Back in October, the Public Utilities Commission turned down an application from Minnesota-based Geronimo Energy to build the Crocker Wind Farm in Clark County, in part because of the short time the PUC has to process wind permits:
State law gave the commission six months to decide whether to grant a wind facility permit. The commission received the Crocker application July 25 and held a public input hearing Sept. 13 at Clark.
…Commissioner Gary Hanson originally wanted to deny the interveners’ motion for dismissal and allow the docket to proceed to an evidentiary hearing Dec. 11-15.
But after remarks by Nelson and Fiegen, and a break called by Fiegen that allowed Hanson to confer privately with two other commission lawyers for several minutes, Hanson changed his mind and joined the majority.
Hanson said he had been close to taking the side of Fiegen and Nelson in the first place. He justified his switch by comparing the state laws providing six months for decisions on wind permits and one year for other projects.
“The time constraint,” Hanson said, “is unbelievably challenging” [Bob Mercer, “State Regulators Say No to Crocker Wind Farm,” Watertown Public Opinion, 2017.10.25].
The PUC would like to change that timeframe inconsistency. In House Bill 1022, the PUC is asking the Legislature to amend the inconsistent statute and give the PUC one year to consider applications for wind energy facilities, just like it has for energy conversion facilities, AC/DC conversion facilities, and transmission facilities.
PUC staff noted the difficulty created by this halved timeframe for reviewing wind energy applications in a brief during the Crocker hearings:
The six-month time frame in which to process a wind siting application presents a unique and, in many cases, unfortunate set of challenges for all involved. One such challenge is that it is often not feasible to complete an EA [environmental assessment] or EIS [environmental impact statement] prior to the final decision on the application [Amanda M. Reiss and Kristen Edwards, staff attorneys, “Staff’s Response to Intervenors’ Motion to Deny and Dismiss Crocker Wind Farm’s Application,” SD PUC, 2017.10.20].
In that same response, PUC staff maintained that an EA or EIS is not absolutely essential to evaluating or approving a permit. However, if we give the PUC six more months, we have a better chance of seeing a complete EA or EIS incorporated in the PUC’s deliberations.
Unless someone can offer a good reason for giving the PUC less time to consider wind energy applications than other energy project apps, HB 1022 sounds like a reasonable idea for making our energy regulations a bit more consistent.
Great, the PUC blames the EIS process. Now we’ll see a bill trying to get rid of that process. The blame should be put right where it belongs: the Legislature and state boards and commissions which refuse to use the EIS process in the way it is intended. If the PUC had their s**t together, they would have had tiered EISs for wind development, having a programmatic EIS, then used EAs or EIS just for specific locations. That way any one project wouldn’t take 1 year. But, no, South Dakota government wants an excuse for its bumbling and corruption, so blame the EIS.
Citizens have repeatedly requested EISs in scores of other developments far more complex than wind power development. Over the course of 40 years the answer from the state is always “no.” Somehow the very complicated issues surrounding heap leach gold mining never required an EIS until the Anchor Hill Project in federal lands triggered a federal EIS. By that time, of course, two of the gold mines were having serious problems with acid rock drainage, and one (the one adjacent to the Anchor Hills project) ended up as a Superfund site. An EIS process may have been able to prevent that, just as it prevented the Anchor Hill Project. Then there were all sorts of permits for landfills and incinerators and air quality permits and CAFOs. None of these projects with complex modeling and groundwater implications ever received the scrutiny they deserved through an EIS.
Don’t get me wrong. The PUC should do EAs or EISs on wind power developments, just as all these other projects should have had similar scrutiny. But they had a decade to get the tiers in place and they did squat. I’d say the PUC deserves the blame.
An EIS for wind is far simpler than for an oil pipeline or oil well. With oil the aquafer is in jeopardy and the wind turbine has very little impact on the environment. So if it is not necessary to take longer, there might have been a reason for the difference in the first place. It is still ok to make the time longer, but not necessary to table a whole project just becuase they need to get it done. The amount of things they overlooked with the pipeline past Sioux Falls and Tea shows that checking everything is not their priority. They have passed wind farms in the past without a problem.
I suspect any EIS is just addressing operations, not the before and after. For example, the mining necessary for the rare earth metals used in the turbine is just done elsewhere…out of sight, out of mind. On the back end the turbine blades are not being recycled.
I also suspect that any EIS is not addressing the impact of carbon over the lifespan of a wind farm. If you replace a coal plant instantaneously with wind/gas, you emit less carbon. But flat demand will not continue forever. Emitting less carbon than we could have been emitting will ultimately be a Pyrhhic victory if the total amount exceeds what we emit today.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
So Pierre wants to take after the worst practices of our worst laggard federal agencies when it comes to processing time for National Environmental Policy Act documents (EIS, EA)?! Wants to add more delay?! Wants to add more development costs?! Be still our hearts. And for wind development projects?!
Mr. Pay is sooo correct. Kudos, Sir.
But instead of starting new – tier to an EIS from MN or IA. It’s the same northern great plains wind. Merely address local differences and local issues. Call it a programmatic. Move on. It’s only rocket science in Pierre.