Minnesota Power has submitted some updated responses to Intervenor Information Requests. The New Tie Line Loop Flow Impact Study Report-Rev1-FINAL is the most important update to the IRs :
RRANT – Overland – Cover Letter 9.24.14
Updates to Dept. of Commerce IRs (also re: new study!):
DOC – Hofschulte – Cover Letter 9.24.14
Updates to Large Power Intervenors’ IRs:
LPI – Moratzka – Cover Letter 10.2.14
Filed under Certificate of Need, Information Requests
There have been MANY information request responses filed by Minnesota Power. Below are responses to IRs from the “Large Power Intervenors” and the Commerce DER. Note that many are “Public Versions” meaning it’s essentially blank. There’s a “Non-Disclosure Agreement” to be signed to get this info. I thought I’d signed it, but I can’t find the “Top Secret” versions, and even if I had, well, couldn’t post them here.
These are Responses to the Information Requests of the “Large Power Intervenors” received thus far:
LPI_IR_002.1 – Attachment Public
LPI IR 003 & 004 Supplemental – FINAL
LPI IR 006.2 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 006.3 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 007.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 008 Public Version – FINAL
LPI IR 008.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 008.2 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 008.3 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 008.4 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 008.5 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 008.6 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 010.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 011.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 014.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 017 – FINAL – Public Version
LPI IR 017.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 019 – FINAL – Public Version
LPI IR 019.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 024.1 Attachment Public Version
LPI IR 028 – FINAL – Public Version
LPI IR 030 – FINAL – Public Version
Commerce:
20121102 Northern Area Study Presentation
20121105 MH Wind Synergy Study TRG Presentation_Updated
DOC IR 010 Supplemental – FINAL
DOC IR 009 Supplemental – FINAL
Filed under Certificate of Need, Information Requests
Donate!!! Yes, you!! See that “PayPal” button up to the right? Join the challenge to transmission that they don’t need and we don’t want! Residents and Ratepayers Against Not-so-Great-Northern Transmission, an ad hoc advocacy association, has Intervened in the Certificate of Need, a public interest intervention focused on showing up to weigh in on the big picture issues (Important note, we’re aiding public participation, but not taking a position on route.).
These responses came in about three weeks ago, things have been popping and demanding attention so I’ve not gotten to this until now, but HERE THEY ARE:
Filed under Information Requests
Moving along little by little, Commerce has sent in Information Requests and Minnesota Power is answering them:
More to follow as they send them.
And an update, here are those that we’d filed, and the MP responses:
Filed under Information Requests
Fresh from the Inbox, Minnesota Power has responded to RRANT’s initial Information Requests:
Some will seem repetitive, but I’m just going around the same thing several ways…
The most interesting to me are the links in the response to IR 4 for MISO and other studies to justify or support building the GNTL project, THANK YOU Minnesota Power FOR SENDING WORKING LINKS:
System Impact Study (SIS) reports and meeting presentations
Draft SIS Report Prior Outage & Injection Analysis 7/9/2010
Draft SIS Report – TO Option 4/26/2010
Additional Impact Analysis Draft Report 4/20/2010
Executive Summary (Final Report) 7/20/2009
Final SIS Report Summer Peak analysis 7/20/2009
Final SIS Report Winter Peak analysis 7/20/2009
Final SIS Report Stability analysis 7/20/2009
Updated Draft Stability SIS Report analysis 6/29/2009
Updated Draft SIS Report- Winter Peak analysis 6/29/2009
Updated Draft SIS Report- Summer Peak analysis 6/29/2009
Draft Stability analysis 4/30/2009
Draft SIS Report- Winter Peak analysis 3/20/2009
Draft SIS Report- Summer Peak analysis 3/11/2009
Draft SIS Report 1/13/2009
Preliminary Draft SIS Report 12/16/2008
LT MH Study Screening results 1/21/2009
MH_TSR_Group Study_Transmission Options 1/21/2009
Facilities Study Reports and meeting presentations
MH-MP_AC_Thermal_Sensitivity_Analysis-Eastern_Plan-Draft_Report-01-07-13.pdf
MH-MP_AC_Thermal_Sensitivity_Analysis-Western_Plan-Draft_Report-01-07-13.pdf
MH-MP TSR meeting Feb 2013 3/6/2013
MH-MP TSR meeting Jan 2013_EPL 1/8/2013
MH-MP AC Thermal Sensitivity Analysis – Draft Report – 01-03-2013 1/8/2013
Dorsey – Iron Range 500 kV Project Preliminary Stability Analysis – Draft Report – 12-5-2012 1/8/2013
MH Group Study Option 1 FS 6/1/2010
MH Group Study CapX – TO presentation 11/4/2009
CapX FS proposal presentation 11/4/2009
Additional Analysis Scope document 11/4/2009
Final FS Report (GRE) 1/19/2010
Filed under Information Requests, Need, PUC Filings, Uncategorized
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 requirements2.0 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 Permits3.0 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 Generation4.0 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
Filed under Information Requests, Meetings
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:
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):
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…
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.
We also used Dr. Blank for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line case to get information about EMF into the record:
Another good source is the World Health Organization:
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!
