Category Archives: Information Requests

MP Updates to Info Request Responses

question_marks

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

RRANT IR 002 Supplemental – FINAL

New Tie Line Loop Flow Impact Study Report-Rev1-FINAL

Updates to Dept. of Commerce IRs (also re: new study!):

DOC – Hofschulte – Cover Letter 9.24.14

DOC IR 008 Supplemental – FINAL

New Tie Line Loop Flow Impact Study Report-Rev1-FINAL

Updates to Large Power Intervenors’ IRs:

LPI – Moratzka – Cover Letter 10.2.14

LPI IR 020 – Supplemental – FINAL

LPI IR 020.1 Attachment CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT – Public

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Information Requests

Information Requests Responses

 

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.

question_marksThese are Responses to the Information Requests of the “Large Power Intervenors” received thus far:

LPI_IR_001 – FINAL

LPI_IR_002 – FINAL

LPI_IR_002.1 – Attachment Public

LPI_IR_002.2 – Attachment

LPI_IR_003 – FINAL

LPI_IR_004 – FINAL

LPI IR 003 & 004 Supplemental – FINAL

LPI IR 005 – FINAL

LPI IR 006 – FINAL

LPI IR 006.1 Attachment

LPI IR 006.2 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 006.3 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 006.4 Attachment

LPI IR 006.5 Attachment

LPI IR 007 – FINAL

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 009 – FINAL

LPI IR 010 – FINAL

LPI IR 010.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 011 – FINAL

LPI IR 011.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 012 – FINAL

LPI IR 012.1 Attachment

LPI IR 013 – FINAL

LPI IR 014 – FINAL

LPI IR 014.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 015 – FINAL

LPI IR 015.1 Attachment

LPI IR 016 – FINAL

LPI IR 017 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 017.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 018 – FINAL

LPI IR 019 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 019.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 020 – FINAL

LPI IR 021 – FINAL

LPI IR 029.1 Attachment

LPI IR 022 – FINAL

LPI IR 023 – FINAL

LPI IR 024 – FINAL

LPI IR 024.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 025 – FINAL

LPI IR 025.1 Attachment

LPI IR 026 – FINAL

LPI IR 028 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 029 – FINAL

LPI IR 030 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 031 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 032 – FINAL

Commerce:

DoC IR 1

DOC_IR_002 – FINAL

20121102 Northern Area Study Presentation

20121105 MH Wind Synergy Study TRG Presentation_Updated

DOC IR 003.1 Attachment

DOC_IR_003 – FINAL

DOC IR 010 Supplemental – FINAL

DOC IR 009 Supplemental – FINAL

DOC IR 009.1 Attachment

DOC IR 010.1 Attachment

DOC IR 013 – FINAL

DOC IR 014 – FINAL

DOC IR 021 – FINAL

DOC IR 022 – FINAL

DOC IR 023 – FINAL

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Information Requests

Useful information? Please donate!

Cash-Register

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.).

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Environmental Review, Hearings, Information Requests, Need, Open Houses, Presidential Permit

Info Request Responses from Minnesota Power

High-Voltage-Warning-Sign-S-2217

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:

LPI 1-4 Cover Letter

LPI_IR_001 – FINAL

LPI_IR_002 – FINAL

LPI_IR_002.1 – Attachment Public

LPI_IR_002.2 – Attachment

LPI_IR_003 – FINAL

LPI_IR_004 – FINAL

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information Requests

MP serves responses to Commerce Info Requests

Moving along little by little, Commerce has sent in Information Requests and Minnesota Power is answering them:

DoC IR 1

DOC_IR_002 – FINAL

DOC_IR_003 – FINAL

20121102 Northern Area Study Presentation

20121105 MH Wind Synergy Study TRG Presentation_Updated

More to follow as they send them.

And an update, here are those that we’d filed, and the MP responses:

RRANT_IR_001 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_002 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_003 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_004 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_005 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_006 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_007 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_008 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_009 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_010 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_011 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_012 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_013 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_014 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_015 – FINAL

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information Requests

Responses to initial Information Requests

mailbox

Fresh from the Inbox, Minnesota Power has responded to RRANT’s initial Information Requests:

RRANT_IR_001 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_002 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_003 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_004 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_005 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_006 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_007 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_008 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_009 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_010 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_011 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_012 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_013 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_014 – FINAL

RRANT_IR_015 – FINAL

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

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information Requests, Need, PUC Filings, 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