SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 8
Baixar para ler offline
This opinion will be unpublished and
                       may not be cited except as provided by
                       Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).

                            STATE OF MINNESOTA
                            IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                  A11-2229


            In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC
                for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Wind Project and
                        Associated Facilities in Goodhue County

            In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC
                for a Site Permit for a 78 Megawatt Large Wind Energy
                    Conversion System Project in Goodhue County.


                                Filed June 25, 2012
                                     Affirmed
                                 Bjorkman, Judge


                       Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
                          File No. IP-6701/WS-08-1233

Daniel S. Schleck, Natalie Wyatt-Brown, Halleland Habicht P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota; and

Brian N. Niemczyk, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
relator Coalition for Sensible Siting)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Anna E. Jenks, Gary R. Cunningham, Assistant
Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission)

Todd Guerrero, Sten-Erik Hoidal, Christina K. Brusven, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC)

Carol A. Overland, Legalectric, Red Wing, Minnesota (for amicus Goodhue Wind Truth)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and

Bjorkman, Judge.

                         UNPUBLISHED OPINION

BJORKMAN, Judge

       Appellant challenges the                                                  MPUC

determination that there is good

ordinances for wind energy projects. Because substantial evidence supports the MPUC

factual findings and those facts constitute good cause to disregard the setback, we affirm.

                                         FACTS

       In 2009, respondent AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC (AWA) filed a revised site permit

application to construct a large wind energy conversion system (LWECS) in Goodhue

County. Pursuant to a contract with Xcel Energy, AWA sought to generate 78 megawatts

(MW) of power, using 50 wind turbines, each 397 feet tall with a 271-foot rotor diameter

(RD). Respondent MPUC approved the contract under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612 (2010).

       An administrative-law judge (ALJ) presided over the permit hearings in July 2010

and submitted a summary of public testimony to the MPUC the following September.

Less than one month later, the county adopted a stringent LWECS ordinance, which

w

things, the ordinance requires that turbines be set back at least the length of 10 RDs from

each residence not participating in the project, absent a waiver from the owner of the

residence.




                                             2
The MPUC                                                   ability to an ALJ for

contested-case proceedings. The ALJ presided over a three-day public hearing that

included oral testimony from 56 witnesses and thousands of pages of exhibits and expert

reports. The ALJ issued findings, conclusions, and recommendations, including the

determination that there is good cause to disregard the 10-RD setback ordinance and

instead ap                              -foot setback.    The county and numerous

intervenors, including relator Coalition for Sensible Siting (CSS) and amicus curiae



      In August 2011, the MPUC issued a site permit to AWA. In doing so, the MPUC

concurred with the ALJ that there is good cause not to apply the 10-RD setback and

instead imposed a 6-RD (1,626-foot) setback. Additionally, the MPUC required AWA to

make a good-faith effort to comply with the 10-RD setback and accommodate the

                         turbine noise and shadow flicker (alternating changes in light

intensity caused by moving rotor blades). The county, CSS, and GWT filed petitions for

reconsideration, which the MPUC denied. This certiorari appeal follows.

                                   DECISION

      The MPUC is the exclusive permitting authority for LWECSs that exceed a 25-

MW capacity. Minn. Stat. §§ 216F.04, .07, .08 (2010). But the MPUC must apply a



                 A county may adopt by ordinance standards for
             LWECS that are more stringent than standards in commission

             commission, in considering a permit application for LWECS
             in a county that has adopted more stringent standards, shall


                                          3
consider and apply those more stringent standards, unless the
              commission finds good cause not to apply the standards.

Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 (2010) (emphasis added). Whether a permit applicant has shown

good cause to disregard an ordinance is a mixed question of fact (what facts have been

shown) and law (whether the facts constitute good cause). See Averbeck v. State, 791

N.W.2d 559, 560-61 (Minn. App. 2010) (describing the good-cause standard); In re

                             365 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. App. 1985) (describing the

burden of proof), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1985).           We therefore review the

MPUC                                                                               -cause

determination de novo. See In re Excelsior Energy, Inc., 782 N.W.2d 282, 289-90 (Minn.

App. 2010).

I.    Substantial evidence supports the MPUC

      The MPUC based its determination that there is good cause to disregard the 10-

RD setback on the following facts: (1) the 10-RD setback is unnecessary to protect

human health, safety, and quality of life, and

reasonable likelihoo                              ; (2) the 10-RD setback is designed to

eliminate all human exposure to noise and shadow flicker; (3) the 10-

preclude the entire projec         ) the application of a 10-



      CSS does not argue that any particular factual finding is unsupported by

substantial evidence, and our review of the record reveals ample support for each finding.

