|
|
OAH 16-2500-21354-2 PUC CERTIFICATE OF NEED IP-6828/CN-09-937 SITE PERMIT IP-6828/WS-09-1197 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
|
In the Matter of the
Pleasant Valley Wind, LLC, Applications for a Certificate of Need and Large Wind
Energy Conversion System Site Permit for the Pleasant Valley Wind Project in
Dodge and Mower Counties, Minnesota |
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC
TESTIMONY |
A public hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Manuel J. Cervantes (ALJ) on July 1, 2010, at 6:30
p.m. at the Austin High School Cafeteria,
Approximately eighty-five members of
the public attended the public hearing.
Twenty-six people signed speaker cards and twenty-five of them offered
testimony during the hearing. In
addition, three people who did not sign speaker cards also offered testimony. Following the hearing, the record remained
open to allow all interested persons to submit written comments. Ten members of the public filed timely written
comments.[1] The ALJ did not receive any untimely written
comments. Most members of the public
spoke in favor of the project. The
record closed on July 19, 2010.
NOTICE
The Public Utility Commission (PUC)
has the option of holding a hearing itself or may request that an
Administrative Law Judge conduct the hearing and compile a record for consideration
by the PUC in making its final decision. Under Minn. Stat. § 216B.2421, the Pleasant
Valley Wind project qualifies as a large energy facility. Under Minn. Stat. § 216B.243, subd. 4,
the PUC is required to conduct a public hearing at a location and hour reasonably
calculated to be convenient for the public.
An objective of the public hearing shall be to obtain public opinion on
the necessity of granting a Certificate of Need and
on issues related to the proposed siting of the project.
This report contains a summary of the
public testimony. It is not a final
decision. Pursuant to Minn. R.
7849.5720, subp. 3, the PUC shall not make a final decision on a permit for a
project that requires a Certificate of Need from the PUC until the applicant
has obtained the necessary approval from the PUC.
BACKGROUND
ON THE APPLICATION
The Project would include access
roads, six temporary and two permanent meteorological towers, electrical
collection system, three substations, and three transmission lines. The Applicant expects to begin commercial
operation in December 2012.
The project area consists of
approximately 70,000 acres located in southern Dodge and northern Mower
counties in Hayfield and
Issues raised by the public at the
hearing relative to the proposed project included foreign ownership of projects
such as Pleasant Valley, the higher relative cost of electricity produced from
wind projects vis a vis electricity produced from fossil fuels, the failure to
promote Community–Based Energy Development (C-BED) projects, the creation of
obstructions by the turbines to navigable airspace, the setbacks of turbines
from non-participating landowners,
the negative effects of tower lighting on bird mortality, shadow flicker and
noise, declining land values, and health concerns relative to humans and
livestock.
The Commission will make the final
decision whether to issue the Certificate of Need and Site Permit following a
review of this Summary of Public Testimony as well as all of the hearing
transcripts, written comments submitted by the public, filings and arguments
submitted by Applicant, other persons, and entities interested in this matter.
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Approximately eighty-five members of
the public were in attendance at the hearing and twenty-six signed speaker cards.[2] Twenty-four of those who signed speaker cards
offered testimony during the hearing. In
addition, two others who did not sign speaker cards also offered
testimony. Ten members of the public
filed timely written comments.
ALJ began the hearing by explaining
that the purpose of the public hearing was to solicit public comments regarding
the Certificate of Need,[3]
the environmental report,[4]
and the draft site permit (which the PUC granted on April 23, 21010). Ingrid Bjorklund, Project Manager, Energy
Facility Permitting Division of OES at the Minnesota Department of Commerce,
briefly explained the process which was undertaken as a result of
1) Remarks
by Ms. Leslie Tapp: Ms. Tapp spoke
in favor of the project. She suggested
that the PUC give their serious consideration to the decision to grant the
Certificate of Need and believes we need the wind project.
2) Remarks
by Mr. Leonard Darnell: Mr. Darnell
spoke in favor of the project, specifically in terms of the project providing
needed employment and additional tax revenues.
3) Remarks
by Mr. Keith Gillette: Mr. Gillette
spoke in favor of the project because wind is a clean energy, provides
badly-needed local jobs, and provides badly-needed resources to the local tax
base.
4) Remarks
by Mr. Larry Sparks: Mr. Sparks identified himself as the chairman
of
5) Remarks
by Mr. James Gronseth: Mr. Gronseth
spoke in favor of the wind project, specifically in terms of clean energy. He does not see the negative effects in wind
energy as compared to the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico nor would he
want anything like that to happen here in
6) Remarks
by Mr. Greg Reid: Mr. Reid spoke on
behalf of his father Charles Reid. He
spoke in favor of the project in terms of additional jobs, taxes, and income
for his father. Mr. Reid noted that, unlike
the situation in the Gulf, windmills can be turned off.
