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 89-90; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 4,
Appendix D.
[57] Tr. Vol. I, p. 91; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 4, Appendix
D.
[58]
[59] Tr. Vol. I, p. 92; Exhibit 11.
[60] Tr. Vol. I, p. 93; Exhibit 11.
[61] Tr. Vol. I, p. 94.
[62] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 95-97.
[63] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 98-99.
[64] Tr. Vol. I, p. 99.
[65] Tr. Vol. I, p. 100; Exhibit 11.
[66] Tr. Vol. I, p. 103; Exhibit 11.
[67] Tr. Vol. I, p. 108.
[68] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 110-113.
[69]
[70] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 110-111.
[71] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 112-113.
[72] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 114-115.
[73] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 116-119.
[74] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 119-125.
[75] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 126-128.
[76] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 120-130.
[77] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 133-140.
[78] Tr. Vol. I, p. 140.
[79] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 142-144
[80] Tr. Vol. I, pp.145-146.
[81] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 157-159.
[82] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 159-160; Exhibits 12 and 13.
[83] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 3-12.
[84] Exhibit 13.
[85] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 12-14.
[86] Tr. Vol. II, p. 18.
[87] Tr. Vol. II, p. 20.
[88] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 56.
[89] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 61-65.
[90] Tr. Vol. I, pp. 22-23.
[91] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 24-32.
[92] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 32-33.
[93] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 66-68.
[94] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 35-47
[95] Tr. Vol. II, p. 51.
[96] Tr. Vol. II, pp. 52-53.
[97] Tr. Vol. II, p. 55.
[98] Tr. Vol. II,
pp. 70-72.
[99] Exhibit 16.
[100] Exhibit 17.
[101] Exhibit 18.
[102] Exhibit 19.
[103] Exhibit 20; see
also Tr. Vol. II, pp. 24-35.
[104] Exhibit 21.
[105] Exhibit 22.
[106] Exhibit 23.
[107] Exhibit 24.
[108] Exhibit 25.
[109] Exhibit 26.
[110] Exhibit 27.
[111] Exhibit 28, available at: (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={14BDF7F9-734A-41E8-B6BF-2824741AD1C3}&documentTitle=20097-39642-01
)
[112]