Monthly Archives: February 2014

First round of Information Requests

question_marks

I’ve just served Minnesota Power first round of Information Requests from Intervenor Residents and Ratepayers Against Not-so-Great Northern Transmission (RRANT), and Applicant Minnesota Power has 8 business days to respond.  The most important one is the first one, a general request for responses to IRs that others have sent — that should be an info dump — usually Dept. of Commerce does a pretty good job asking questions that need to be asked (not that they always follow through and address the issues in the hearing!).

RRANT_IR 1_for Minnesota Power

RRANT_IRs 2-6_for Minnesota Power

RRANT_IRs 7-15_for Minnesota Power

Take a look at these to get an idea what’s going on — Information Requests are one of the joys of intervention, as a party, we’re able to file them.  IRs 2-6 are mostly getting general background info as preparation for diving in, and IRs 7-15 are cost related, how they plan to recover costs.

I try to group Information Requests in categories to help me track them.  As I go through the Application, I’m taking notes, filling it with post-its (if you, like me, MUST have a hard copy, ask for one through their Great Northern Transmission site, or call Minnesota Power), and when I get a few questions, I fire off an Information Request.

If you have particular burning questions, let me know, and I’ll see if it’s something appropriate for an Information Request!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Scoping Meetings Tonight & Tomorrow

InternationalFalls

This week is the last round of environmental review scoping meetings for the Great Northern Transmission Line.

And here’s the view last week the morning before the scoping meeting in International Falls after 5-6 inches of snow.  It wasn’t horrible, but coming back was a bit rough, roads were greasy and on Hwy. 53 where it’s 2 lane, I was stuck behind someone who kept hitting the binders in the middle of a curve, over and over and over, I had to back way way off so I wouldn’t have to hit the brakes too.  GRRRRRRR.  Anyway, I’d planed to go to the Grand Rapids meeting tomorrow, but we’ve got a “blizzard warning” here in Red Wing, and Duluth area looks pretty bad, and Hwy. 73 would be pretty grim between I-35 and Hwy. 2, so I think I’m opting out.  Not sure, but probably.  Double GRRRRRR!

The Scoping Meetings are:

Tonight beginning at 6 p.m.
The Sanford Center
1111 Event Center Drive NE
Bemidji, MN
 
Tomorrow beginning at 6 p.m.
Sawmill Inn
2301 S Highway 169
Grand Rapids, MN

If I don’t go, I’ll be spending the day with the Great Northern Transmission Line application (linked here), and writing a few Letters to the Editor.

The categories expected to be covered are broad, and “scoping” is letting them know what you think should be specifically included regarding these categories, or what specifically should be covered in broad categories that they forgot to list!  The more specific your comments, the better.

Comments due by 4:30 p.m. March 14, 2014

Send to:

bill.storm@state.mn.us

Here are those broad categories for the environmental report — what about these needs to be considered:

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Need
1.2 Regulatory requirements

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 General
2.2 Design
2.3 Right-of-Way Requirements and Acquisition
2.4 Construction
2.5 Operation and Maintenance
2.6 Permits

3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED HVTL
3.1 No-build Alternative
3.2 Demand Side Management
3.3 Purchase Power
3.3.1 Long term Purchase Power
3.3.2 Short term Purchase Power
3.5 Up-grading Existing Facilities
3.6 Facilities of a Different Size
3.7 New Generation

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Biological Resources
4.3 Culture Resources
4.4 Geology and Soils
4.5 Health and Safety
4.6 Land Use
4.7 Noise
4.8 Socioeconomics
4.9 Transportation
4.10 Visual Impacts and Aesthetics
4.11 Water Resources (surface, groundwater, wetlands)
4.12 Waste Management and Disposal

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information Requests, Meetings

Electro-magnetic fields are dangerous

DSC01914

AAAAARGH… during last night’s meeting there was a question and concern expressed about electro-magnetic fields (I’ve focused primarily on magnetic fields, here and elsewhere).  The question was referred to Minnesota Power’s engineer, and was essentially dissed, then and also later by the engineer.

