MPUC Docket No. IP-6701/ CN-09-1186
MPUC Docket No. IP-6701/ WS-08-1233
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
|
In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need and Large Wind
Energy System Site Permit for the 78 Megawatt Goodhue Wind Project in |
SUMMARY OF
PUBLIC TESTIMONY |
On December 30,
2009, the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC or Commission) issued an Order
accepting the application from AWA Goodhue, LLC for a Certificate of Need (CON)
for the proposed phased 78 megawatt Goodhue Wind Project. In this same Order, the Commission approved
the use of an informal review and requested the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) to conduct at least one public hearing on the project.[1]
Administrative Law
Judge Eric L. Lipman conducted four public hearings on the project. The hearings were held on the afternoons and
evenings of Wednesday, July 21st and Thursday, July 22nd,
2010. Each of the hearings was held in
the gymnasium of the
Approximately 200
persons attended the public hearings and 56 persons provided oral testimony
during the hearings. Each of those
persons who sought recognition on the first day of the hearings was, over the
course of the two days, given an opportunity to offer as much testimony as he
or she wished and to propound questions to the Applicant’s panel and agency
staff. In all, these hearings included
seven rounds of testimony from interested members of the public.[3]
In each successive
round, interested persons were recognized for a period of 5 minutes during
which they could submit testimony or make inquiries to the agency and applicant
panelists. At end of each round, interested
persons were again invited to submit testimony or make inquiries. This process continued until no person sought
recognition.[4]
Following the
adjournment of the public hearing, the record remained open for an additional
15 days within which interested persons were invited to submit written
comments. The post-hearing comment
period closed at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, August 6, 2010.
The Commission
will issue an order on the applications for a Certificate of Need and a site
permit after review of this Summary, the hearing transcripts and the filings
submitted into the hearing record.
Description
of the Project
AWA Goodhue, LLC (“AWA Goodhue” or the
“Applicant”) is proposing a large wind energy conversion system in
The Project would
be located in
The
proposed project is intended to produce renewable energy in furtherance of
Procedural
History
The regulatory approval process for this Project has been progressing through four separate dockets before the Commission.
On October 15, 2009 AWA Goodhue filed its application for a Certificate of Need in Docket Number CN-09-1186.
On October 19, 2009 AWA Goodhue filed an amended application for a site permit in
Docket Number WS-08-1233.
On November 20, 2009, Xcel Energy filed petitions
for approval of two 39
Megawatt Purchase Power Agreements in Docket Numbers M-09-1349 and M-09-1350.
On February 12, 2010, Goodhue Wind Truth
(“GWT”) requested contested case proceedings in each of these dockets. The
Commission denied those requests, choosing instead to permit the submission of
comments on siting issues at the public hearings on the Certificate of Need.[8]
On June 29, 2010, the
OES issued a Notice of Public Hearing giving advance notice of the public
hearing to parties on the service list, interested persons, landowners, and
governmental units. On June 30, 2010, the
OES filed an Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing.[9]
Summary of Public
Testimony
While the record developed in this matter is considerable – including books, charts, photographs, scientific treatises and documents of every size and description – the materials themselves can be readily divided among four distinct categories. Interested members of the public submitted comments and materials on: (1) the externalities that come from operating wind turbines; (2) the best practices for turbine siting and operation; (3) concerns as to the specific features of AWA Goodhue’s application; and (4) the key claims of the project’s proponents.
So as to introduce
the Commission to the hearing record and to the key claims made by commentators,
this summary also segments the record in this way.
I.
Externalities
from Turbine Operation
Perhaps not
surprisingly, the bulk of the hearing testimony and later comment focuses upon
the externalities that will follow from siting approximately 50 wind turbines within the Project
Area. Below, the key concerns regarding
the impacts of the turbines are grouped by category.
A.
