Category Archives: 7850

ALJ Order filed, no RRANT intervention


ALJ O’Reilly has issued her Order, and each of RRANT’s Motions were denied.  Here’s the Order:


It seems that it’s not a problem if landowners potentially affected don’t get notice, landowners who could have transmission over their land.  A point raised was that none of these landowners have tried to intervene… well… do they even know???

… sigh…

Well, the RRANT public comment is in, and we’ll see what happens.

1 Comment

Filed under 7850, Condemnation, Easements, Hearings, Meetings, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

RRANT Public Comments just filed

So here I sit, in the Bear Paw campground next to Lake Itasca, and realize that there’s been no Order on the RRANT_Motion to Intervene Out of Time and TODAY is the deadline for Public Comments.  So the choice was to file something today, or forever hold my peace if the ALJ doesn’t file an Order.  OK… fine… whatever… there’s internet access in the Bear Paw campground, site 38e, love the information age, so BRING IT ON!


Just filed: RRANT Public Comment FINAL

The DNR filed some new comments too, haven’t read them, but referenced them because they’d requested more information about the “Effie alternative” and Minnesota Power did NOT want that alternative to be used.




Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Hearings, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

Can you believe Commerce EERA would file this?





Here’s the recap:

The most recent Dept. of Commerce EERA letter…


… was sent in response to the Administrative Law Judge’s letter directing them to follow through on her request for an Affidavit from the person who mailed the landowners notice, those “ADDITIONAL new landowners” who were supposedly sent notice prior to the one that was sent in July.

From the top:

  • Notice sent out to some landowners on February 9, 2015, and to some on July 27, 2015, evidenced by filing in eDockets:
  • I discovered this eFiled document and contacted Sharon Ferguson about the mailing of the 27th of July, and after reviewing the document, she said that yes, she served that last page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” on July 27, 2015, and that the others had been served earlier, on February 9, 2015.  I went over it twice to be clear, to make sure I understood it correctly.
  • Upon learning that the one page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” got their first notice on July 27, 2015, I filed for RRANT (Intervenor in Certificate of Need docket) to intervene in this routing docket: RRANT_Motion to Intervene Out of Time.
  • At the hearing the following day, I entered the last two pages of the Notice, the “24 landowners” list and the July 27, 2015 Certificate of Service as Exhibit 280.  Pages 18-19 from 7272015_Notice_p18_20157-112741-01
  • At the hearing, I was told by Asst. A.G. Jensen that this was just a clerical error, that Sharon Ferguson was handed a big pile of landowner lists that had previously been served and instructed to file them on eDockets (see above, eDocket filing 20157-112741-01 ), and for some unknown reason she also filed a Certificate of Service dated July 27, 2015, in addition to the one dated February 9, 2015, that was in the eDocket filing with the letter and landowner lists.
  • During the hearing, Bill Storm stated (was he under oath?)(from DRAFT Transcript (selected)_8-13-2015) (note that only Sharon Ferguson is mentioned):




Speculative hearsay…  Then Asst. A.G. Linda Jensen went on to state:


Then Judge O’Reilly asks, to clarify:


“Correct.”  Uh-huh… and more clarification:


But Exhibit 113 does not equal 20157-112741-01Exhibit 113 is missing the last page of what was filed on eDockets.  And yet Exhibit 113 was entered after July 27, 2015… and it was entered into the record with certain representations… (when that transcript comes out, I’ll post that snippet.).

And the wrap-up:




And now, the kicker:


And from Mr. Storm:


Nope, doesn’t seem that he can!  What Commerce EERA produces is an Affidavit from Bill Storm, not Sharon Ferguson, with more and different speculative hearsay, and this time it’s not about Sharon Ferguson, but now it’s about a new character, “Caren Warner,” who supposedly sent that one page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” notice that their land may be affected…

Letter  Brief & Attachments_20158-113390-01

EH?  There’s still no Affidavit of Sharon Ferguson!  What happened to the Affidavit from Sharon Ferguson?  The story now is different than it was at the hearing, as reflected in the transcript, and now there’s a new character!  Caren Warner!  And no Affidavit of Caren Warner!



Next the Administrative Law Judge fired this off:

Letter from ALJ O’Reilly to DOC Asst. A.G. Jensen_20158-113402-01

… in pertinent part:


So what did Commerce produce this time?  Check it out:



Ms. Warner has no memory of that day:


Sounds like the Rose Mary Woods School of Clerical Endeavors:


Looks to me that the logical presumption is that those 24 “ADDITIONAL new landowners” were not served on February 9, 2015.