What Minnesota Power says about EMF in their CoN Application (201310-92766-02) (p. 45-46):

Maximum ampacity is defined for the Project as the expected capacity of the line, in this case 2,000 Amps. The projected peak loading of the line – 1,024 Amps – was derived from power system modeling of the Project under system normal conditions in a 2020 summer off-peak case with high Manitoba – United States transfers. Per IEEE Standard 644-1994 (R2008), IEEE Standard Procedures for Measurement of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields From AC Power Lines, values were calculated at minimum conductor-to-ground clearance (mid-span) at a height of one meter above ground.

Maximum amps 52.94-88.54 at the edge of the Right of Way… Projected loading at the edge of the Right of Way, 26.81 – 44.76 mG.  That’s HIGH!

Here’s their chart for the meetings:

DSC01915

Now, here is a chart showing ampacity and MVA for various voltages and configurations, taken from this chart from the SW MN 345 kV Certificate of Need proceeding (Ex 35 App 7 Conductor spec-ACSR):

Ex 35

They’re talking about ampacity of 2,000, which is higher than the chart goes.  And this is to be a 500 kV line with three conductors per phase, so the MVA rating at nominal voltage would be above 4,704 MVA.  And remember, MW are essentially MVA (ask an engineer to explain the difference).  Minnesota Power is saying that this project proposal is based on a 250 MW Power Purchase Agreement, and the potential of another 133 MW PPA.  250 + 133 = 383 MW.  Out of MVA rating at nominal voltage of 4,704.  Now I’m a math idiot, so let me get out the calculator:  4,704 – 383 = 4,321 MVA missing-in-action.  What do you think will comprise the excess capacity for this project?  Seems to me to be substantive size, type and timing issues here!

This is all about having a high capacity line to be able to market power south and eastward, let’s be clear about that.  And folks, that is NOT a public purpose, that’s all private profit for Manitoba Hydro and Minnesota Power.

Now utilities have been known to understate projected loading, and have typically never admitted potential capacity of these projects, and they’ve been outed on this before:

Bruce McKay_Affidavit_CapX 2020 Brookings-Hampton Routing 08-1474

Bruce McKay_Affidavit_Hiawatha CoN-10-694

Bruce McKay_Affidavit   CapX 2020 Hampton-La Crosse Routing 09-1448

The point?  They’re consistently under-representing the capacity of the line, the projected loading and the potential loading.  In calculating EMF exposures, it’s important to use both the utilities numbers (presumed low) and the MVA rating of the line.  These two points form a range of potential loading and potential EMF emissions.  This full range must be addressed in environmental review, and to not address this full range is misleading.  The full range has yet to be addressed in any environmental review I’ve seen in my nearly 20 years and that must change.

The Power Line Task Force went to the PUC about shutting down the existing 69kV line that was going to be converted to a 115 kV, a transmission line in people’s backyards.  The PUC didn’t regard it as a problem, Commissioner (former Rep.) LeRoy Koppendrayer made one of his famous statements about the safety of EMF, stating, on the record, that he had an electric blanket and every time they used it, 9 months later they had another kid.  Really… And he probably uses a cell phone without a headset too…

The Appellate Court also didn’t care… and it was probably the best oral argument I’ve done in my career…

Power Line Task Force, Inc. v.  Public Utilities Commission

The PUC and courts don’t want to get into the minefield of EMF.  Think about what it would mean if utilities were held liable for damages due to EMF?  Think of the liability!  It’d be bigger than asbestos!  Shades of The Distinguished Gentleman!

LOOKING FOR BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS?

The best resource I know of is Roger Conant’s site on Power Line Health Facts, at www.powerlinefacts.com.  It looks like he’s let the site go, but it’s available on the Wayback Machine.  Here is the EMF page — CLICK HERE.  This was last captured in April, 2012.