Turbine
Noise
Numerous
residents of
An important focus of the hearing testimony and the later comments was the decibel level at which residents would begin to suffer serious health impacts. The threshold level is vigorously disputed – and both proponents and opponents of the project point the Commission toward the underlying scientific literature.[11]
For example, the
Goodhue County Planning Advisory Commission concludes that the nighttime
residential noise standard of 50-55 dB set by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency in Minn. R. 7030.0040 does not adequately protect the health of the
citizens of
Goodhue
residents Bruce and Marie McNamara hired sound engineer and acoustician Richard
James to conduct noise tests and provide testimony relating the AWA Goodhue
project.[14] At the McNamara’s request, Richard James,
INCE, of E-Coustic Solutions, performed studies at test sites in
Moreover, Mr. James indicated that a 5 dBA increase in background sound levels is noticeable to people but unlikely to generate complaints. An increase of 10 dBA, however, often causes complaints from individuals.[17] If there is a background sound level of 45 to 50 dBA at non-participating properties, Mr. James predicts a set of severe health impacts. Accordingly, Mr. James urges more stringent noise standards than those called for by the MPCA or the MDH.[18]
The Applicant takes strong issue with Mr. James’ calculations, methodologies, modeling techniques and the verifiability of his methods. It asserts that the average project-related noise level is quieter than the quietest average noise level in the community.[19]
The Applicant casts doubt on the merit of Mr. James’ assessments when it argues that “Mr. James does not provide evidence of the measurements he claims to have made, does not provide an explanation of the monitoring methodology he used, and does not provide evidence concerning the quality and accuracy of the measurement equipment or if his work product has undergone a quality control review by a qualified environmental acoustician.”[20]
John Meyer, a
resident of
B.
Shadow
Flicker
Several
residents of
Still others worried that the shadow flicker could cause headaches and dizziness whether they were inside or outside of their homes when light was reflected off of spinning turbine blades.[23]
The Applicant’s projections are that at the latitude of the project, flicker will occur during less than 1 percent of the daylight hours.[24]
C.
“Ice
Throw” from Turbines
A number of residents expressed concern over the damage that could be caused if large chunks of ice were permitted to build up on turbine blades and were later thrown from the moving blades.[25]
For example, Douglas and Eileen Sommer criticized as unworkable AWA Goodhue’s plan to “provide a means of alerting people coming within 300 meters (984 feet) for the potential of an icing condition near the turbine.” The Sommers assert that there should be minimum setbacks on heavily traveled roads of between 1000 to 1500 feet. Included with their comments was a booklet published by turbine manufacturer General Electric, entitled “Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and Mitigation.”[26]
Eager to protect snowmobilers in the event of ice throw, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recommends that any siting permit include a condition requiring either a setback from snowmobile trails in the area for safety purposes, or a requirement that the Applicant consult with DNR staff regarding trail locations.[27]
D.
Impacts
to Aircraft Radar and Air Traffic Control
Several residents expressed concern that rotation of large numbers of turbine blades would interfere with radar for military aircraft and air-traffic control. Particularly because the project footprint is not far from the Prairie Island Nuclear Facility, these individuals expressed the concern that untoward effects upon civilian and military radar presents a national security threat.[28]
Rochelle Nygaard,
of
E.
Access
to Adjacent Homes by Medical Helicopters
Some
At the public hearing and thereafter, residents debated whether “Mayo One” helicopters could safely respond to medical emergencies occurring in the vicinity of placed turbines. Proponents and opponents of the project differed sharply as to whether the presence of wind turbines greatly increased the safety risks to helicopters, crew and passengers during such missions. Moreover, each side claimed that officials of the Mayo Clinic subscribed to their view as to the relative impacts turbines had on rescue missions.[31]
F.
Impacts
to Groundwater
Some commentators expressed concerns over the potential for groundwater contamination from the project and the run-off that might be created by establishing additional impervious surface adjacent to the turbines.[32]
For example, Erin
Logan, a resident of
G.
Impacts
upon Wildlife
Several
residents expressed concern over the impacts that wind turbines would have upon
birds and wildlife in
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviewed the project’s site permit application, environmental report, and draft site permit, and offered several comments. First, the DNR believes that AWA Goodhue has adequately addressed the project’s proximity to Pioneer State Trail and has incorporated the appropriate wind access buffer. The DNR suggests, however, that AWA Goodhue seek to further clarify the permit language by adding state-owned trails to the list of public lands included in the condition labeled “III.C.4 Public Lands” or by including a special permit condition.[36]
Second, while
mindful that AWA Goodhue proposes to avoid an area of significant biodiversity
(in
Likewise, the DNR urges AWA Goodhue to consult with it and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service upon completion of two pending surveys commissioned by AWA Goodhue: the Loggerhead Shrike Habitat Assessment and the Pre-Construction Avian Spring Migration Survey.[38]
Further, the DNR recommends that AWA Goodhue revise Condition 9 on page 4 of the draft site permit. DNR asserts that the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should include methods of preventing the introduction of invasive species into the project site.[39]
Finally, while
commending AWA Goodhue for its pledge to notify the DNR whenever a large number
of birds or bats are killed by collisions with the turbines, the DNR recommends
that the site permit clearly establish the Applicant’s reporting
responsibilities. The DNR suggests that
AWA Goodhue be obliged to make a report to the DNR in the event that five or
more birds or bats are killed by the turbines within a single week.[40]
I. Levels of Stray Voltage
A number of residents expressed concern over the effects of stray voltage on dairy cattle.[41]
For example, Ann
and David Buck, of
II.
