Category Archives: PUC Filings

Video of PUC GNTL Oral Argument & Deliberation/Decision

Here’s the videos of this week’s Great Northern Transmission Line Oral Argument (May 13, 2015) and Deliberation/Decision (May 14, 2015) at the PUC:

Oral Argument – Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Deliberation/Decision – Thursday, May 14, 2015

And remember this map from the Northern Area Study, where the point is to get electricity from Manitoba through Minnesota, through Wisconsin, and on down towards Detroit — the Minnesota Power “Phase II” from Blackberry sub to Arrowhead (Duluth) sub was cancelled/postponed, so as proposed here, it stops at Blackberry:

Untitled

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, PUC Filings

ALJ files Recommendation for PUC

gavel

The Administrative Law Judge has issued her Recommendation, that the Certificate of Need be granted, for the Great Northern Transmission Line.

Recommendation_20153-108286-01

More on this later — and there is testimony just filed in the Routing docket.  LOTS HAPPENING!

Just flied in the Routing docket, Minnesota Power Testimony — these are direct links to PUC site, and soon I’ll get around to downloading and posting individually:

20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_filing letter affidavit and service list.pdf. Filing Letter Affidavit and Service List
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_atkinson.pdf. James B. Atkinson Direct Testimony
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_atkinson_schedule 1.pdf. James B. Atkinson Direct Testimony Schedule 1
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_atkinson_schedule 2 part 1.pdf. James B. Atkinson Direct Testimony Schedule 2 Part 1
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_atkinson_schedule 2 part 2.pdf. James B. Atkinson Direct Testimony Schedule 2 Part 2
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_rolfes.pdf. Christina Rolfes Direct Testimony
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_tracy.pdf. Darel Tracy Direct Testimony
20150316_docket no. 14-21_mp_direct testimony_winter.pdf. Christian Winter Direct Testimony

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, PUC Filings

Reply Briefs are filed!

men-in-briefs

Reply Briefs for the Great Northern Transmission Line docket are in:

RRANT Reply Brief

Large Power Intervenors Reply Brief

Large Power Intervenor_FOF

Dept of Commerce Reply Brief

Minnesota Power Reply Brief

Time to take a break and then try on a few for size!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, PUC Filings

Initial Briefs filed

FooL_Briefs

Initial Briefs filed thus far (they’re due by 4:30).

Minnesota Power – Initial Brief_201412-105592-02

       Minnesota Power – ProposedFindings_201412-105592-03

RRANT – Initial Brief

Commerce – Initial  Brief_201412-105596-02

I’ve not seen one yet from “Large Power Intervenors” — where arrrrrrrre you?!?!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Need, PUC Filings

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:

kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

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

Latest version of PUC draft rules

We’re working on the revisions of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules for Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and for Routing/Siting (Minn. R. Ch. 7850), and it’s OH SO PAINFUL and tedious.  But this is where it happens — the rules developed here will be presented to the PUC to release for public comment and adoption — and once they’re released, they can’t adopt rules that are significantly different, so realistically, there won’t be major changes.  It’s now or never… this is where participation matters.

Our next meeting is Wednesday, August 20 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission’s Large Hearing Room in the Metro Square Building, located at 121 Seventh Place East, St. Paul, MN 55101. The PUC will provide refreshments.

FINAL MEETING – Wednesday September 24, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Here are the latest drafts.

August 13 Draft 7849

7850 July 8 draft

August 13 Ch. 7850 comparison

The next meeting is this Wednesday, so not much time for review and comment.  Comments can be sent to kate.kahlert [at] state.mn.us and/or posted in the PUC’s Rulemaking Docket, 12-1246.  To see what all has been filed in that docket, go to PUC SEARCH DOCKETS PAGE and search for 12-1246 (“12” is the year, “1246” is the docket number).

Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, PUC Filings

Minnesota Power’s Direct Testimony Filed

pilesOfiles

Oh, it’s been a busy week, and it’s only Wednesday.  Buried alive in paper, as I frantically try to sort out the old files from my other office, get rid of the dusty, moldy things from over a decade ago, and what does Minnesota Power do but dump 20 pounds of Direct Testimony.  On the other hand, it does look like good stuff, a stimulating read, lots of fun to be had over the weekend!

MP_Testimony_Atkinson_Direct_20148-102147-02

MP_Testimony_Donahue_Direct_20148-102147-04

MP_Testimony_Hobert_Direct_20148-102147-06 MP_Testimony_Hobert_Direct_Sched2_20148-102147-06-2 MP_Testimony_Hobert_Direct_Sched3_20148-102147-06 MP_Testimony_Hobert_Direct_Sched4_20148-102147-06-2

MP_Testimony_McMillan_Direct_20148-102147-03

MP_Testimony_Rudeck_Direct_20148-102147-07

MP_Testimony_Winter_Direct_20148-102147-09

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Hearings, Need, PUC Filings

And on MPR yesterday…

High-Voltage-Warning-Sign-S-2217Got a call from Dan Kraker at MPR up in Duluth yesterday, he’d found this blog, not surprising if you google “Great Northern Transmission Line,” because guess what pops up!??!  I wish I’d been clearer about this being just a small part of the MISO Northern Area Study Final Report larger plan (see map, p. 5):

MISORestoftheStory

Here’s the MPR piece:

Minnesota Power seeks permit for new power line; skeptics question need

Duluth-based Minnesota Power has filed permit applications with state and federal regulators to build a new transmission line from Canada to the Iron Range.

The Great Northern Transmission Line would carry at least 750 megawatts of electricity into the U.S. beginning in 2020. Minnesota Power plans to import 250 megawatts of hydropower generated from dams in northern Manitoba. The utility says it will help power new mining operations and continue its diversification away from coal.

But Carol Overland, an attorney who represents a group of landowners in northern Minnesota with concerns about the project, says it’s not needed.

“What it does is give you this gigantic line, to nowhere,” Overland said. “Why are we building this, what would be the cost to Minnesota ratepayers?”

The Minnesota Public Utilities commission is scheduled to decide on the project’s certificate of need and routing applications in 2015.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Media, PUC Filings, Uncategorized

MP’s routing application is filed

RoutePermitCoverYes, here it is, it’s been filed, and it’s massive, so it’ll take a while to download and post — apologies for not doing it yesterday, but it was tax day after all, something that for those of us self-employed folks is a royal pain, or should I say a royal payin’ perhaps!  So today, getting this application posted is the task.

To check it out, go to the PUC’s “Search eDockets” page, and go to the listings for Docket “14-21” — it’s easy, at the red link above, click there, and where it says “Docket Number” at the box that says “SELECT” put in “14” and then on the box to the right of that, put in “21” and hit “SEARCH” just above and it’ll appear on your screen.

OK, it’s tea time, and then I’ll download and then upload over a cup of Earl Grey — a BIG cup!

Here’s the scoop – about 1/3 of the filings are too large to upload, so I’m cutting and pasting from their site.  If you’re interested in this, download it, because those links could change, and in time, they could be “disappeared,” which I’ve seen often over the years.  So download, and if you’re wanting a hard copy or CD of the application, call them or email and request it!

The “Presidential Permit” is the one I’m most interested in, and I’ll look into how that works and put up a post on it soon.  They’re not all downloading, maybe they’re just putting it up now.  So, don’t be surprised if some of those links don’t work.  Here ya’ go:

Route Permit Application

Leave a Comment

Filed under PUC Filings, Routing Docket

Scoping Comments due Friday @ 4:30 p.m.

scope

No, not that kind of scoping, for scoping of the Environmental Report, or is it THIS Environmental Report… whichever, it’s this kind of scoping:

Scope involves getting information required to start a project, and the features the product would have that would meet its stakeholders requirements.

In this case, it’s Environmental Report, or Environmental Report, and not Environmental Impact Statement (that is an issue that should be raised, see below, and the rules pertaining to an EIS in a Certificate of Need proceeding), and they’re looking for what all specifically should be included in this “Environmental Report.”

RRANT Scoping Comment

There’s a “Draft” scoping decision that has the rough outline:

DRAFT ER Scoping document

What to submit for comments?  Well, it’s got to be specific!  They have general categories, and if you have something specific for consideration within these categories, send it in!  And if there is an environmental consideration NOT addressed here, send it in!

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

Send to bill.storm@state.mn.us

Some ideas:

  • Cumulative impacts must be addressed.  I’ve heard of an instance where someone was hit with a pipeline and a transmission line recently, and now Minnesota Power is proposing getting hit AGAIN for the GNTL!  “You’ll get used to it?”  Nooooo, that’s not within the realm of rational response or probable outcomes.  How are the impacts of multiple projects balanced with Minnesota’s policy of “non-proliferation,” where transmission is to be run on “pre-existing” corridors?  Where transmission is routed on greenfield, and then followed by other infrastructure, over and over and over… how is this taken into account?
  • The full range of potential electric and magnetic fields must be addressed, not just a minimal number that’s a small percentage of potential capacity (as is usually done by Commerce’s EIS/ER — NOT acceptable).
  • Alternatives will be analyzed — but what alternatives — alternatives to what?  This is a project “needed” to transmit a nominal amount of electricity under a PPA between Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro, and the rest is for export.  So given that “need” claim, what alternatives are there?  This is transmission for profit.  Is the search on for another revenue stream for them?  Are there alternatives to satisfy this “want” that pretends to be a need?  How will the state handle this?
  • Because of the magnitude of this line, so many miles long and such high capacity, an Environmental Impact Statement should be completed, not just this Environmental Report (p.s., there’s no provision under MEPA, 116D, for “Environmental Report” as an environmental document).

And if you’re interested in the Canadian “Independent Expert” report on environmental considerations, and remember, this is for the WHOLE Canadian project:

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Environmental Review, PUC Filings