The information that we presented in the Southeast Metro transmission line case in 2000-2001 resulted in the first denial of transmission permits by local government based on concerns about EMF.  Here’s a short version from the Power Line Facts site.  The cities of South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and Sunfish Lake joined together to form a Steering Committee which heard the evidence (this was applied for by then Northern States Power as a local government permitting decision), and the Steering Committee decided the permits should not be granted, and then each of the local governments individually rejected the permit applications.  Great!  Until one by one, Northern States Power started throwing its weight around and filed suits against all the local governments.  Despite a thorough record and well substantiated decisions by all, they rolled and caved to Northern States Power.

Steering Committee Papers from www.powerlinefacts.com via Wayback Machine

In that case, we presented Dr. Martin Blank and Dr. Magda Havas.

Testimony of Magda Havas – SE Metro

Testimony of Dr. Martin Blank – SE Metro

We also used Dr. Blank for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line case to get information about EMF into the record:

Testimony of Dr. Martin Blank – Susquehanna-Roseland

Another good source is the World Health Organization:

WHO EMF home page

WHO EMF Research

WHO Environmental Health Criteria 137

Here’s their fact sheet in English on Static electric and magnetic fields: English

And their fact sheet in English on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: English

On the  page there’s a “What’s New” (but I don’t think 2010 info is “new” though):

If you’re looking for information on EMF, you can find a lot in the internet.  Just filter it carefully, don’t believe everything you read!

You can by a Gauss Meter to go around the house and underneath operating transmission lines to get a feel for magnetic field levels.  You can get them online, pricey and cheap, and a cheaper one would probably be sufficient to learn about magnetic field levels in your environment — just google “Gauss meter” and many will pop up!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Environmental Review, Information Requests, PUC Filings, Uncategorized

Substation terrorism blackout — news blackout

powerlines_links_ATC

Talk about being behind the curve…  I’ll post this on all my sites and just watch, NSA’s going to push my stats up!

Very strange timing here — an incident where “multiple transformers,” 17 transformers, or 5 transformers, 5 out of 7 transformer banks, depending what you read/hear, were taken out occurred on April 16, 2013, and it’s just now being reported.  Very little coverage previously.  Try googling “news blackout California substation electrical terrorism” and see what comes up.  Maybe it’s that former FERC chair Wellinghoff is out there talking about it?  There was also a congressional hearing in December that got some coverage…

At the time, the incident wasn’t publicized, but since he stepped down as FERC chairman in November, Wellinghoff is raising public attention to the California sniper’s attack to demonstrate the vulnerability of the nation’s electricity system.

Wellinghoff started talking about it publicly in November, 2013 it seems.

Do some googling and see for yourself the news blackout.  Also,several articles are noting it occurred a day after the Boston Marathon bombing, but not one yet is noting that it occurred the day after taxes are due.  How many anti-tax wing-nuts are out there?

They publicized similar sabotage in Arkansas and arrested the perp (interesting, he unbolted a tower, connected a cable, and used a moving train to tip over the pole!):

Arkansas man charged in connection with power grid sabotage

Back to California — here’s what the substation and surrounding area looks like, and the actions taken, from the Wall Street Journal article:

Substation_Screen-Shot-2014-02-11-at-12.59.24-PM-578x620

In today’s STrib:

Who knocked out 17 giant transformers in Calif. — and why?

In the Wall Street Journal (I don’t have access… do you?):

Assault on California Power Station Raises Alarm for Potential Terrorism

From PG&E at the time:

April 16, 2013

Grid Operator Calls for Conservation after Substation Incident

April 17, 2013

PG&E Crews Continue Repair Work at Damaged Substation

Now going back to April, 2013:

Vandalism at San Jose PG&E Substation called ‘Sabotage’

AT&T Offers $250,000 Reward for Fiber Vandalism

CAISO’s Alert:

Flex-Alert-Urgent Conservation Needed Now – Santa Clara Silicon Valley  April 16, 2013

Here’s one from December, 2013, that is the most detailed and credible I’ve found:

‘Military-Style’ raid on California Power Station Spooks U.S.

In this one there’s a statement that’s a recurring theme that I think is off base, the theme being that it’s a rehearsal for a “real” attack, and in other articles calling it a “dry run,” when I’d call taking out 17 transformers a “real” attack:

“These were not amateurs taking potshots,” Mark Johnson, a former vice president for transmission operations at PG&E, said last month at a conference on grid security held in Philadelphia. “My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal” for future attacks.

Another good detailed article in the NY Times:

Months Later, Sniper Attack at Power Hub Still a Mystery

And a video:

San Jose: Sheriff’s Office release video of attach on PG&E substation

On NPR:

Sniper Attack on Calif. Power Station Raises Terrorism Fears

In Bloomberg:

Rifle-Toting Terrorists Pose Great Threat to Power Grid

Now let’s see some other coverage that I’ll nominate for “wing-nut” status:

False Flag: New Details Emerge on Santa Clara County ‘Military-Style” Power Grid Attack

Latest ‘Domestic Terror’ Sniper Attack is Likely a Government False Flag

In which they say:

Those who still believe that this was the work of a home-grown terror cell, read between their own lines: according to the U.S. Navy investigation ordered at the request of  FERC chairman Wellinghoff, “it was a targeting package just like they would put together for an attack”.

‘Just like they would put together for a real attack’, he says?

Exactly, because this wasn’t a real terror attack.  ???  Again the mantra of a “dress rehearsal” or a “dry run.”  Isn’t taking out the fiber-optic and 911 service and then multiple substation transformers “real” enough?

Chilling: Why an Underreported, ‘Significant Incident of Domestic Terrorism’ Might Not Be A Failed Attack At All

In today’s STrib, the full article:

WASHINGTON – They came after midnight, two or more armed individuals who cut telecommunication cables in an underground vault and outsmarted security cameras and motion sensors at the power substation in a remote corner of Santa Clara County.

At daylight, FBI agents began poring over time-lapse photographs from the surveillance cameras. But the photos revealed only muzzle flashes from a semi-automatic weapon and sparks as shots hit rows of transformers. There was not a face, not a shadow, of who was doing the firing.

The shooters vanished before the first police arrived.

The military-style raid on April 16 knocked out 17 giant transformers at the Metcalf Transmission Substation, which feeds power to Silicon Valley. The FBI is still working the case, and agents say they are confident it was not the work of terrorists.

What they do not have is a motive, fingerprints or suspects. Theories are piling up.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Media

Tonight, Wednesday night, in Baudette

Live from Baudette — we’ve got internet access in the building!  Can you tell I’m trying to get today’s work done as we go?

We’re in the Ambulance Garage to talk about the “scope” of the Environmental Review, this isn’t posted on the PUC docket yet:

DRAFT ER Scoping document

Comments due by 4:30 p.m. March 14, 2014

Send to:

bill.storm@state.mn.us

DSC01911

Tracey Smetana, the Public Advisor, is presenting now:

DSC01907

Tonight we don’t have as many people as last night, but it’s a good crowd and we’re moving along through the presentation.

Now for Minnesota Power:

DSC01912

The PPA they now have is 250 MW and they’re looking at another for 133 MW.   250 + 133 = 383!  MP claims there’s an increase in demand.  They serve the Iron Range and are seeing substantial load growth and are projecting that into the future.

Now it’s Bill Storm, Dept. of Commerce:

DSC01913

One thing they’re doing a good job of is explaining the difference between Certificate of Need and Routing, and that this is all about “need.”  Each one of them raises this, and it seems people are getting the difference, but I think discounting this proceeding when/because they’re really concerned with the routing.  So if you look on p. 6 of the DRAFT ER Scoping document, now’s the time to, as Bill Storm says, to “fill in the details.”  Here’s the Draft Scope:

The environmental report will address/discuss the following matters:

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Need
1.2 Regulatory requirements

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 General
2.2 Design
2.3 Right-of-Way Requirements and Acquisition
2.4 Construction
2.5 Operation and Maintenance
2.6 Permits

3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED HVTL
3.1 No-build Alternative
3.2 Demand Side Management
3.3 Purchase Power
3.3.1 Long term Purchase Power
3.3.2 Short term Purchase Power
3.5 Up-grading Existing Facilities
3.6 Facilities of a Different Size
3.7 New Generation

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Biological Resources
4.3 Culture Resources
4.4 Geology and Soils
4.5 Health and Safety
4.6 Land Use
4.7 Noise
4.8 Socioeconomics
4.9 Transportation
4.10 Visual Impacts and Aesthetics
4.11 Water Resources (surface, groundwater, wetlands)
4.12 Waste Management and Disposal

For example, “3.5 Up-grading Existing Facilities” is one to think about, there are lines from Manitoba Hydro down to Minnesota Power territory, so why couldn’t they build those larger?  Reconductor, or raise the existing line voltage to 765 kV and that would increase the capacity.