First, AWA presented modeling studies performed by an engineering consulting firm



                                            4
demonstrating that the anticipated turbine noise and shadow flicker would be minimal: no

more than 43 decibels of noise (below state noise standards) and 33 hours and 11 minutes

of shadow flicker per year (less than 1% of daylight hours). Second, AWA submitted

expert testimony and scientific reports from the Minnesota Commissioner of Public

Health, the Wisconsin State Health Officer, the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health,

the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and the American Wind Energy Association,

indicating that there is no reliable scientific research demonstrating that noise generated

by wind turbines or shadow flicker cause adverse health conditions.         Third, county

officials testified that the county adopted the 10-RD setback to eliminate all noise and

flicker exposure in order to avoid the costs of modeling and measuring actual noise and

flicker effects. Fourth, AWA representatives testified that the 10-RD setback would

preclude the placement of 43 out of the 50 proposed turbines, effectively prohibiting the

project, and alternative project designs are not geographically or economically feasible.

And fifth, modeling studies show that the 10-RD setback would essentially prevent all

wind energy projects in Goodhue County an ideal location for wind development         and,

if applied throughout the state, would preclude wind development in the vast majority of

Minnesota and thereby drive up the cost of wind power.

      In the face of this substantial evidentiary support for the MPUC

CSS advances what is essentially a legal argument. It maintains that the MPUC erred in

basing its findings of fact on the evidence presented in the contested-case proceeding

because Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 requires the MPUC to accept and defer to the facts the

county relied on in establishing the ordinance, namely, reports from the Minnesota


                                            5
Department of Health and the World Health Organization that allegedly recommend a 10-

RD setback. We disagree. Section 216F.081 creates a presumption in favor of applying

                       ; it does not require the MPUC to adopt or defer to the factual

allegations the county accepted in passing the ordinance.                              -



                                                                    In re Excess Surplus

Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624 N.W.2d 264, 278 (Minn. 2001). Based

on our independent review of the record, we conclude that the MPUC correctly relied on

evidence developed in the contested-case proceeding and that substantial evidence

supports the MPUC         -finding.

II.    The MPUC correctly determined that there is good cause to disregard the 10-
       RD setback.

       The permit applicant    in this case, AWA     has the burden of establishing that

there is good cause to disregard t             ordinance standards. See In re Minn. Pub.

                365 N.W.2d at 343.

                                                            See Averbeck, 791 N.W.2d at

561.

       CSS and GWT argue that the MPUC shifted the burden of proof to the county to

justify the 10-RD setback and show that it was necessary to protect human health and

safety. We are not persuaded. The MPUC

failure to produce evidence to justify the 10-RD setback. Instead, the MPUC based its

decision on evidence produced by AWA not only that the 10-RD setback is unnecessary



                                           6
to protect human health, but also that such an extensive setback requirement would likely

prevent the proposed project and hinder the development of renewable energy in

Minnesota. This analysis correctly placed the burden of proof on AWA.

      Additionally, CSS asserts that the MPUC failed to give proper deference to the

                                                        n, we disagree.     Although the

legislature gave counties the opportunity to establish siting standards through ordinances,

it vested the MPUC with the ultimate authority to issue permits for LWECSs of the

capacity involved here.    Minn. Stat. §§ 216F.04, .07, .08, .081.       In doing so, the

legislature did not require the MPUC                                             standards

but instead charged the MPUC with determining whether, as a substantive matter, there is

good cause to disregard those standards. The MPUC         conclusion that the good-cause



standards.



be the only factor in the MPUC         -cause determination. We agree. The good-cause

determination involves a multi-factor analysis of all relevant considerations, including

health, safety, and the legislative policy goals of encouraging county participation in

LWECS siting, increasin

manner compatible with environmental preservation, sustainable development, and the



Application of this multi-factor analysis of the surrounding circumstances, as found by

the MPUC, reveals good cause to disregard the 10-RD setback.             As noted above,


                                            7
health or safety impacts due to turbine noise or shadow flicker.1 Accordingly, the 10-RD

setback    based on a zero-exposure standard   is unnecessary. And on the other hand,

                               -RD setback

                                          rest in promoting wind development as a

sustainable source of energy. On this record, there is good cause to disregard the 10-RD

setback.