Do the Rose Mary!!!  On a count of four, the backwards-leaning stretch reach, and forward for a count of 4.  Ready, 1, 2, 3, 4,  BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3 4, BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3 4, BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3 4, BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3  vamp, 1, 2, 3, 4, hold that RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACH!  18.5 minutes… HOLD…. HOLD… HOLD…. HOLD… 18.5 minutes… HOLD…. HOLD… HOLD…. HOLD… 18.5 minutes… HOLD…. HOLD… HOLD…. HOLD…


1 Comment

Filed under 7850, Hearings, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

Commerce EERA Responds… NOT!


UPDATE:  Letter from ALJ O’Reilly to DOC Asst. A.G. Jensen_20158-113402-01



That letter above pretty much sums up the issue at hand.

The ALJ asked Commerce-EERA to produce an Affidavit from the person serving late notice to the “ADDITIONAL new landowners” and they didn’t do it.   Affidavit regarding service of the person who actually did it?  Yup, it was pretty specific.  From the transcript, pages 33-35:


And this:


And this:


Here’s the RRANT_Motion to Intervene Out of Time.

Here’s selected parts of the 8-13-2015 hearing transcript, thanks to David Moeller, Minnesota Power:

Transcript (selected)_8-13-2015

So what did Commerce EERA send?


Starting with this:


This “takes no position” declaration was followed by 2+ pages, single spaced, of position after position!  The letter discussed everything BUT the issue at hand” Did the 24 “ADDITIONAL new landowners” get notice of this proceeding on February 9, 2015, and the Affidavit regarding same from the person who did or didn’t do it.

Rather than attach an Affidavit from the person serving notice, as requested by the ALJ, they attached an Affidavit of Bill Storm, as much speculative hearsay as it was at the hearing on August 13, 2015.

Rather than attach an Affidavit from the person serving notice, as requested by the ALJ, they imply that because “Attachment 3” shows that John Wahlberg asked to be put on the service list in June, JUNE, at the same address as Wahlberg Trust, one of the 24 “ADDITIONAL new landowners,” must have received notice.   Constructive notice is likely, but what about actual notice?  That’s what we’re trying to get at here.

So if it went down as Commerce EERA says it did, why aren’t they producing an Affidavit from the primary person who served Notice on February 9, 2015, be it Sharon Ferguson, Caren Warner, or someone else?

This isn’t a criminal trial, and administrative rules of evidence are not court rules, BUT… not producing the Affidavit as ALJ O’Reilly requested, specifically, several times, opens the door to an inference that they’re doing the best they can and that they can’t produce what the ALJ asked for.

Lack of notice has been a recurrent problem, and yes, we’re trying to deal with this in rulemaking, latest draft released earlier this month:

Onward with PUC Certificate of Need and Routing Rulemaking

Anyway, here’s what I sent in response:

RRANT Response to DOC-EERA

To this RRANT Response, MP’s attorney writes, just now:

Judge O’Reilly – I would note that while OAH Rules (1405.0900) allow other parties or persons to respond or object to a Petition To Intervene, the Rules do not provide for “a reply to the replies.” At some point, the process must stop or parties and participants could continually reply to one another. Minnesota Power respectfully suggests that Ms. Overland’ latest filing should be ignored and a decision made on the basis of the filings and arguments to date.

Yeah… whatever… OAH Rules 1405.0900 is not prohibitive either.  Let’s be clear, Minnesota Power, this is NOT about you (though in other dockets it’s been the Applicants bringing in new routes at the last minute).  This is about the Minnesota Department of Commerce apparently failing to provide notice to landowners targeted in scoping, and failing to comply with the ALJ’s request for an Affidavit regarding service from the person doing the job, not Bill Storm and his speculative hearsay.

Decision time?  Yes, bring it on…

What bothers me about this is that never, at no time, ever, should any landowner be subjected to a transmission line without notice and an opportunity to speak their mind about it, to decide whether to participate or not, to intervene or not, and if they do, to do all they can to speak up!  If anyone thinks that someone who has not been given notice should “host” a transmission line, or be considered to “host” a transmission line, there’s a serious hole where their sense of ethics and their moral compass should be.  And then there’s that pesky matter of due process.



1 Comment

Filed under 7850, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

Greetings from Grand Rapids


Intro by Judge O’Reilly…

Mark Mandich, an Itasca County Commissioner, presented County Resolution supporting the orange Effie alternative, and support Bass Lake and Wilson Lake alignment if the blue or orange is selected.  Some questions about location of the options

Now Mike Kaluzniak gives the PUC perspecive and process…

Now David Moeller, Minnesota Power:


And now a break … and then Bill Storm:

DOE received 122 comments on the DEIS (not separated out DOE & Commerce, so that must be total comments).  Hoping to have Final EIS out by October 30? (two months after public comment period closes).