Now David Leonhardt, and he’s the Chair of the Friends of the Big Bog State Recreation Area, which has the longest Bogwalk in the world!!  Concerned about impact of the line on the unspoiled view at the terminus of the bogwalk. He also suggests to follow the existing line that is there, but that’s in a SNAP area where they’re not allowed to put a line alongside the existing one.

John Paulsen – why can’t we follow one of the existing lines?  Bill Storm said that it’s a routing question, MP says that the routing through SNAP areas takes it off the table.  We’re following the existing as much as possible, and what we’re proposing is a much larger scale.

Charles Bruer – can you define Scientific and Natural Areas?  MP & B.S.: They’re designated tracts of lands due to characteristics, not altered by human activity.

Wendy Rogers – question about electro-magnetic force, how far does that go out from the line?  B.S.: This is one of the things I always must address in an Environmental Report.  What can we expect EMF for a 500 kV line and what do we know about it.  B.S.:  I get the normal levels from the Applicant, and then push it to failure, and report both.

Steve Weymore – wondering why the terminus east of Grand Rapids is need if it is needed for mining, I don’t see that as the terminus.  MP: Mining and expansion of load is the reason, and the number of lines going into Blackberry.

B.S.: Remember, this is need, and we’ll be getting into this again in the Routing, I expect it will probably be in May, and we’ll do a more detailed environmental review at that time.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Environmental Review, Meetings, Open Houses

Last night, Roseau, tonight Baudette!

If you have questions, or would like to receive alerts and notices, please contact me through the “About” page linked above!  (Don’t use “Comments” below because I’m being spammed to death and they all go into the trash!)

PublicMeetingSched

Here’s the PUC’s Presentation that they’re giving at the meetings.

Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. March 14, 2014

Send to:

bill.storm@state.mn.us

Here’s Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line announcement of the meetings with their explanation of what this is about.

DSC01896

It was a standing room only crowd.  Maybe two chairs open, but a few of us were standing up, so… 60+, though not many speakers.  The most important part of the message: THIS IS ABOUT NEED.  This is where it’s determined whether the project is needed or not, and this is where you can have the most influence, but on those issues.  This is where you can raise enough questions about need that the Public Utilities Commission just might agree that this project is not needed, and if so, it won’t be built on ANYONE’S land.  No one wants transmission, unless they’re looking to “Buy the Farm” under Minn. Stat. 216B.12, Subd. 4, and sell their property to the utility and get out, but let’s get real, no one wants to be forced to leave their home.  So now is the time to challenge them, in the Certificate of Need docket, before it gets to “get it off my land” or worse, “stick it THERE!”

What’s to challenge?

First, the concept that they need this big 500 kV line with emergency rating of 1572 MVA (essentially MW) when all they’ve got going is a 250 MW Power Purchase Agreement.

Second, this need is not reflected in their forecasts, call up Minnesota Power and request a hard copy of the application, and appendices, and you’ll see!

Third, this project hasn’t even made the “A list” of MTEP, meaning it’s not in Appendix A of those deemed “needed” by MISO.  Not that that has anything to do with “need,” because that’s a market based premise, and also is becoming a circumvention of a state’s regulatory authority, a complicated but oh-so-relevant notion.

What’s happening now is a determination of the “scope” of the environmental review.  It’s a “high level” review, meaning the generic impacts of this project and alternatives, and this need docket is the only place where “alternatives” will be considered.