      Affirmed.




1

pose stray voltage risks or diminish property values. But because CSS makes this point
without any analysis or indication that the 10-RD setback addresses these concerns, CSS
has waived the argument. See In re Irwin, 529 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn. App. 1995)
(deeming issues waived because they were not adequately argued or briefed), review
denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

                                           8

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Monsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA Movement
Monsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA MovementMonsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA Movement
Monsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA MovementHonolulu Civil Beat
 
March 25 sc order tihar
March 25 sc order tiharMarch 25 sc order tihar
March 25 sc order tiharZahidManiyar
 
Futch Vs Aig
Futch Vs AigFutch Vs Aig
Futch Vs AigAIGdocs
 
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)jamesmaredmond
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
 
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State Lands
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State LandsPA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State Lands
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State LandsMarcellus Drilling News
 
US Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA
US Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPAUS Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA
US Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPAMarcellus Drilling News
 
Marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement act
Marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement actMarijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement act
Marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement actikarocampos
 
U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...
U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...
U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...Marcellus Drilling News
 
Joe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own Case
Joe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own CaseJoe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own Case
Joe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own CaseAdam Elend
 
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEUNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEVogelDenise
 
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...mh37o
 
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue
 
Umg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks Inc
Umg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks IncUmg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks Inc
Umg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks IncJoe Gratz
 

Mais procurados (19)

Monsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA Movement
Monsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA MovementMonsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA Movement
Monsanto et al v. Maui County, SHAKA Movement
 
March 25 sc order tihar
March 25 sc order tiharMarch 25 sc order tihar
March 25 sc order tihar
 
Futch Vs Aig
Futch Vs AigFutch Vs Aig
Futch Vs Aig
 
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)05.31.12  motion to compel rfd (set two)
05.31.12 motion to compel rfd (set two)
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 
2015 North Carolina Health Law Case Update
2015 North Carolina Health Law Case Update2015 North Carolina Health Law Case Update
2015 North Carolina Health Law Case Update
 
Cardiac Pacemakers
Cardiac PacemakersCardiac Pacemakers
Cardiac Pacemakers
 
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State Lands
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State LandsPA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State Lands
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State Lands
 
US Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA
US Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPAUS Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA
US Supreme Court Decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA
 
Marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement act
Marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement actMarijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement act
Marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement act
 
U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...
U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...
U.S. District Court Decision Against Chesapeake & Inflection on Force Majeure...
 
Joe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own Case
Joe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own CaseJoe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own Case
Joe Redner's Closing Argument in His Grow Your Own Case
 
Complaint pdf
Complaint pdfComplaint pdf
Complaint pdf
 
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEUNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
 
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...
 
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...
 
Writing Sample Dec 2015
Writing Sample Dec 2015Writing Sample Dec 2015
Writing Sample Dec 2015
 
Umg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks Inc
Umg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks IncUmg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks Inc
Umg Recordings Inc V Veoh Networks Inc
 
Westlaw Journal
Westlaw JournalWestlaw Journal
Westlaw Journal
 

Destaque

Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding bill
Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding billGov. Dayton's proposed bonding bill
Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding billPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Roschen recall petition denied
Roschen recall petition deniedRoschen recall petition denied
Roschen recall petition deniedPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012
Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012
Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Crossroads center vs. City of Rochester
Crossroads center vs. City of RochesterCrossroads center vs. City of Rochester
Crossroads center vs. City of RochesterPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for July 18, 2012
Public notices for July 18, 2012Public notices for July 18, 2012
Public notices for July 18, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Gov. Mark Dayton's State of the State
Gov. Mark Dayton's State of the StateGov. Mark Dayton's State of the State
Gov. Mark Dayton's State of the StatePost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for May 18, 2012
Public notices for May 18, 2012Public notices for May 18, 2012
Public notices for May 18, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Med City Marathon Half Marathon Age Groups
Med City Marathon Half Marathon Age GroupsMed City Marathon Half Marathon Age Groups
Med City Marathon Half Marathon Age GroupsPost-Bulletin Co.
 

