Dear Commissioners:

As the state representative for District 23A, I represent the community of Lafayette.  You are well aware of the controversy surrounding the proposed placement of wind turbines in this community by the New Ulm Public Utilities Commission (NUPUC).

My conversations with some of the affected landowners convinces me that their opposition is not economic in nature.  These landowners express to me their substantial distress resulting from what they perceive to be threats by the New Ulm utility.  They do not wish to encumber their land, they tell me, in part because of the deep roots that their families have had in this area for generations. Representatives of some who signed the original agreements say they were told they had no choice but to sign.  Some of these points were included in a landowner letter to the utility and the city council.  Landowners submitted comments to the PUC.  Recent items in the New Ulm Journal (e.g., October 29, 2009) reiterate landowner opposition.  In all, this situation has raised significant questions regarding protection of landowner rights and the process and the communication that the public utility appears to have invoked.

Re-opening of Highway 169 in St. Peter

My concerns are not related to the development of wind power in Minnesota: in general, I support the creation of alternative, renewable energy sources.  In the Lafayette Township situation, however, the strong landowner resistance I have heard from my constituents–together with my review of PUC documents and press coverage–leads me to conclude that the draft site permit should not be issued and this project should not go forward without landowner approval.  The September 4, 2009 Office of Energy Security (OES) “Comments and Recommendations” document records the same opposition I am hearing:

“In contrast to NUPUC’s contention concerning local landowners, several citizen commenters suggested that they were not opposed to wind development on their property, but rather development being forced upon them (see, e.g., letter of Jeffrey Franta dated July 22, 2009).” (7)

I am deeply concerned about the threatened use of eminent domain in this situation.  Exercise of eminent domain in a different county by a public utility in this fashion erodes the farmers’ property rights and devalues the county’s authority.  The OES sets forth the history and issues surrounding this project in its September 4 document.  The OES document states:

“The fact that NUPUC may have the power of eminent domain and attempt to use it could have severe adverse consequences on future wind development in Minnesota for IPP’s, electric utilities and other wind developers. Those entities who continue to develop LWECS in Minnesota to meet state mandated renewable energy objectives may have to address additional concerns raised by the public about eminent domain, or find that the public is less willing to participate in project, thus making it more difficult for developers.” (6)

Later in the same document, the OES strongly discourages the use of eminent domain in this situation:“It is uncertain whether NUPUC, if granted an LWCES site permit, would have the power of eminent domain for the project. OES EFP staff is not aware of one instance in Minnesota, or elsewhere, where eminent domain has been used to acquire the wind and land rights necessary to build a wind farm. OES EFP staff believes that if NUPUC does have the power of eminent domain and attempts to use it for the project, such use could have severe adverse consequences on future wind development in Minnesota.” (10)

The OES has not recommended that the draft site permit be issued.  As stated on page 8 of the September 4 document, “OES staff believes the second criterion has not been met – specifically, the New Ulm project does not have site control (wind rights) within the project boundary such that a final permit could be issued.”

As the landowners have steadfastly stated that they oppose the project and will not convey the needed wind rights and as the OES discourages the use of eminent domain in this situation, I urge the PUC to not grant the draft site permit.  I am available to address any questions that you may have.  Thank you very much for reviewing my comments.

Sincerely,

Terry Morrow

State Representative