They’ve included some information in their application under Minn. R. 7849.0250 and Minn. R. 7849.0260 .  This Certificate of Need proceeding is the only time the “No Build Alternative” is considered, once need is determined and it moves into routing, “no build” is not regarded as an option.  The application is online, at the PUC docket site — go HERE and plug in docket 12-1163 — 12 (year) and 1163 (docket number).  If you want a hard copy, contact Minnesota Power and they’ll send you one.

Here’s the quote from the DRAFT ER Scoping document:

The environmental report will address/discuss the following matters:

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Need
1.2 Regulatory requirements

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 General
2.2 Design
2.3 Right-of-Way Requirements and Acquisition
2.4 Construction
2.5 Operation and Maintenance
2.6 Permits

3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED HVTL
3.1 No-build Alternative
3.2 Demand Side Management
3.3 Purchase Power
3.3.1 Long term Purchase Power
3.3.2 Short term Purchase Power
3.5 Up-grading Existing Facilities
3.6 Facilities of a Different Size
3.7 New Generation

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Biological Resources
4.3 Culture Resources
4.4 Geology and Soils
4.5 Health and Safety
4.6 Land Use
4.7 Noise
4.8 Socioeconomics
4.9 Transportation
4.10 Visual Impacts and Aesthetics
4.11 Water Resources (surface, groundwater, wetlands)
4.12 Waste Management and Disposal

So to make a relevant comment on “scope” you need to let them know what specific things in the above categories should be included in the Environmental Report.  This means telling them not “EMF” in that broad stroke, but to say, “When you consider EMF, consider the range of levels, from the low statement of Minnesota Power, 750 MW, to the higher emergency rating of 1572 MVA.”  That means that you’d get the numbers for the highest potential EMF of the project.

Another thing is to request that they look at the size and timing of this project.  MP says that they have a 250 MW PPA, and maybe another PPA in the future, so is that any reason to build a 1572MVA emergency rating 500 kV line?  Seems like it’s too early to “need” something this large, and it’s way too big for their claimed need.

And as in the post below, I’m concerned about this “system alternative” that Xcel Energy, et al., are promoting (So what is Xcel, et al., up to?).  They’ve not intervened, and they must put their cards on the table.  It feels like a threat, that Xcel is throwing its weight around, and it really screws up any notion of what’s at issue.  They put it out there, but don’t follow through and we don’t know whether to take them seriously.

DSC01904

Leave a Comment

Filed under Environmental Review, Meetings, PUC Filings

So what is Xcel, et al., up to?

When the “Regional Utilities” submit Comments like this, and reiterate that they plan to intervene and propose a different corridor as a “system alternative,” just what are they up to?  As I posted yesterday, I asked about intervention and got nothing, no idea when they’ll file, and really, no idea IF they’ll file.  Could be just a threat…

Threat of what, well, a threat of claiming an interest in this proposed line — that’s all that makes any sense:

Regional Utilities_Comments_201311-93834-01

snippet1

Assist the Commission?  We know how they “assisted” ATC on the Badger Coulee line, claiming 1/2 ownership:

FERC Complaint – Ownership of Badger Coulee

And Xcel won that one, after which ATC tried to claim 1/2 of CapX Hampton-La Crosse and lost…

Commission Order – Xcel 1/2 Owner!

Snippet2

Are we in for a repeat?  Hey, it worked for them once, why not again!  When the “Regional Utilities,” Xcel, et al., want to “help the Commission” how could it be anything but good for the “Regional Utilities” a/k/a Xcel Energy?  So how are they focused on helping themselves, errrrrrrr, “helping the Commission,” yeah, that’s it… and to what?  Seems it’s pretty limited, they’re either helping themselves to new for-profit transmission and marketing ability for export generation running from Manitoba Hydro’s Dorsey substation into their CapX 2020 transmission line at Barnesville… or do they want to help themselves by threatening a reroute and then “settle” for an ownership piece of the Minnesota Power line as proposed, like their 50/50 split with ATC on Badger Coulee?  And are there other options?  Well, “Regional Utilities,” we’re depending on you to let us know!