Best
Practices for Turbine Siting
A.
Length
of the Setbacks from Wind Turbines
Related to the concerns expressed about the externalities from turbine construction, placement and operation, is a debate over the length of the appropriate setbacks. Much of the public testimony and comments received centered on this question. While differing as to their recommendations, these commentators all urge the Commission to select a setback length in the siting permit that balances the rights of interests of those participating in the project with the rights and interests of those were are not participating in the project.
Mindful of both the Commission’s Order Establishing General Wind Permit Standards provides for a minimum 500 foot setback from a home,[43] and the Applicant’s proposal for a 1,500 foot setback from non-participating residences,[44] many commentators urged a still-larger setback of at least one-half mile.[45] For example, Bruce and Marie McNamara urged adoption of a one-half mile minimum setback on the grounds that the Minnesota Department of Health’s White Paper Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines found that low frequency noise from a wind turbine is not easily perceived beyond one-half mile.[46]
Supporters of the project argued that the Applicant’s tripling of the minimum setback set forth in the Commission’s General Wind Permit Standards is sufficient and strikes the right balance between the property rights of landowners and the interests of adjacent residents.[47]
B.
Appropriateness
of Turbines as a “Use” Within Agriculture Areas
Several commentators questioned whether wind turbines were the best – or an appropriate – use on agricultural lands. Thus, a key question that divided commentators during the public hearings was whether turbines “harvest the wind” in the same way that heavy farm machinery harvests crops, or rather that wind turbines are better categorized as an “industrial” use.[48] The commentators part company over the meaning of “farming” in modern day.
This
debate manifests itself in the record in a number of different ways, but perhaps
none more sharply than as to the residents’ competing interests in the scenery
along and above the horizon. Among the
most difficult policy questions raised during the proceedings is the extent to
which a landowner in an agricultural area has an interest in the “view shed”
that lies above neighboring properties.
Several commentators noted that they reside in
State Representatives
Steve Drazkowski and Tim Kelly urge the Commission to sharpen this question
still further by focusing on the special features of agricultural uses within
the Project Area. They draw a distinction
between
A different, but related question is whether the installation of turbines
unreasonably interferes with the expectations of adjacent cities. For example, in August of 2009, the City of
Lastly, Erin
Logan, a resident of
C.
Impacts
to Property Values
A number of those participating in the public hearing, and submitting
comments thereafter, expressed concerns over the impact of the wind farm
project on property values in
Schleck and Associates, appearing on behalf of Steve Groth and Ann Buck, suggested that AWA Goodhue be required to buy Property Value Guaranty Insurance for the non-participating property owners whose property values will be negatively affected by the project.[60]
III.
Concerns
as to this Application
A.
Demands
for Electric Energy
A number of
For example,
Greg Soule, of
Gary Luebke, of
B.
C-BED
Project Designation
Some commentators questioned whether the proposed project was properly characterized as a Community Based Energy Development Project under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216B. Characterizing the proposed 78 megawatt generating capacity as “unprecedented” for a C-BED project, State Representatives Steve Drazkowski and Tim Kellly urge the Commission to “strongly consider limiting the use of the C-BED statute for industrial wind developments significantly above the 22 megawatt size ….”[64]
Still other commentators focused on the organization of AWA Goodhue, and whether its ownership, financing and managerial direction is drawn from surrounding communities.[65]
Responding to the critique, the proponents argue that not only does the Project meet the statutory requirements for a C-BED designation but that it has been designated as “the most cost-effective C-BED resource available to Xcel Energy.”[66]
C.
Post-Installation
Remedies for Damages
Some residents
of
For example, Robert
Weiss, General Manager of Hector Communications, commented on behalf of Sleepy
Eye Telephone Company. Sleepy Eye
Telephone Company has buried copper cables and fiber optic cables in the
right-of-ways of
IV.
Key
Claims of the Project’s Proponents
Proponents of the project advance four key arguments in support of the granting the requested permits. They assert that the Project: (1) assists Minnesota in achieving its renewable energy goals;[69] (2) contributes to the diversity of state energy sources;[70] (3) provides needed stimulus to the local economy;[71] and (4) reflects the best available science.[72] State Senator Steve Murphy touched upon each of these contentions when he testified at the June 21 public hearing. He remarked:
Now, in our area, we
already have a nuclear power plant, one of the best run nuclear power plants
any place on the planet. We have a
garbage-to-energy project, an RDF facility, one of best run one any place in
the state. We also have energy produced
by using natural gas. Now, about the only energy production that we
don’t have in this area … is coal and wind. Quite frankly, I don’t want coal at
all and I think wind is a good resource and it fits with the energy diversity
of this area.
The other thing, Your Honor, and I think one of the very important things, is
that this means $20 million to the local economy. Now, there’s not an economy,
there’s not a town or a township or a county any place in Minnesota or the
United States that couldn’t use some windmills generating $20 million of
revenue for the local community. Now,
is that the sole reason to support this? Absolutely not….
Goodhue
Wind wants to put forward the best project possible. That’s why they’ve agreed
voluntarily to double their setback limits, they’re willing to sit down and
talk with individual landowners. This is good project, Your Honor, it needs to
continue to move forward ….[73]
Pursuant to the Commission’s December 30, 2009 Order to conduct at least one public hearing and to ensure the adequate development of the hearing record, this report is respectfully submitted.
Dated: September 7, 2010
/s/ Eric L. Lipman
________________________
ERIC
L. LIPMAN
Administrative
Law Judge
Reported: Shaddix and Associates
Transcripts Prepared: Four Volumes
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.
[1] In the
Matter of the Application of Goodhue Wind LLC for a Certificate of Need for a
78 MW Wind Project and Associated Facilities in
[2] See,
Hearing Transcripts, Vol. I through IV.
[3] See,
Hearing Transcript, Vol. IV at 120.
[4] See,
Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 8 – 11 and 109; Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 10-11 and 76-77.
[5] Environmental
Report, In the Matter of the
Application of Goodhue Wind LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Wind
Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County, MPUC Docket No.
CN-09-1186 at 1 (E-Docket No. 20106-52055-01) (also filed as Hearing Exhibit
QQ).
[6]
[7] See,
In the Matter of the Application of
Goodhue Wind LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Wind Project and
Associated Facilities in
[8] Order Denying Request for Contested Case
Hearing and Requiring Filing of Transmission Costs, Docket No. CN-09-1186
(April 23, 2010) (E-Dockets No. 20104-49531-01) and Order Approving
Distribution of Draft Site Permit and Denying Contested Case, Docket Nos.
CN-09-1186 and WS-08-1233 (May 3, 2010) (E-Dockets No. 20105-50000-01).
[9] See,
In the Matter of the Application of
Goodhue Wind LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Wind Project and
Associated Facilities in
[10] See, e.g., Comments of Theresa Spencer
(July 11, 2010); Rick Conrad (July 4, 2010);
Chris Buck (July 16, 2010);
Barbara Stussy, (July 30 and August 4, 2010); Melissa Peteler (August 6, 2010); Deborah Lunde (August 2, 2010); Nancy and Tim Hinrichs (July 31, 2010); Melody Ryan (August 5, 2010); Thomas Gale (August 4, 2010); Thomas Husband (August 5, 2010); Jen Loos (August 4, 2010); Chris Mallery (August 5, 2010); Erin Logan (August 5, 2010); Christi Buck (August 6, 2010); Lyle Hinrichs (August 5, 2010); Matt McNamara (August 6, 2010); Sandra O’Neill (August 4, 2010); Owen Scheffler (August 6, 2010); Steve Groth (August 5, 2010); Lois Zemke (August 3, 2010); Jason Scheffler (August 5, 2010); and Katie Troe of Safe Wind in Freeborn County
(August 3, 2010). Accord, Hearing
Transcript, Vol. I at 24 – 28, 62 – 65; Hearing
Transcript, Vol. III at 51 – 52.