Destaque (9)

Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding bill
Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding billGov. Dayton's proposed bonding bill
Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding bill
 
Roschen recall petition denied
Roschen recall petition deniedRoschen recall petition denied
Roschen recall petition denied
 
Olmsted County bridge list
Olmsted County bridge listOlmsted County bridge list
Olmsted County bridge list
 
Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012
Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012
Public notices for Oct. 26, 2012
 
Crossroads center vs. City of Rochester
Crossroads center vs. City of RochesterCrossroads center vs. City of Rochester
Crossroads center vs. City of Rochester
 
Public notices for July 18, 2012
Public notices for July 18, 2012Public notices for July 18, 2012
Public notices for July 18, 2012
 
Gov. Mark Dayton's State of the State
Gov. Mark Dayton's State of the StateGov. Mark Dayton's State of the State
Gov. Mark Dayton's State of the State
 
Public notices for May 18, 2012
Public notices for May 18, 2012Public notices for May 18, 2012
Public notices for May 18, 2012
 
Med City Marathon Half Marathon Age Groups
Med City Marathon Half Marathon Age GroupsMed City Marathon Half Marathon Age Groups
Med City Marathon Half Marathon Age Groups
 

Semelhante a Goodhue opinion

Minnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Minnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion SystemsMinnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Minnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion SystemsUniversity of Minnesota
 
Federal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WV
Federal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WVFederal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WV
Federal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WVMarcellus Drilling News
 
Year In Review (Nov. 29)
Year In Review (Nov. 29)Year In Review (Nov. 29)
Year In Review (Nov. 29)bradsugarman
 
Siewert Supreme Court decision
Siewert Supreme Court decisionSiewert Supreme Court decision
Siewert Supreme Court decisionPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Monongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking Ban
Monongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking BanMonongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking Ban
Monongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking BanMarcellus Drilling News
 
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection EnergyNY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection EnergyMarcellus Drilling News
 
FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...
FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...
FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...Marcellus Drilling News
 
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15Ryan Billings
 
Statute of Limitations - Kansas
Statute of Limitations - KansasStatute of Limitations - Kansas
Statute of Limitations - KansasAmy Morgan
 
Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...
Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...
Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...Seth Row
 
Fxc euci brc 061612
Fxc euci brc 061612Fxc euci brc 061612
Fxc euci brc 061612barkinbob
 
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdfLetter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdfHindenburg Research
 
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...Marcellus Drilling News
 

Semelhante a Goodhue opinion (20)

Mickelson Writing Sample
Mickelson Writing SampleMickelson Writing Sample
Mickelson Writing Sample
 
PIOGA v. Pennsylvania DEP
PIOGA v. Pennsylvania DEPPIOGA v. Pennsylvania DEP
PIOGA v. Pennsylvania DEP
 
Minnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Minnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion SystemsMinnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Minnesota State Permitting Process for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems
 
Federal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WV
Federal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WVFederal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WV
Federal Judge's Decision in EQT v. Fayette County, WV
 
Year In Review (Nov. 29)
Year In Review (Nov. 29)Year In Review (Nov. 29)
Year In Review (Nov. 29)
 
Siewert Supreme Court decision
Siewert Supreme Court decisionSiewert Supreme Court decision
Siewert Supreme Court decision
 
Monongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking Ban
Monongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking BanMonongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking Ban
Monongalia County Circuit Court Order Overturning Morgantown, WV Fracking Ban
 
96753
9675396753
96753
 
Haleakala tel
Haleakala telHaleakala tel
Haleakala tel
 
Federal Circuit Review | September 2012
Federal Circuit Review | September 2012Federal Circuit Review | September 2012
Federal Circuit Review | September 2012
 
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection EnergyNY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy
 
FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...
FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...
FERC Response to NY AG Schneiderman's Petition to Revoke Constitution Pipelin...
 
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
 
Statute of Limitations - Kansas
Statute of Limitations - KansasStatute of Limitations - Kansas
Statute of Limitations - Kansas
 
Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...
Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...
Judge Stewart - Siltronic Order on Allocation of Environmental Response Costs...
 
Fxc euci brc 061612
Fxc euci brc 061612Fxc euci brc 061612
Fxc euci brc 061612
 
Fxc euci brc 061612
Fxc euci brc 061612Fxc euci brc 061612
Fxc euci brc 061612
 
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdfLetter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend .pdf
 
writing sample opening brief quick
writing sample opening brief quickwriting sample opening brief quick
writing sample opening brief quick
 
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...
 

Mais de Post-Bulletin Co.

Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Matthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of releaseMatthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of releasePost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final reportWabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final reportPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaignThrondson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaignPost-Bulletin Co.
 

Mais de Post-Bulletin Co. (20)

Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
 
Matthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of releaseMatthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of release
 
Celebrations
CelebrationsCelebrations
Celebrations
 
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
 
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final reportWabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final report
 
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
 
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
 
Friends of Wabasha appeal
Friends of Wabasha appealFriends of Wabasha appeal
Friends of Wabasha appeal
 
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
 
leghed
leghedleghed
leghed
 
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
 
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
 
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaignThrondson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaign
 

Último

Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...virgfern3011
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...University of Canberra
 
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfSABC News
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduDreamTamilnadu
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioAlexisTorres963861
 
Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde NewsFeed1
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
 
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinIpsos France
 

Último (9)

Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
 
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
 
Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
 
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
 

Goodhue opinion

  • 1. This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-2229 In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Site Permit for a 78 Megawatt Large Wind Energy Conversion System Project in Goodhue County. Filed June 25, 2012 Affirmed Bjorkman, Judge Minnesota Public Utilities Commission File No. IP-6701/WS-08-1233 Daniel S. Schleck, Natalie Wyatt-Brown, Halleland Habicht P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Brian N. Niemczyk, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator Coalition for Sensible Siting) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Anna E. Jenks, Gary R. Cunningham, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission) Todd Guerrero, Sten-Erik Hoidal, Christina K. Brusven, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC) Carol A. Overland, Legalectric, Red Wing, Minnesota (for amicus Goodhue Wind Truth)
  • 2. Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION BJORKMAN, Judge Appellant challenges the MPUC determination that there is good ordinances for wind energy projects. Because substantial evidence supports the MPUC factual findings and those facts constitute good cause to disregard the setback, we affirm. FACTS In 2009, respondent AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC (AWA) filed a revised site permit application to construct a large wind energy conversion system (LWECS) in Goodhue County. Pursuant to a contract with Xcel Energy, AWA sought to generate 78 megawatts (MW) of power, using 50 wind turbines, each 397 feet tall with a 271-foot rotor diameter (RD). Respondent MPUC approved the contract under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612 (2010). An administrative-law judge (ALJ) presided over the permit hearings in July 2010 and submitted a summary of public testimony to the MPUC the following September. Less than one month later, the county adopted a stringent LWECS ordinance, which w things, the ordinance requires that turbines be set back at least the length of 10 RDs from each residence not participating in the project, absent a waiver from the owner of the residence. 2
  • 3. The MPUC ability to an ALJ for contested-case proceedings. The ALJ presided over a three-day public hearing that included oral testimony from 56 witnesses and thousands of pages of exhibits and expert reports. The ALJ issued findings, conclusions, and recommendations, including the determination that there is good cause to disregard the 10-RD setback ordinance and instead ap -foot setback. The county and numerous intervenors, including relator Coalition for Sensible Siting (CSS) and amicus curiae In August 2011, the MPUC issued a site permit to AWA. In doing so, the MPUC concurred with the ALJ that there is good cause not to apply the 10-RD setback and instead imposed a 6-RD (1,626-foot) setback. Additionally, the MPUC required AWA to make a good-faith effort to comply with the 10-RD setback and accommodate the turbine noise and shadow flicker (alternating changes in light intensity caused by moving rotor blades). The county, CSS, and GWT filed petitions for reconsideration, which the MPUC denied. This certiorari appeal follows. DECISION The MPUC is the exclusive permitting authority for LWECSs that exceed a 25- MW capacity. Minn. Stat. §§ 216F.04, .07, .08 (2010). But the MPUC must apply a A county may adopt by ordinance standards for LWECS that are more stringent than standards in commission commission, in considering a permit application for LWECS in a county that has adopted more stringent standards, shall 3