Xcel, et al., have not yet intervened, so we don’t know what they’re doing, other than to proposed this other route, as a “system alternative,” which is bizarre.  It’s at least a threat, but where are they headed?  That’s between Minnesota Power and Xcel, et al., but it makes me a little squeamish thinking of the possibility of such a major reroute with inadequate notice, particularly one that MISO has not put to the head of its class in the MTEP.  Not to mention that Xcel should know better than to throw its weight around like that, not a good way to make friends and influence people.

Once more with feeling, here’s what their “system alternative” looks like on a map, their map:

Dorsey_CapX_System_Alternative

Take a good look at this map, and compare with the most recent MP proposed corridor, focused on the northern options and eliminating the one dropping south and running around Red Lake:

RouteCorridors

Think about good things… think about the bad things….

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under PUC Filings

Scheduling Order for GNTL need docket

Remember, this upcoming week is the start of the Environmental Scoping meetings (not hearings):

PublicMeetingSched

Scoping Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. on March 14, 2014.  Send to bill.storm@state.mn.us

See you in Roseau at the Civic Center on Tuesday, but don’t expect green grass or baskets of flowers, but there will be a heat wave, with a high expected of +19 degrees:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

As for the overall schedule, here it is, the 1st Prehearing Order was issued last week, and it’s pretty much the same as previously noted:

Scheduling Order_1 PHO_20141-95906-01

And here are the cut and paste charts:

And the OAH Hearing parts:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Hearings, Meetings, Need

Meetings next week — Scope of Environmental Review

It’s that time — the PUC and Dept. of Commerce are holding meetings next week to get public input on the scope of the Environmental Review, which means what all will be covered in the “Environmental Report” (which is not as beefy as an Environmental Impact Statement, and no options for Comments except in Public Comments later on), so NOW, get your thoughts on what all should be covered:

Notice_Scoping Meetings_20141-95492-01

Scoping Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. on March 14, 2014.

Send to bill.storm@state.mn.us

Here’s the bottom line — next week Roseau, Baudette and International Falls and the week after, Thief River Falls, Bemidji, and Grand Rapids:

PublicMeetingSchedWhat’s interesting in this case is that the “Regional Utilities” which is Xcel, Otter Tail Power, MRES have filed a Notice of Appearance, showed up at the Prehearing Conference, said they would be intervening, but they have not yet intervened as promised/threatened:

Notice Of Appearance_20141-95546-01

??? EH?  What’s up with that?  So I just gave Christi Brusven a call (I think I’ve not ever called her before, despite all that time in Goodhue, must have been dealing with Todd), and she says that they’re planning to intervene, but haven’t yet, and nope, no info on timeline, so here we are, waiting… waiting…

Here’s what they had to say in their comments about the “Western Option” that they’re planning on inserting:

As noted by Minnesota Power, a western 500 kV alternative to the Fargo area has been explored in the MISO process (the “Western Option”).  The Western Option provides a reasonable alternative to meet Minnesota Power’s current needs, facilitates use of the Commission-authorized, double-circuit-ready 345 kV line from Fargo to Monticello to address the potential need for future transmission capacity expansion, and collectively offers a cost effective solution at higher power transfer levels that may be required in the future.  We believe the Western Option can be developed in time to meet the needs presented and are willing to do so if called upon by the Commission.

At the Prehearing Conference Brusven made quite the statement, reiterating their position that “The Western Option provides a reasonable alternative,” and that they plan to intervene because they are wanting to introduce the “system alternative” of running pretty much straight south and connecting in to the CapX 2020 Fargo-Monticello line at Barnesville.  Regional Utilities_Comments  So we’ve got to make sure that this “system alternative” is in the environmental review — or make sure it’s NOT there so that it can’t be selected.  Hmmmmm… now what… what does this mean?  What do we do in the meantime?  I guess figure out the impact of this in case they really do try to push for it (and given Xcel’s little powerplay on the Badger Coulee transmission line with ATC, I expect that they will go forward and throw their weight around!).

Dorsey_CapX_System_AlternativeI believe they’re already planning on running a transmission line essentially parallel with Interstate 29, but what’s that in relation to this?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings