Category Archives: Meetings

February 7, 2014 · 9:27 pm

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

January 20, 2014 · 3:14 pm

Notice of Public Info & ER Meetings

It’s official — the PUC and Dept. of Commerce have issued Notice of the meetings in February:

Notice_ScopingMeetings_20141-95492-01

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

And here’s the schedule of the meetings — I think I’m going to opt out of Thief River Falls and Bemidji given the corridor options now:

PublicMeetingSched

EnvRev

But something on the maps bears a second look — the western route headed south from the border crossing down around Red Lake seems to have disappeared.  Is that correct?  I’m waiting to hear… and the verdict is, straight from the horse’s mouth:

This is the map we recently sent out to LGUs 90 days in advance of filing the route permit as required by Minn. Stat. 216E.03, subd. 3a as well as landowners.  Those are the routes we are going to put in the route permit application.  On the CoN scoping meetings we started with a larger study area and Notice Plan area so our thought was we still need to have coverage in that area and MPUC Staff agreed, though I’m not sure how many folks will attend in Bemidji or Thief River Falls. 

RouteCorridors

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings, Need

January 14, 2014 · 3:44 pm

Scheduling for GNTL Certificate of Need proceeding

We’re inching forward in the scheduling for the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission line proceeding at OAH.  Commerce and Minnesota Power have sent in proposals, Commerce for the public hearings across the state, and MP for the whole shebang!

The Prehearing Conference is on Friday, THIS Friday, the 17th at 10 a.m. in the PUC’s Small Hearing Room.

Here are the proposals, starting with the TENTATIVE public hearing schedule:

PublicHearingSched

Here’s MP’s proposed environmental review schedule (and it’s way too ambitious, Commerce can’t get anything done that fast, we’re always waiting for environmental review, and the public hearings shouldn’t be held before that’s done!):

MPsEnvRevSched

And MP’s Hearing schedule (HA!):

MPsHearingSched

Less than a year for a 200+ mile part of a US/Canadian 500 kV line?  You be dreamin’.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Hearings, Meetings, Need, PUC Filings

December 12, 2013 · 4:51 pm

PUC “Staff Briefing Papers” filed

Public Utilities Commission meeting to decide whether to refer to OAH for a contested case hearing:

Thursday, December 19, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Agenda item 3
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
121 – 7th Place East, 3rd Floor, Large Hearing Room
St. Paul, MN

The most important thing for the public to be aware of at this stage is that this is a NEED proceeding, not about routing.  This docket will determine whether the project is NEEDED, and after that, a separate application will be made for a route.  Comments regarding route are NOT relevant here.  Comments about NEED are NEEDED!  Minnesota Power doesn’t have a compelling need case, much less a sufficient need case, and that’s what’s at issue.

Here are the PUC’s Staff Briefing Papers:

Staff Briefing Papers_201312-94525-01

The project description is off where it says:

The project would join with a new 90-130 mile transmission line in Canada to form a new international transmission interconnection to provide approximately 750 megawatts (MW) of transfer capability.

Not quite.  This is a 325-400 mile long transmission line, with 90-130 miles in Canada and 235-270 in the US.  The correct way to state this is “The project is a 325-400 mile line with approximately 1/3 in Canada and 2/3 in the US.”  There’s no substation at the border, it’s not two separate lines or two separate projects, just two jurisdictionally separate proceedings.

And they’re accepting two things that should be questioned.  First problem is staff’s acceptance of Minnesota Power’s claim of 750MW transfer capacity increase.  Second is acceptance of elimination of the Blackberry – Arrowhead leg of the project without any analysis/question about why, and what that means for the project, which is just one leg from Manitoba Hydro off to Michigan.  A radial 500 kV line?  One that requires a Presidential Permit?  Going into the Blackberry substation?  Why?  Whatever for?  It’s good to let people along the Blackberry-Arrowhead stretch know that this project does not included that part, but it’s equally important not to give them false hopes that it’s out completely, because it will come back.