  • 4. consider and apply those more stringent standards, unless the commission finds good cause not to apply the standards. Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 (2010) (emphasis added). Whether a permit applicant has shown good cause to disregard an ordinance is a mixed question of fact (what facts have been shown) and law (whether the facts constitute good cause). See Averbeck v. State, 791 N.W.2d 559, 560-61 (Minn. App. 2010) (describing the good-cause standard); In re 365 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. App. 1985) (describing the burden of proof), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1985). We therefore review the MPUC -cause determination de novo. See In re Excelsior Energy, Inc., 782 N.W.2d 282, 289-90 (Minn. App. 2010). I. Substantial evidence supports the MPUC The MPUC based its determination that there is good cause to disregard the 10- RD setback on the following facts: (1) the 10-RD setback is unnecessary to protect human health, safety, and quality of life, and reasonable likelihoo ; (2) the 10-RD setback is designed to eliminate all human exposure to noise and shadow flicker; (3) the 10- preclude the entire projec ) the application of a 10- CSS does not argue that any particular factual finding is unsupported by substantial evidence, and our review of the record reveals ample support for each finding. First, AWA presented modeling studies performed by an engineering consulting firm 4
  • 5. demonstrating that the anticipated turbine noise and shadow flicker would be minimal: no more than 43 decibels of noise (below state noise standards) and 33 hours and 11 minutes of shadow flicker per year (less than 1% of daylight hours). Second, AWA submitted expert testimony and scientific reports from the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Health, the Wisconsin State Health Officer, the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and the American Wind Energy Association, indicating that there is no reliable scientific research demonstrating that noise generated by wind turbines or shadow flicker cause adverse health conditions. Third, county officials testified that the county adopted the 10-RD setback to eliminate all noise and flicker exposure in order to avoid the costs of modeling and measuring actual noise and flicker effects. Fourth, AWA representatives testified that the 10-RD setback would preclude the placement of 43 out of the 50 proposed turbines, effectively prohibiting the project, and alternative project designs are not geographically or economically feasible. And fifth, modeling studies show that the 10-RD setback would essentially prevent all wind energy projects in Goodhue County an ideal location for wind development and, if applied throughout the state, would preclude wind development in the vast majority of Minnesota and thereby drive up the cost of wind power. In the face of this substantial evidentiary support for the MPUC CSS advances what is essentially a legal argument. It maintains that the MPUC erred in basing its findings of fact on the evidence presented in the contested-case proceeding because Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 requires the MPUC to accept and defer to the facts the county relied on in establishing the ordinance, namely, reports from the Minnesota 5
  • 6. Department of Health and the World Health Organization that allegedly recommend a 10- RD setback. We disagree. Section 216F.081 creates a presumption in favor of applying ; it does not require the MPUC to adopt or defer to the factual allegations the county accepted in passing the ordinance. - In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624 N.W.2d 264, 278 (Minn. 2001). Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that the MPUC correctly relied on evidence developed in the contested-case proceeding and that substantial evidence supports the MPUC -finding. II. The MPUC correctly determined that there is good cause to disregard the 10- RD setback. The permit applicant in this case, AWA has the burden of establishing that there is good cause to disregard t ordinance standards. See In re Minn. Pub. 365 N.W.2d at 343. See Averbeck, 791 N.W.2d at 561. CSS and GWT argue that the MPUC shifted the burden of proof to the county to justify the 10-RD setback and show that it was necessary to protect human health and safety. We are not persuaded. The MPUC failure to produce evidence to justify the 10-RD setback. Instead, the MPUC based its decision on evidence produced by AWA not only that the 10-RD setback is unnecessary 6
  • 7. to protect human health, but also that such an extensive setback requirement would likely prevent the proposed project and hinder the development of renewable energy in Minnesota. This analysis correctly placed the burden of proof on AWA. Additionally, CSS asserts that the MPUC failed to give proper deference to the n, we disagree. Although the legislature gave counties the opportunity to establish siting standards through ordinances, it vested the MPUC with the ultimate authority to issue permits for LWECSs of the capacity involved here. Minn. Stat. §§ 216F.04, .07, .08, .081. In doing so, the legislature did not require the MPUC standards but instead charged the MPUC with determining whether, as a substantive matter, there is good cause to disregard those standards. The MPUC conclusion that the good-cause standards. be the only factor in the MPUC -cause determination. We agree. The good-cause determination involves a multi-factor analysis of all relevant considerations, including health, safety, and the legislative policy goals of encouraging county participation in LWECS siting, increasin manner compatible with environmental preservation, sustainable development, and the Application of this multi-factor analysis of the surrounding circumstances, as found by the MPUC, reveals good cause to disregard the 10-RD setback. As noted above, 7
  • 8. health or safety impacts due to turbine noise or shadow flicker.1 Accordingly, the 10-RD setback based on a zero-exposure standard is unnecessary. And on the other hand, -RD setback rest in promoting wind development as a sustainable source of energy. On this record, there is good cause to disregard the 10-RD setback. Affirmed. 1 pose stray voltage risks or diminish property values. But because CSS makes this point without any analysis or indication that the 10-RD setback addresses these concerns, CSS has waived the argument. See In re Irwin, 529 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn. App. 1995) (deeming issues waived because they were not adequately argued or briefed), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995). 8