And now for public comments (this is NOT all inclusive, I missed a lot while jumping up to look at maps and looking up other info):

Don Peterson (Ex. 264 & 265): Map with rectangle around his land.  Koochiching County, north of Deer River, comes laterally across 80.    Purchased it in 2012, and learned by accident of this project in January 2014.   He was never notified.  Told they get lists of landowners from county.  Is it legal to potentially confiscate land from someone without notifying them?

Buddy John Savich (Ex. 266 & 267): From Effie, 431 acre beef cattle farm and hay for sale.  Lovdahl family, farm has been in family for 57 years.  How many farms where people elected “Buy the Farm” are those farmers still farming?  Are farms targeted or do they receive preferential treatment, is it possible you’re targeting farms?  A: Try to avoid ag land to a large degree, try to avoid farms.  On Great Northern website, talks about “need to reduce coal.”  For the record, what is the “need to reduce coal?”  I’ve heard that cows cause global warming… I would opt for Buy the Farm if you’re going to come through here.  I didn’t get any notice of this route, somehow accidentally found out this fall.   He has alternative.  He’s on Map 78.  Would have happily submitted it but I didn’t get notices.  Submitting comments in December.  Ex. 267.  Is it too late to suggest these types of changes?  Is it too late to ask to go around an active farm?  I’d ask to go to southern parcel, there’s nothing there, it’s hunting land.  If the powerline goes over my farm, one less farm in Minnesota.  Is there a preference for taking land that’s already clear.

Michael Twitt (?), Magnetation (Ex. 268 map, Ex. 269 Letter) Little O’Reilly Lake.  Magnetation fully supports this Minnesota Power project.  Proposed alternative on Map 122, area is circled on map, that portion has a direct adverse impact, traverses historical mining area, includes 4 tailing basins and stockpiles, included in our permits.  Land use restrictions for that route alternative are incompatible with mining.  (no mention that Magnetation is laying off workers, shutting plants 1 and 3, or their May bankruptcy filing)

Quintin Leger, Blandin Paper Company (Ex. 270 maps 90, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107;  Ex. 271 Written comments, excerpt from conservation easement): This land is all encumbered by conservation easements, and this would affect use of this, would impair or interfere with conservation values, should protect this resource.

Dan Strand (Ex. 272 maps, 2 pages Northome variation)  Our property is on county line with Koochiching, we have a certified survey and we run right along that line.  If you run south of that line, we’re concerned with tresspassing, ask that it be moved further south, more in Itasca County, so there’s a barrier.  It’s not personal property, it’s county property.  Prefers blue route, but if orange, then J2 option and the Northome alignment.  If it didn’t get far enough south, what would you do to protect our property from tresspassing, fence or ?  A:  We do put up gates… but this is two miles… A: We would put up gates over roads…

Richard Libbey, Grand Rapids Wes Libbey Izaak Walton League (Ex. 273 Map):  Here in favor of Effie alternative in NE Itasca County.  Same route endorsed by county board.  Effie alternative is on blue route, and there’s a MCBS site there, Wasson Lake Bog, Bear and Wolf Lake?, just north of there, peat land.  Going cross country would increase forest fragmentation.

(oh-oh, think I lost someone’s comments here, _________, Ex. 274)


Trevor Johnson, Hartley Lake Association (Ex. 275, Map 103): Didn’t want to pit lakes against lakes.  We suggested another route, turned out to be not proosed, we were told various reasons this couldn’t be done, if this route could be used, Effie variation and and East Bear Lake variation.  If the Commission decides this is the route to use, can you design something that will work?  A: Short answer, yes…

Raymond Steffen, Balsam Township Supervisor (Ex. 276, Map 105): Chapel, fire hall… Preference for the blue route over the orange route.

Kathy Krook (Ex. 277, Map Snaptail Lake): Property impacted by Orange route, Balsam Township.  If this goes through will impact our entire property of 84 acres.  Father bought it 70+ years ago, I’ve lived here 60+ years, it’s where I hunt, it’s where I fish.  I’m concerned about resale value.  Who’s going to buy it with this monstrosity.  The orange has less impact, I’m primarily concerned about the Balsam variation.  I prefer the Blue route.

Catherine McLynn (Ex. 278, No of Effie) own 35 acres adjacent to 235(?), 2 miles north of Effie, affected by Orange route.  Use public land in the area.  Lot of beaver plan flowage, attracts trumpeter swans, deer, grouse, etc., support the Effie red route that would avoid this area.  Prefer using this route rather than disturbing the forest and wildlife.

Richard Libbey: Did work for MP for 25 years, was operator at Boswell station, was meter reader, familiar with different aspects of operation.  Earlier I talked about support for the Effie variation that would minimize impacts to environment.  It can be engineered in a way that would not affect the stability of the grid.  Manitoba Hydro is going to be paying 70% of the operation, impacts on us would be less MP will pay $50,000 (?) per mile which would increase tax base, Koochiching county will benefit most.  MP owns 51% of the project and MH has 49% as far as paying for operating and taxes.  Reliability and parallelling existing lines.  MP’s response in draft EIS where two 500 kV lines are parallel.  Concerns about parallel lines, the likelihood of severe event impacting lines can be … (see EIS Comment).  They were talking about having a 200 ft wide corridor, but it sounds like they maintain a 50 foot buffer, so 50 foot further away from existing lines, that would also provide habitat, rather than 600 foot wide swath.  Simultaneous outages due to weather events, develop a weather study based on actual weather in the area. (options to mitigate outages, faster repair/restoration).  They should have a monitor for weather events, can compensate, and anticipate so it won’t be such a shock to the system.  Outage years ago, set up FERC, they’ve got the system so they can isolate, with those considerations they can parallel 500 kV to Canada, so adding line to 230 in Koochiching isn’t that significant.

Winter, MP (additional testimony, missed a lot here, see transcript): Effie variation.   Three broad issues that categorise.  Issues associated with construction, operation, and maintenance, Issues of consequences of simultaneous unpanned outage event that would take out the project in addition to 500 kV, and third, environmental and length and cost considerations.  All have been floating around.  Response is more nuanced than is generally perceived.  Starting with construction, operation and maintenance — there’s been no consideration of EMF impacts along Effie route, and we would expect all three characteristics to be higher because there would be thre eof them in same corridor.  Electric field, likely to to be higher, higher structure height and meet state limits.  Magnetic fields would be higher than where we would be parallelling one, there’s no way to quantify without running some simulations and calculating what the impact would be.  Noise would be higher, and evaluating, I would expect would be pushing the MPCA at edge of RoW.  Impact might not be extreme, but if the noise is… (?), can’t tell without simulation.  Re: EMF, utility building project would not only be responsible for the project, we would also be responsible for assuring EMF and noise would be within applicable limits (?) for proposed and exisitng.  None of that has been considered or evaluated…  In addition to those impacts, we also have some concerns about helicopter access.  Helicopters would be used in some circumstances for consturction, fly structures in, maintenance, and emergency restoration.  During construction for various things we might use helicopters for, operation in vicinity of two energized lines… maybe not one issue, but conglomeration of issues, went into our decision to not go forward with this proposed route, not only impact during construction, but also operation maintenance, that operators would flat out refuse to fly over that middle line.  That’s our understanding from our conversations with our contractor.  Existing 500 kV line sandwiched between existing 500 kV and 230 kV line.  If we had structure failure…  General maintenance, it’s our understanding, because it’s parallel, would still be treated as line, approach distances would be increased.  Special constructions and design considerations, line would have to be taller, would perhaps have to be more robust in design to account for more extreme weather than it would otherwise be designed for.  Technically nuanced how we choose our return period, we could choose a longer return period to account for extreme events.  Modifications to mitigate electric field, separation between lines, 50′ separation between right of ways.  Purpose of that is not for reliability, but it’s for access, the 50′ is not a reliability, but a construction issue.  Consequences of simultaneous outage, I’m a system planner, we have identified that there is an appreciable difference between 500kV alone and 500 + 500 + 230kV all at once.  That’s covered in supplemental testimony in detail.  There are 5 existing Manitoba tie lines, this would include two.  Result, even if not a cascading event, would be a dramatic decrease in Manitoba/US transfers.  Causes, many things, and any combination thereof, I don’t want to get into discussing the likelihood, but the more localized they are, the more susceptible to events, and it increases the likelihood of a simultaneous outage.  Wildfires, we haven’t discusses impact.  It could be anything up to structural failure, or we may pre-emptively de-energize the line.  Finally, last week, intentional disruption, the larger visually the corridor, the larger the target becomes.  (DOH, good argument against central station power and large and long transmission!).  When we looked a the Effie route alternative, it was our conclusion that the difference in environmental impacts, there isn’t as drastic a difference compared to the Blue route, such as length, residences within 1,500 feet (4 v. 14), impacts to private property 77 v. 121 acres of private property, wetlands greater, MCBS Biodiversity Blue 422 acres and Effie 427 acres.  These are attached to to record last week, Ex. 76, that’s where these numbers come from.  Forested land, 14,000 v. 17,000.  I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the Effie route as the greatest route out there, we’d still be cutting trees and putting in foundations.  Blue route cost $46.6 million v.  Effie variation $57.4 million, $10.8 million difference.  That does not include costs of potentially needing higher structures, longer return period, etc., doesn’t include route specific design considerations.  ALJ: But isn’t Manitoba Hydro paying 70%?  A: With all due respect (!) it’s our preogative to control costs, and we’re not treating it any differently than we would any other project.  ALJ: That was a major consideration in the Certificate of Need.  A: The major consideration inwhy we’re building a 500 kV line rather than a 230kV, it doesn’t give us license to spend more on this project.  The factors that lead us to deem the Effie route not for consideration, we’re trying to balance all these factors, Blue and Orange similar length of parallel corridor, impacts, and Effie because of more than double parallel of 500 kV route, in addition to adding 3rd line in that corridor, it throws that balance off.  It increases the magnitude of impacts to the point where it rendered the Effie route not being viable to propose.  (Minnesota Power does NOT want this Effie variation)

Jensen cross (Commerce): Would risks be decreased with increased space between lines?  A: I would say it’s a matter of degree, the less separation the less benefit there is (to colocating).  Series of concerns with construction, operation and maintenance, used the term “may” often…  is there uncertainty?  A: Yes, there is uncertainty.  Are there various ways to mitigate those risks if PUC selects the Effie variation?  A: Additional mitigation measures would increase complexity of engineering, have ot meet 8 kV/meter limit, to extent we would have to mitigate we will, but …

_________ Marshall (Ex. 279 map): 2 parcels adjacent to Orange route.  It’s our hunting camp for 60 years or so.  I prefer not to have a powerline running right through my property,  I understand public good, it’s got to go somewhere.  I’m a retired forest manager, have had a number of dealings with MP and other utilities, and the principle, whenever practical it is best to use existing corridors.  Not have northwoods carved with multiple routes.

Ryan Reed, MN DNR Grand Rapids, coordinates divisional comments.  Point of clarification regarding Catherine McLynn’s and Mr. Marshall that DNR endorses Effie route.  We have not endorsed routes.  We did ask for additional information about forest fragmentation and some rare resources, and we were looking for more information.  We wanted a quality analysis of this route.  We’ll provide additional comments, and conditions, and may provide a preference.

Richard Libbey again – request that you consider Effie alternative…

And my turn… speaking for Residents and Ratepayers Against Not-so-Great Northern Transmission:

First, I’d noted that the meeting notice included information on how to file Comments, but there was no email, only the PUC’s Speak Out! form page, and the “U.S. Mail” option.  This is 2015.  But I learned that the day before, ALJ O’Reilly had made mention of this problem and given out her email for comments.  GOOD!  And in the introduction section this morning, she gave out her email again, noting the attachment issue!  Thanks much!

Second, I check to see if DOT, DNR and USFWS Comments were in the hearing record and they were not.  So I asked that these be entered into the hearing record because they have an impact on routing and shouldn’t be isolated in the EIS to languish in an appendix to the FEIS that won’t come out until October 30, long after everything is said and done.  BIG problem.  Commerce objected to this.  BIGGER problem.  Judge O’Reilly suggested that they be entered in, assigning exhibit numbers, and I would have to send her hard copies by mail.  OK, whatever, if that’s what it takes.  MP and Commerce did agree. (hard copies mailed Friday, and it was not easy, three did NOT want to download).

RRANT_Agency Comment Letters








DOT_20148-102265-01 8-14-42014

And finally, the odd one, the landowner notice.  Background: Prior to my Comment time, Asst. A.G. Linda Jensen wanted to chat about this.  The Commerce position is that this was a simple clerical error, that Bill Storm, EERA Commerce, had handed Sharon Ferguson a pile of documents to eFile, and she had written up and attached that July 27, 2015 Certificate of Service in error, and then eFiled it. Here’s what was filed:

7 27 2015_Notice_see p18-19_20157-112741-01

What I got out of that conversation is that they did not want me to bring it up at the hearing.

Sure, that Commerce explanation of adding an additional Certificate of Service in error is possible, but that’s not what the documents show, and in my experience, Sharon Ferguson is anything but a ditz — she’s thorough and conscientious and has been doing this forever — and I have run into routing dockets where people got late notice where a utility is trying to find a last minute way around a prohibitive situation — so inquiring minds want to know…

More background:  I always go right to the source.  On Wednesday, after discovering this, at 9:44 a.m., I called Commerce (phone number I found online for Sharon Ferguson didn’t work), was rerouted to Sharon, and we went over the filing very carefully, she pulled up the document, and I had it up on my screen.  I asked about the February 9, 2015 notice, and about the July 27, 2015 notice, and specifically whether it meant that the pages of “new landowners” following the February notice were sent out in February, and she said they were, and whether the one page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” were sent out in July as stated in the July “ADDITIONAL new landowners” Certificate of Service.  She confirmed that is what happened.  I asked again to be sure, whether that last page of landowners with the “ADDITIONAL new landowners” footer was sent notice on July 27, 2015, and she again confirmed that.

That’s when I wrote up the RRANT Motion for Intervention Out-of-Time:

RRANT_Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time_FINAL

More Background: Before the hearing began, I asked about the Agency Comments and learned they were not in the Record.  Later, I learned that the post-scoping landowner notices were entered by Commerce as Exhibit 113.  So ALJ O’Reilly dug out Exhibit 113.  What was Exhibit 113?  It was the filing of July 27, 2015 minus that last page with the July 27, 2015 Certificate of Service:


So they took out that 7/27/2015 Certificate of Service and filed it as Exhibit 113?  Yup.  Did they let anyone know, did the state on the record, that the eFiling of 7/27/2015 was in error, and they removed the last page?  I don’t know, wasn’t at the hearing where it was presented, but I have a feeling the “error” wasn’t mentioned.

Prior to my turn to comment, I was approached again, and the message I received, again, was that it was a simple clerical error, with the implied “don’t bring it up, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.”   Having experienced first hand the last minute Myrick Route in the Brookings docket, and the Cannon Falls Hwy. 19 and Hwy. 52 last minute route alignment additions, I’m not about to shut up about it.

So back to the hearing — at the outset, I’d asked to be affirmed (yes, redundant because I’m an “Officer of the Court” but I wanted to be clear…).  And yes, I brought it up, noting that Commerce had a different position, but that this document was entered in the record, that I’d spoken with Sharon Ferguson about this for clarification, and my position that the “ADDITIONAL new landowners” was based on the July 27, 2015 filing, the Certificate of Service and this confirming conversation on Wednesday with the person who had signed the Certificate of Service.  Commerce responded with statements of “assumed” and their belief, Asst. A.G. Linda Jensen and EERA Bill Storm, that it was just an error, and neither of them said they had spoken with Ms. Ferguson about it (and given I’d filed on Wednesday, and there were breaks in the hearing, in the morning until 11 and all day long, WITH computer access, they could have, well, maybe they did, but they did not say they’d checked with her about it.  Given the looks on their faces and the “thought balloons” I saw over their heads, I’m surprised that’s all they said!  Bottom line, the ALJ was concerned, and asked that they file an Affidavit of Sharon Ferguson about what happened.  Nothing posted or eFiled yet.

If this is a simple clerical error, then let’s get that on the record.  And if not, Commerce, Minnesota Power, we have a problem.



1 Comment

Filed under 7850, Hearings, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

Last Minute Notice to Landowners — NOT OK!


So I’m reviewing the Great Northern Transmission Line routing docket (PUC 14-21) and notice that there’s NOTICE to “ADDITIONAL new landowners.”

Pages from 7272015_Notice_p18_20157-112741-01

WHAT!?!?!  This is dated July 27, 2015.  The Application was filed in April, 2014, the DEIS Scoping Decision was filed in January, and the DEIS went out for comment two months ago in June.  Sure, there could be landowners who were missed along the way, or maybe they came up with new alignments and so new landowners were affected.  That does happen.  Shouldn’t happen but it happens all the time — look at the Cannon Falls section of CapX La Crosse line.  BUT, to give them Notice NOW and proceed on their merry way with routing this transmission line in this docket is NOT right.

WHY?  There’s no way that someone could catch up and adequately present their case to the PUC in the short time left before the record closes on September 1, 2015.  They’ve already missed the EIS scoping, they’ve missed the DEIS comment period, and this Notice came out less than two weeks before the public hearing and “contested case” hearing (I put that in “quotes” because there are no intervenors , it’s not contested).

Who cares?  Well, there are no intervenors.  There’s no one representing the public interest.  That’s enough to get me fired up.  On a RRANT one might say…

RRANT_Motion to Intervene Out of Time

Onward… let’s see how due process, public interest, and public participation figures into this!

How to look up this docket?  Just go to the PUC’s eDocket SEARCH SITE, and search for Docket 14 (year)- 21 (number).  It’s that easy!

Hearings tonight in Bigfork, and two tomorrow in Grand Rapids, and that’s it, the END!

… perhaps…  … perhaps not…

Hearng Schedule

1 Comment

Filed under 7850, Buy the Farm, Condemnation, DOE (Dept of Energy), Easements, Environmental Review, Hearings, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

Upcoming routing schedule for GNTL


At this morning’s hearing, the schedule for the GNTL routing contested case and public hearings came up, and here it is, and remember, this is the hearing series before the Administrative Law Judge, who will make a recommendation about whether the EIS is adequate, what route should be used, and whether there should be conditions and if so, what conditions on the route.



Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Hearings, Routing Docket

GNTL Draft Environmental Impact Statement released!!!


Lukewarm off the press from Minnesota Power’s David Moeller (apologies for taking a couple days to get this posted, connection has been a problem lately):

FYI, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line was issued today by the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Energy.  The full 700 page document plus appendices and maps can be found on the DOC’s website at:

The most interesting thing in this is that the DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability handling this GNTL Presidential Permit is the same DOE office handling the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Section 1222 (Third-Party Financing) review, different staff, but same office.  Small world…

So check out this DEIS and get your comments ready — the comment period is open through Monday, August 10, 2015. . Send comments to Comments on the Draft EIS to Julie Smith at the address or email above or by fax to (202) 586–8008, or to William Storm at the address or email below.  Be sure to write the PUC docket number TL-14-21 and the DOE number EIS-0499 on all comments.

U.S. Department of Energy
Julie Ann Smith, PhD, Electricity Policy Analyst
DOE NEPA Document Manager
National Electricity Delivery Division (OE-20)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585

William Cole Storm, Environmental Review Manager
Energy Environmental Review and Analysis
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 539-1844

Comments may also be made verbally or in writing at a public hearing — but wait, notice that in the notice they’re calling them public MEETINGS and not public HEARINGS:

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Public DEIS Meetings for the Great Northern Transmission LineViewing/downloading notes

This public “meeting” v. public “hearing” is a problem, so let’s see what they have to say about it:

Letter to_DOE-Commerce_June 23, 2015

The public “meeting” schedule:

DEIS Public Hearings

Here are the sections from the DOE’s site:

Here are the different sections from their DEIS page from the Minnesota Dept. of Commerce site (note so many more?!?!):

Volume 1 Cover Sheet, Table of Contents, and Summary

Volume 1 Chapter 1 Regulatory Framework

Volume 1 Chapter 2 Proposed Project

Volume 1 Chapter 3 No Action Alternative

Volume 1 Chapter 4 Route and Alignment Alternatives Part 1

Volume 1 Chapter 4 Route and Alignment Alternatives Part 2

Volume 1 Chapter 4 Route and Alignment Alternatives Part 3

Volume 1 Chapter 5 Affected Environment and Potential Impacts Part 1

Volume 1 Chapter 5 Affected Environment and Potential Impacts Part 2

Volume 1 Chapter 5 Affected Environment and Potential Impacts Part 3

Volume 1 Chapter 5 Affected Environment and Potential Impacts Part 4

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 1

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 2

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 3

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 4

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 5

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 6

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 7

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 8

Volume 1 Chapter 6 Comparative Environmental Consequences Part 9

Volume 1 Chapter 7 Cumulative and Other Impacts

Volume 1 Chapter 8 List of Preparers

Volume 1 Chapter 9 References

Volume 1 Chapter 10 Acronyms

Volume 1 Chapter 11 Index

Volume 2 Appendix A Tribal Consultation

Volume 2 Appendix B Route Permit Template and Example

Volume 2 Appendix C Narrative of Scoping Summary Report

Volume 2 Appendix D DOC Scoping Decision

Volume 2 Appendix E Route Analysis Data Tables

Volume 2 Appendix F Rare Species Data Tables

Volume 2 Appendix G Rare Communities Data Table

Volume 2 Appendix H Noise Supplement

Volume 2 Appendix I Applicant’s Audible Noise and EMF Calculations

Volume 2 Appendix J Property Values Supplement

Volume 2 Appendix K EMF Supplement

Volume 2 Appendix L Stray Voltage Supplement Part 1

Volume 2 Appendix L Stray Voltage Supplement Part 2

Volume 2 Appendix L Stray Voltage Supplement Part 3

Volume 2 Appendix L Stray Voltage Supplement Part 4

Volume 2 Appendix M MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 1

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 2

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 3

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 4

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 5

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 6

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 7

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 8

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 9

Volume 2 Appendix N Photo Simulations Part 10

Volume 2 Appendix O Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan Example

Volume 2 Appendix P Section 106

Volume 2 Appendix Q USFWS and DOE Section 7 Consultation

Volume 2 Appendix R Biological Assessment

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 1 West Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 2 West Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 3 West Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 4 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 5 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 6 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 7 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 8 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 9 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 10 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 11 Central Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 12 East Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 13 East Section

Volume 2 Appendix S Detailed Map Book Part 14 East Section

Volume 2 Appendix T NEPA Disclosure Statement


Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, DOE (Dept of Energy), Presidential Permit, Routing Docket

PUC CoN & Siting/Routing FINAL Rulemaking meeting

DraftIt’s final… that is, the FINAL meeting notice was just issued, one more go round on these draft rules for Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Power Plant Siting Act (siting and routing of utility infrastructure) (Minn. R. Ch. 7850).

We’ve been at this for about a year and a half, maybe more, and to some extent we’re going round and round and round.

Here are the September 2014 drafts, hot off the press:

September Draft 7849

September Draft 7850

Send your comments, meaning SPECIFIC comments, not “THIS SUCKS” but comments on the order of “because of _______, proposed language for 7950.xxxx should be amended to say_______.”  It’s a bit of work, but it’s important, for instance, the Advisory Task Force parts are important because we were just before the PUC on this last week, trying to reinforce that Task Force’s are necessary, despite Commerce efforts to eliminate and/or neuter them.  That despite ALJ orders otherwise, the Final EIS should be in the record BEFORE the Public Hearings and Evidentiary Hearings (just lost a Motion to require this last month).

How can you comment?  The best way is to fire off an email to the Commission’s staff person leading this group:

If you’re up to it, sign up on the PUC’s eDockets, and file your Comment in Docket 12-1246.  If you’d like your comment filed there, and can’t figure it out, please send it to me and I’ll file it for you.  It’s important that these comments be made in a way that the Commission will SEE, in a way that they cannot ignore, when this comes up before them.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Certificate of Need, Environmental Review, PUC Filings, PUC Rulemaking Ch. 7849

PUC Rulemaking — Send Comments on Drafts


The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is winding up its rulemaking on the Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Siting/Routing (Minn. R. Ch. 7850) chapters.  My clients Goodhue Wind Truth and North Route Group have been participating all along, and their experience with the Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting process has helped inform this record and we sure hope leads to more sensible and workable rules, AND increased public participation.

Now is the time to download and make your comments on what should be included, what’s included that’s important and needs to go forward, and what needs to be reworded.

August 13 Draft 7849

7850 July 8 draft

August 13 Ch. 7850 comparison

Send Comments to:

  • and/or post to the Rulemaking Docket.  To do that go HERE to the eDocket Filing Page, register if you’re not registered (it’s easy and almost instant), and post to Docket 12-1246.

It’s highly likely that the LAST meeting of the PUC’s Rulemaking Advisory Committee will be September 24, 2014 (9:30 a.m. at the PUC, in the basement).

A few things that need work:

  • Ch. 7849 & 7850: Need language mirroring statutory language regarding testimony by members of the public UNDER OATH (ALJs have refused to offer people opportunity to testify under oath, and PUC has stated that it makes a difference, “but were those statements made under oath” and if not, less weight.
  • Ch. 7849: Advisory Task Forces need language of statute, and membership not limited to “local units of government.”
  • Ch. 7849 & 7850: Transcripts available online — need to address this in rules and reporter contracts.
  • Ch. 7849: Scoping and Alternatives — compare with Ch. 7850.  Similar process?
  • Ch. 7849.1450: When is it Commerce EER & DER
  • Ch. 7849 & 7850 – timing should be similar for completeness review, etc.
  • Ch. 7850: Public Meeting separate from Scoping Meeting (Public Meeting is to disseminate information, Scoping Meeting is for intake).
  • Ch. 7850: Power Plant Siting Act includes “Buy the Farm.”  Need rules regarding Buy the Farm.

Now is the time to review the drafts, above, and send in Comments.  There may be, I hope there are, revisions released prior to the next meeting, but usually it happens just before, and there’s no time.  So here’s where we are now, and Comments would be helpful.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Buy the Farm, Certificate of Need