Commission Decision Alternative B3 should be crossed off, deleted, eliminated.

PUC Staff view of issues:

Staff identified two areas where the process could be improved. First, staff recommends that those members of the public who were initially included in the notice plan for the southernmost portion of the project should receive supplemental notice that their community is not under consideration for the current project. Secondly, staff recommends that because the public comments received during consideration of the certificate of need application primarily spoke to routing matters, these comments should be filed to that docket once a route permit application is open for comment.

It’s good that they’re directing the public advisor to file the routing related public comments  in the routing docket when filed, but look how they’re discounting the public.  Please DON’T presume that all public comments are about routing because they’re not.  Those regarding NEED should be considered in this NEED docket, and only those about route should be sent to the routing docket.

It’s good that they’re directing Minnesota Power to send materials to a library in each affected county, GOOD!!!

Now, on to the meeting next week.  See you there!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings, PUC Filings

December 6, 2013 · 6:38 pm

PUC to address “completeness” and referral for hearing

DSC01774

Notice just issued — the Public Utilities Commission will decide a few issues regarding the Not-So-Great Northern Transmission Line at its meeting on Thursday, December 19, 2013.

December 19, 2013, 9:30 a.m. – ???

Public Utilities Commission

121 – 7th Place East, Large Hearing Room

St. Paul, MN

Here’s the meeting notice:

NOTICE OF COMMISSION MEETING 12-19-2013

What’s at issue:

  • Should the Commission accept the certificate of need application as substantially complete?
  • Should the Commission refer the Matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for acontested case proceeding?
  • What action should the Commission take regarding other procedural items?

There are no “Briefing Papers” posted yet, which will tell us what the Commission staff is recommending.  Stay tuned — when they post the briefing papers, I’ll put them up here!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings, PUC Filings

September 12, 2013 · 4:17 am

N-S-GNTL Open House and a tornado near Warroad!

DSC01666First, today’s Not-So-Great Northern Transmission Line open house at the Community Center in Lancaster, Minnesota, just 12 miles from the Canadian border.

DSC01668

At that meeting, the price of electricity came up, with a couple from the area who are customers saying the price is going up and up and up.  Now that’s retail, but we know the wholesale price of electricity is down, down, down…

TREND: Down go electricity prices

There’s also a heap of information at the DOE’s EIA site, and there’s the NERC Report, the latest is 2012 Long Term Reliability Assessment which addresses the state of the electrical system, whether it can handle demand, if there are shortages or surpluses.  The extreme surpluses in the electrical capacity can be found in the reserve margin charts, most with a reserve margin of at least twice what is needed, with the exception of Texas.

Here’s another cute graph about demand growth:

And not only that, there was a tornado just 25 miles away, sited near Graceton, right after the storm went through, the internet went down in the hotel and I had to move… grrrrrrrrrrrr, but found it just a few doors down.

WILLIAMS, Minn. — A September tornado has been spotted in far northern Minnesota.

The National Weather Service says a trained spotter reported the tornado two miles northwest of Williams in Lake of the Woods County before 3:30 p.m. Wednesday.

Lake of the Woods Chief Sheriff’s Deputy Daryl Fish says no damage or injuries are reported from the tornado.

The storm dropped hail estimated at up to 1.5 inches in parts of the county. The weather service received a report from the public of hail covering the ground about an inch deep four miles south of Graceton.

Check the geese in this photo, the tiny dots in the background — that’s just a small percentage of the geese that were flying around, and their unusual behavior, flying around and around, and flapping to fly but just staying on one place for about 20 minutes or more, in the fierce wind, that’s what alerted me to the approaching bad weather.  Once the rain started pouring, they started landing near the trees along the field.  Click on the photo for a larger version, and look at the dots just over the roofs and street lights, squint and what you think are a lot of specs of dust are the geese.