7) Remarks
by Mr. Vance Larson: Mr. Larson identified himself as a life-long resident
of the area. He did not wish to repeat
what others had already said, but indicated he was in favor of the project.
8) Remarks
by Mr. Duwayne Skov: Mr. Skov: identified himself as a Dexter township
landowner and Township Supervisor. He
spoke in favor of the project given the
9) Remarks
by Mr. James Hartson: Mr. Hartson
indicated that he thinks wind energy is great but raised a concern about
foreign ownership of the local wind energy projects. He questioned whether foreign ownership of
these projects will lead to [national] energy independence. Bret Eknes, PUC staff and Paul Johnson, Applicant
Representative, responded to Mr. Hartson’s question as to ownership of the
Pleasant Valley Project. Mr. Eknes noted
that business is business and that foreign investment goes both ways. Foreign
countries invest in the
Also responding to the comment, Mr. Johnson indicated
that until recently, RES Americas simply constructed projects and sold them to
third parties. Recently, the Company has
become more flexible and has retained ownership of 200 MW of the 4400 MW of
rated windmill turbines either under construction or in operation by the Company. These are American-owned assets through the
Company’s
10)
Remarks by Mr. Ed Horne: Like
Mr. Hartson, Mr. Horne expressed displeasure because no one answered the
Company ownership question at the February public meeting. Mr. Horne found fault with the process
because the ownership question did not make it into the meeting minutes
[summary report], and therefore, believes the process is suspect. He also complained that he has submitted
questions to the OES via e-mail and by phone, and some of his questions have
gone unanswered.
11)
Remarks by Mr. John Kiser: Mr.
Kaiser spoke in favor of the project. He
indicated that he preferred having a wind generator next door rather than a
nuclear [power] plant.
12)
Remarks by Mr. Sanford
13)
Remarks by Mr. William Schiesher: Mr.
Schiesher spoke in favor of the project.
He indicated that the wind is abundant and free and that it might as
well be used [in a productive manner].
14)
Remarks by Mr. Kathy Blanchard: Ms.
Blanchard identified herself as a small landowner in
15)
Remarks by Mr. Randy Swanson: Mr.
Swanson is in favor of wind energy but raised concerns regarding the terms of
the landowner agreement with the Applicant, specifically, the low level of
compensation per acre and the Applicant’s right of first refusal [as to the
sale of the real estate]. Mr. Swanson is
of the belief that the Applicant has more rights than the landowner does. He expressed dissatisfaction because he believes
the Applicant has been delinquent in their payments to him.
16)
Remarks by Mr. Doug Sheely: Mr.
Sheely spoke in favor of the project. He
said he farms around one tower now without any problems and the project
provides revenue to his landlord who is happy with the arrangement.
17)
Remarks by Mr. Danny Linbo: Mr.
Linbo spoke on behalf of his mother. He
is in favor of the project. It’s brought
“some oomph” to the little city of
18)
Remarks by Mr. Francis Severson: Mr.
Severson spoke in favor of the project.
He responded to concerns expressed by others about the noise generated
by the turbines. He indicated that he
had spoken to several neighbors near Dexter who have turbines on their property
and they indicated that the noise does not bother them.
19)
Remarks by Mr. Odean Haarstead: Mr. Haarstead identified himself as the
Dexter Township Clerk and spoke in favor of the project. However, he was also there to speak on behalf
of his neighbor and landowner, Diane Haseth.
Mr. Haarstead indicated that Ms. Haseth opposed the transmission route
chosen by the Applicant that cuts through her property instead of following
along the boundary as originally proposed by the Applicant. He indicated that further discussion with the
Applicant was necessary about the proposed routing, as shown on the maps at the
hearing, or Ms. Haseth is “apt to pull out of it if this [route] is going to
happen.”
20)
Remarks by Mr. Terry Wangen: Mr. Wangen spoke in favor of the project. He indicated that he had been reading the
book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded by
Thomas Friedman. He cites a concept from
the book that efficiencies in green energy can not improve unless we go ahead
with them. For example, in the ethanol
industry, producers today have become much more efficient and get more ethanol energy
out of each bushel of corn as compared to when the industry started. He has also read that wind energy can produce
other products such as anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen in addition to
electricity. Contrary to other comments,
he said it was told to him right from the beginning that the Applicant was a
British-owned company and that “[n]obody was hiding it from me.”
21)
Remarks by Ms. Carol Lantow and dialogue with Mr.
Raymond Tucker,
Next, Ms. Lantow inquired about windmill energy production
oversight. Mr. Tucker explained that the
State of
Next, Ms. Lantow asked about the number of local jobs
that have been created by the existing wind farms [in the area]. Mr. Tucker replied that the wind farms
created 60 jobs. She then asked whether
these jobs lasted longer than a year.
Mr. Joe Grennan, Applicant Representative and Director of Permitting,
said that the Applicant’s project expects to create 10-15 permanent [local]
jobs.
Next, Ms. Lantow asked where is the
windmill-generated energy being used and can one tell whether the windmill
energy that is generated here will be used locally. Mr. Grennan asked Ms. Lantow to consider the
following metaphor: look at the electric
grid as a pool of water with hoses bringing water [electricity] to the pool and
individuals taking the water [electricity] out with straws when one turns on a
light switch or other electrical device.
He said it would be difficult to track the precise electron that was put
into the pool from a windmill but the goal is to use more renewal energy and
this project contributes to that goal.
Ms. Lantow concluded by saying that she contacted her coop utility
company and was told that is costs 4 cents per kilowatt hour [from current
energy sources] as compared to 6 cents per wind power kilowatt hour. In her view, that is a 50% increase in costs
for wind-generated electricity, a point that is not generally known by the
public. She does not believe that wind
energy will decrease utility bills.
22)
Remarks by Mr. Richard Higgins: Mr.
Higgins is a land owner in the Quad Cities area [of eastern
23)
Remarks by Mr. Allen Sargent: Mr.
Sargent spoke in favor of wind farms but raised a question about who is buying
the Applicant’s wind energy [as clarified by Ed Horne]. Mr. Johnson replied that the Applicant is in
discussions with several parties regarding the sale of energy output but cannot
reveal them because of confidentiality agreements. Mr. Eknes indicated that there is no specific
requirement that a power purchase agreement be in place in order to grant a
certificate of need. Only a
demonstration that a need for additional energy exists in the region or state
is necessary. Mr. Eknes further stated
that studies exist which indicate a regional demand for renewable energy in the
thousands of megawatts. He further
clarified that for purposes of obtaining a site permit, an applicant must have
an “enforceable mechanism” in place before construction begins, but site permits
may be let before construction.
24)
Remarks by Mr. Guy Kohlnhofer: Mr.
Kohlnhofer identified himself as the
25)
Remarks by Mr. Glenn Hahn: Mr.
Hahn spoke in favor of the project. But he
commented that these types of projects come with costs to the local community.
For example, farmers will be able to grow “canning crops” but will have to move
them around to permit aircraft to have access to them for purposes of pesticide
and insecticide applications. Also, the
pattern of congested towers may have a negative impact on the emergency Mayo
One aircraft medical transport system that the local community takes advantage
of. Finally, Mr. Hahn noted that his
experience in working through road mitigation efforts with other projects has
been positive.
26)
Remarks by Mr. Darrin Westphal: Mr.
Westphal identified himself as a field agent of the North Central States
Regional Council. He stated that he
works closely with companies who develop and construct the [windmill]
units. It is his job to put local people
to work. He presents 21,000 members in
four states. He indicated that local
people have a hand in the construction of the towers. After the construction of a project is
complete, it is his goal to obtain maintenance contracts with the projects to
create ongoing local jobs.
SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS
There were ten written comments postmarked
by July 16, 2010 and received prior to the close of the post-hearing comment
period.
1)
Written comments of Mr. Trevor Scrabeck: Mr.
Scrabeck identified himself as an owner of a private airport two miles from the
project boundary and believes that the project will create obstructions to
navigable space. It is his request that
the project comply with
2)
Written comments of Mr. John W. Erichson: Mr.
Erichson identified himself as a city
engineer and spoke on behalf of his employer, the City of
3)
Written comments of Mr. Peter M. Mattson: Mr.
Mattson identified himself as President of the Austin Audubon Society and wrote
on its behalf. He requested that the PUC
prevent the harmful effects of hundreds of aircraft warning lights that this
project will bring to
4)
Written comments of Mr. Richard A. Sargent: Mr.
Sargent raised multiple issues in his letter.
For example, he has concerns about the loss of productive farm land to
install these projects and the additional transmission lines, the noise and
shadow flicker the turbines generate, and questions whether wind energy is
appropriate given the advances in the processing of lignite coal. He also commented on the fact that when the
turbines are decommissioned in 30 years, current standards only require removal
of the concrete footing to six feet below grade. He notes that the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency considers cement a hazardous waste and questions whether the landowner
will be left with an expensive problem if the remaining cement must be removed.[8]
5)
Written comments of Mr. Neil L. Knutson: Mr.
Knutson does not favor the Applicant’s proposed transmission lines running
along his property and provided three alternative routes, one of which was one
mile shorter in distance. He also drew
his proposals on a plat map which was attached.
He believes that the transmission lines pose a risk to the health and
safety of persons and livestock and will cause interference with his plans to
produce organic crops.
Mr. Knutson also included a map where proposed
turbines will be placed. He indicates
there are four turbines to the south of his property. According to his calculation, the closest
turbine is 959 feet from his southern boundary.
He indicates that he does not want to live that close to the turbines
for health and safety reasons, the proximity may have a negative effect on land
values, and because the turbines will interfere with his plans for his
property. He specifically requested that
setbacks be 1.25 miles from a home.[9]
6)
Written comments of Ms. Therese Manggaard: Ms.
Therese Manggaard is not in favor of the project because she believes that the
installation of windmills in the Sargeant area is a terrible waste of high
quality farm land; the project may have a negative impact on land values; that
windmills are an “eyesore” that ruin the rural landscape; and she fears that
the windmills will be obsolete in 20 years, the owners will be gone, and there
will be no resources to remove them and rebuild the soil which will have been
destroyed.
Ms. Manggaard recommends that windmills be installed
on poor quality/marginal land; that they are built closer to areas that consume
the most energy; that research continues for alternative energy sources; and
that smaller windmills be built that are less costly to build and operate and
do less harm to the land.[10]
7)
Written comments of Ms. Diane Stenzel: Ms.
Stenzel is not in favor of the project.
Ms. Stenzel expressed many concerns in her four page email letter. One of her major concerns was the issue of
the PUC’s failure to notify property owners who are outside the project but
whose property abuts the project. They
were given no direct notice of the public hearings, notwithstanding that they
will be directly affected. On the other
hand, she indicated that the project-participating property owners were given
direct mail notices but most of them already knew of the public hearings
because they were already participating. As a result, many of the
non-participating landowners did not know about the public hearing and did not
go. She believes published notice is not
sufficient.
Contrary to a representation at the hearing, Ms.
Stenzel does not believe [the community of] Dexter is not doing all that
well. She disputes there were 60
permanent jobs remaining from the Dexter wind energy project. She asserts there were only 20 jobs and that
only 8 of those remain. She also noted
that the secretary position is now half time.
She indicated that she has not seen any tax relief; her taxes have gone
up and believes land values have been negatively affected. Ms. Stenzel does not believe that that the
developer/owners of the Dexter project have lived up to the contracts they
signed and she gave examples of insufficiencies in the areas of project
payments to landowners, road repairs, field damage remediation, the personal
effects of windmill noise, and the lack of response by the project owner to
landowner complaints.[11]
8)
Written comments of Mr. Mike Gebhardt: Mr.
Gebhardt is in favor of the project. He cites
the recent past rolling brown outs on the east and west coasts as well as the
current research into electric vehicles and superconductor use of electricity as
demonstrating the growing need for electrical power. He believes wind energy complements nuclear,
coal, and natural gas yet produces no pollution such as greenhouse gases or
nuclear waste. Wind energy production reduces our [country’s]
dependence on foreign oil. Additional
benefits include tax revenues for local units of government, creation of local
jobs, and minimal disturbance to croplands.
He recommends that the PUC grant the Certificate of Need.[12]
9)
Written comments of Mr. Jim Stiles: Mr.
Stiles identified himself as President of the Austin Chapter of the Izaak
Walton League and wrote on its behalf.
Mr. Stiles reiterated the same points as made by Mr. Mattson, President
of the Austin Audubon Society.[13]
10)
Written comments of Ms. Andrea Anderson: Ms.
Anderson favors renewable energy so long as it is safe for all, including
migratory birds. She recommends the use
of an obstacle collision avoidance system to reduce bird mortality and to
lessen the annoying “light pollution” of the evening skies created by the
lighted towers. Second, as a member of
the Izaak Walton League, whose goal is to enhance water quality and bird
habitat, she is concerned that the blinking lights detract from these
goals. She believes that given the
recent oil spill in the
Dated: August 3, 2010
s/Manuel
J. Cervantes
|
MANUEL J. CERVANTES Administrative Law Judge |
[1] The ALJ received eight written comments by July 16 and two which were postmarked July 16 and were received on July 19.
[2] Exhibit 11.
[3] The Certificate of Need was filed by the Applicant
on October 26, 2009.
[4] The environmental report was prepared and made
available to the public on June 9, 2010 by the Office of Energy Security (OES).
[5] Ex. 1.
[6] Ex. 2.
[7] Ex. 3.
[8] Ex. 4.
[9] Ex. 5.
[10] Ex. 6.
[11] Ex. 7.
[12] Ex. 8.
[13] Ex. 9, see
Ex. 3 above.
[14] Ex. 10.