[11] Compare e.g., Post-Hearing Comments of
AWA Goodhue, LLC at 6 (E-Docket No. 20108-53309-02) (("[i]t is important
to stress that within the peer reviewed scientific literature there has not
been a specific health condition documented or a disease (clinical entity) that
has been found to be caused by wind turbines or more specifically to sound
levels and frequencies generated by the operation of wind turbines.... The key point in the assessment of the
science is that there are no epidemiological studies that show wind turbines
cause illness.") with Hearing Exhibit B (Goodhue Wind Truth, an
opponent of the Project, submits for the Commission’s review 21 different
periodicals addressing the health impacts of wind turbine operations); Prefiled
Exhibits 202 – 223 (also denominated Goodhue Wind Truth’s RJ-01 through RJ-23).
[12] See, Comments of
[13] See, id (citing Night Noise Guidelines, (World Health Organization, 2009)); compare also, Hearing Exhibits M, N, R,
and AA.
[14] Comments of Bruce and Marie McNamara (August
5, 2010).
[15]
Comments of Richard R. James, E-Coustic Solutions (August 6, 2010).
[16]
[17]
Comments of Richard R. James, at 2-3.
[18]
[19] Hearing Transcript, Vol. III at 75-79.
[20] See, Post-Hearing Comments of AWA
Goodhue, LLC at 6.
[21] See, Comments of John Meyer (August 6, 2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 68 – 70.
[22] Comments
of Owen (Tony) Scheffler, (August 6, 2010).
[23] See, e.g., Comments of Chris Buck (July
16, 2010); Melissa Peteler (August 6, 2010); Deborah Lunde (August 2, 2010);
Catherine Huisman (July 26, 2010); Bruce and Marie McNamara (August 5, 2010);
Thomas Husband (August 5, 2010); Jen Loos (August 4, 2010); Christi Buck (August
6, 2010); Chad and Janet Ryan (August 6, 2010); Matt McNamara (August 6, 2010);
and Lois Zemke (August 3, 2010).
[24] See, Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 165;
Hearing Transcript, Vol. IV at 68.
[25] See, e.g., Comments of Melissa Peteler
(August 6, 2010); Melody Ryan (August 5, 2010); Christi Buck (August 6, 2010);
and Owen Scheffler (August 6, 2010); Hearing
Transcript, Vol. I at 106; Hearing
Transcript, Vol. II at 149; Hearing
Transcript, Vol. III at 92 – 93; Hearing Exhibit C (“Accident & Safety”
Tab).
[26] See, e.g., Comments of Douglas and
Eileen Sommer (August 4, 2010).
[27] See, Comments of Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) (August 5, 2010).
[28] See, e.g., Hearing Exhibit L; Comments
of Catherine Huisman (July 26, 2010); City of
[29] See, e.g., Comments of Statement of
Nancy Kalinowski (June 29, 2010) and Rochelle Nygaard (July 30, 2010); Hearing
Exhibit C (“Accident & Safety” Tab).
[30] See, e.g., Comments of Schleck and
Associates (August 6, 2010); Susan Hinrichs (August 6, 2010); Kristi Rosenquist
(August 6, 2010); Catherine Huisman (July 26, 2010).
[31] See, Comments of Steve Groth (August 6,
2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at
71-72 and 95-96.
[32] See, e.g., Comments of Catherine Huisman
(July 26, 2010); Chris Mallery (August 5, 2010); and Dean Tiedemann (July 21,
2010).
[33] See, Comments of Erin Logan (August 1,
2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. IV at
9 – 12.
[34] See, Comments of Jim Wiegand (July 24,
2010); see also, Melody Ryan (August
5, 2010); Citizens for Environmental Rights and Safety (July 25, 2010); Betty
Olson (August 5, 2010); Chris Mallery (August 5, 2010); Daniel and Sheri
Dowden, (August 5, 2010); Lyle Hinrichs (August 5, 2010); Paul and Vicky Ryan
(August 5, 2010); Scott Logan (August 6, 2010); Lance Groth (August 5, 2010);
and Kristi Rosenquist (August 6, 2010).
[35] See, Betty
Olson (August 5, 2010).
[36] See, Comments of Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) (August 5, 2010).
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] See, e.g., Comments of Owen Scheffler
(August 6, 2010); Lois Zemke (August 3, 2010); Chris Buck (July 16, 2010); Ted
Keller (August 5, 2010); Nancy and Tim Hinrichs (July 31, 2010); Catherine
Huisman (July 26, 2010); Randy Meyer (August 6, 2010); Chris Mallery (August 5,
2010); Susan Scheffler (August 6, 2010); and Brian and Sue Peters (August 5,
2010); Comments of State Representative Steve Drazkowski and State
Representative Tim Kelly (August 6, 2010);
see also, Hearing Transcript,
Vol. II at 38 – 41, 146 – 148; Hearing
Transcript, Vol. III at 30 – 33;
Hearing Exhibits HH and MM.
[42] See, Comments of Ann Buck (August 5,
2010).
[43] See, Order Establishing General Wind Permit
Standards, MPUC Docket No. M-07-1102 at 8 (E-Docket No. 4897855).
[44] See, Site Permit Application, Section
3.2.2.
[45] See, Environmental Report, supra at 20; Comments of Rick Conrad
(July 4, 2010); Nancy and Tim Hinrichs (July 31, 2010); Citizens for
Environmental Rights and Safety (July 25, 2010); Neal Stenlund (August 5,
2010); Ann Buck (August 6, 2010); David Buck (August 4, 2010); Chad and Janet
Ryan (August 6, 2010); Paul and Vicky Ryan (August 5, 2010); Douglas and Eileen
Sommer (August 4, 2010); Dave and Mary Jo O’Reilly (August 4, 2010); Rochelle
Nygaard (August 2, 2010); Daniel Ohnstad (August 5, 2010); Bruce Trevis (August
5, 2010); Steve Groth (August 5, 2010); Jason Scheffler (August 5, 2010); Safe
Wind in Freeborn County (August 3, 2010); and Dan and Jessica Lodermeier
(August 6, 2010); Hearing Transcript,
Vol. I at 85 – 91, 96 and 102; Hearing
Transcript, Vol. III at 16, 65 and 95 – 96.
[46] See,
Comments of Bruce and Marie McNamara (August 5, 2010); Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, at 25 (Minnesota Department
of Health, 2009).
[47] See, e.g., Hearing Transcript, Vol. II
at 67-68.
[48] See, Environmental Report, In the Matter of the Application of Goodhue
Wind LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Wind Project and Associated
Facilities in Goodhue County, MPUC Docket No. CN-09-1186 at 20 (E-Docket
No. 20106-52055-01); Comments of Dean Tiedemann, Zumbrota Township Board (July
21 and 27, 2010); Melody Ryan (August 5, 2010); Citizens for Environmental
Rights and Safety (July 25, 2010); Rochelle Nygaard (July 22, 2010); Schleck
and Associates for Ann Buck and Steve Groth (August 6, 2010); Dave and Mary Jo
O’Reilly (August 4, 2010); Sandra O’Neill (August 3, 2010); Lorry Hispert
(August 6, 2010); Neal Stenlund (August 5, 2010); and Rochelle Thomford (August
3, 2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. I
at 44, 68, 75; Hearing Transcript,
Vol. II at 79-80; Hearing Transcript,
Vol. III at 21 and 50; Hearing Transcript,
Vol. IV at 64 – 66 and 119 – 120.
[49] See, Comments of Barbara Stussy (July
30, 2010); Deborah Lunde (August 2, 2010); Melody Ryan (August 5, 2010); Daniel
and Sheri Dowden (August 5, 2010); Dave and Mary Jo O’Reilly (August 4, 2010);
Sandra O’Neill (August 3, 2010); and Kristi Rosenquist (August 6, 2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 78.
[50] See, e.g., Transcript, Vol. I at 68; Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 79-80.
[51] See, Comments of Rep. Steve Drazkowski
and Rep. Tim Kelly (August 6, 2010). See also, Comments of Deborah Lunde
(August 2, 2010); Melissa Peteler (August 6, 2010); Martin O’Connor (August 6,
2010); Susan Hinrichs (August 6, 2010); Catherine Friend (August 6, 2010);
Citizens for Environmental Rights and Safety (July 25, 2010); Neal Stenlund
(August 5, 2010); Ann Buck (August 6, 2010); Rochelle Nygaard (July 22, 2010);
David Buck (August 4, 2010); Bill O’Reilly (July 26, 2010); Randy and Deb
Tutewohl (August 2, 2010); Paul and Vicky Ryan (August 5, 2010); Larry Pederson
(August 6, 2010); Lois Zemke (August 3, 2010); and Gloria Agenten (August 3,
2010).
[52] See, In the Matter of the Commission
Investigation into Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems Permit Conditions on
Setbacks and the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division's
White Paper on Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, MPUC Docket No.
CI-09-845 (E-Docket No. 200910-43060-01).
[53] See, In the Matter of the Amended
Application of Goodhue Wind, LLC, for a Large Wind Energy Conversion System
(LWECS) Site Permit for the 78 megawatt (MW) Goodhue Wind Project in
[54] See, Comments of Schleck and Associates
on behalf of the City of
[55] See, Post-Hearing Comments of AWA
Goodhue, LLC at 19.
[56] See, Minn. R. 7850.0400, subd. 4; Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 133.
[57] See, Post-Hearing Comments of AWA
Goodhue, LLC at 20.
[58] See, e.g., Comments of State
Representative Steve Drazkowski and State Representative Tim Kelly (August 6,
2010). See also, Chris Buck (July 16,
2010); Melissa Peteler (August 6, 2010); Susan Hinrichs (August 6, 2010);
Melody Ryan (August 5, 2010); Catherine Friend (August 6, 2010); Bruce and
Marie McNamara (August 5, 2010); Thomas Husband (August 5, 2010); Barbara
Stussy (August 6, 2010); Ben and Angela Olsen (August 6, 2010); Chris Mallery
(August 5, 2010); Daniel and Sheri Dowden (August 5, 2010); Christi Buck
(August 6, 2010); Lawrence Thomforde (August 1, 2010); Rochelle Nygaard (August
2, 2010); Owen Scheffler, (August 6, 2010); Gloria Agenten (August 3, 2010);
Jean Schulte (August 6, 2010); and Kristi Rosenquist (August 6, 2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 78 and 104.
[59] See, Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 38-41
and 104; Hearing Transcript, Vol. II
at 91-92; Hearing Exhibit C (“Real Estate” Tab).
[60] See, e.g., Comments of Schleck and
Associates (August 6, 2010).
[61] See, Comments of Susan Hinrichs (August
6, 2010); Jason Tudor (August 6, 2010); Catherine Huisman (July 26, 2010); Neal
Stenlund (August 5, 2010); Mark Hinrichs (August 4, 2010); Mary Brickzin-Gale
(August 6, 2010); and Willis Scharpen (August 5, 2010); Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 98-100; Hearing
Transcript, Vol. III at 26
and 43 – 44.
[62] See, e.g., Hearing Transcript, Vol. IV
at 58 – 66; Hearing Exhibit CCC; compare
also, Hearing Exhibits 00 and YY.
[63] See, e.g., Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at
73-74.
[64] See, e.g., Comments of State
Representative Steve Drazkowski and State Representative Tim Kelly (August 6,
2010).
[65] See, e.g., Hearing Transcript, Vol. III
at 71; Hearing Transcript, Vol. IV at
42 –43 and 95 – 96; Hearing Exhibits 00, YY and ZZ.
[66] See, e.g., Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at
74; Post-Hearing Comments of AWA Goodhue, LLC at 4.
[67] See, Comments of Christi Buck (August 6,
2010); Chris Buck (July 16, 2010); Larry and Barb Lexvold (August 6, 2010);
Thomas Gale (August 4, 2010); Bruce and Marie McNamara (August 5, 2010); and Gloria
Agenten (August 3, 2010); Hearing
Transcript, Vol. III at 89 and 118.
[68] See, Comments of Robert Weiss of Hector
Communications (August 3, 2010).
[69] See, Comments of Councilman Michael
Wojcik, (July 31, 2010); Michael
from
[70] See, Comments of Larry and Barb
Lexvold (August 6, 2010).
[71] See, Comments of Lisa Heggedahl
(August 6, 2010); Tim Penny and the
[72] See, Comments of _ ; Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 79.
[73] See, Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 35 –
36; Hearing Transcript, Vol. II
at 79.