DSC01679

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings, Open Houses

September 10, 2013 · 11:32 am

Open House meetings begin today!

Here’s the schedule — be there or be square!

This project requires a Presidential Permit for the U.S./Canada transmission crossing the border, more on that tomorrow… it’s one more step in the process.

And while you’re at it, be sure to get familiar with what’s in the docket and subscribe so you know the minute anyone files anything!  To do that, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search Dockets” and search for docket 12-1163.  It’s that easy.  Then look for the Subscribe column, click on anything in it and hit “subscribe” and then subscribe for all filings in the docket.

Here’s the meeting schedule:

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings

April 24, 2013 · 5:28 pm

Grand Rapids yesterday, Taconite today…

DSC01318

Greetings from the Range.  Today’s first Not-so-Great Transmission Line meeting was in Taconite. This is near where my Exclesior Energy Mesaba Project clients own property:

 

I got there late, but hey, got there before teardown, and had time for a chat with the GIS guy and a fleet of engineers.  There wasn’t quite the passionate standing-room-only turnout that there was against the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project:

DSC01319

This project is moving slowly, and the application for the Certificate of Need has yet to be filed.  That makes sense because it was only last year that it moved from a C to a B project at MISO.  Here’s the listing (click for a larger view):

MTEP12

Today what I wanted to find out was “What’s happening at the border?” so I went over that with Mr. GIS.  Click HERE to pull up maps at the Minnesota/Canada border.  What I found was that none of the transmission corridors proposed have transmission lines in them, and there’s no corridor of any other sort either.  ???

And further south, north and near Taconite, there’s a funnel where all options end up in a narrow area with three narrow corridors: one corridor has a line that they told me had been taken out; one corridor has no road or transmission line, nothing; and the other one has a line going smack dab down the corridor.  Hmmmm, I wonder where they plan to put this new line?

(and each time I try to pdf them for posting, firefox crashes, AAAAAAAAAGH!)

… one moment please… or three… or four… I may never get that posted!

Anyway, I also had a chat with a fleet of engineers, because in considering “need” for the line, I want to know the capacity of the line, meaning emergency rating, so that I can get an idea what the claimed need represents compared to potential capacity.  So far, they say there’s a need for 250MW due to a PPA with Manitoba Hydro.  OK, lovely, but what’s that got to do with a 500 kV line?  I asked them what the emergency rating was of the line that’s there now, the 500 kV, and it took a while, they didn’t want to answer, giving waffly excuses about liiting factors.  I know all about limiting factors and things change, upgrades are happening all the time, so just out with it.  I finally was told that the existing 500 kV line was 1732 MVA.  OK, that makes sense.  Although it doesn’t make sense to me why Minnesota Power uses low capacity lines.  Xcel uses ACSS conductors, a higher capacity line, but MP uses ACSR, a lower capacity.  Why?  Why go through all the rigamarole of certifying and getting a route permit for a little line?  One engineer pointed out the Arrowhead as an example and yes, that’s a good example of planning that makes no sense, or a business decision that makes no sense.  If they’re going to go for it, why not make it worth their while?  Well, other than that there’s that pesky issue of needing to demonstrating need.  But one thing that was disturbing was that when asking for info on the existing line, to consider why that line wasn’t being upgraded, or double circuited, etc., one engineer said that they didn’t know that for the current line yet because they’re not there.  I was referring to the existing line and made that clear, but what I didn’t get into was that I know what the rating is for their planned line, that it’s in the MISO filing (see chart above, it’s also 1732 MVA).  He should know better than to think that I’d believe they don’t know what the emergency rating would be for the line they’re proposing!!!  AAAARGH.  Anyway, I’ll post that chart one more time so we’re clear the project and rating we’re talking about here:

MTEP12That’s a 1732 MVA (A rating) for a line where all they’ve got to justify need so far is a 250 MW PPA with Manitoba Hydro.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings