January 9, 2018 · 6:32 pm

January 17 – Canada will announce public hearings

Public participation, getting the lay of the land — it’s messy, it’s time consuming, and it’s where it’s at in transmission siting proceeding, it is the essential guts of transmission line siting.  Get ready for another round of meetings some time after January 17, 2018 up in Canada!

Last report was that Canada;s National Energy Board had suddenly decided that there was a need for a public hearing process that had somehow been left out of the mix! WHAT? More pubic process is always better, but a series of public hearings for this huge transmission project, both in length and capacity, isn’t too much to ask of Canada.  It’s expected!

Well, Manitoba Hydro is now agreeing to the public hearings… mighty nice of them.  Something tells me they had no choice.  It’s still up in the air how soon that will happen, but mark you calendars, because on January 17, Manitoba Hydor will make the announcement of the hearing dates and locations!

Published in CBC news:

Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota to go through public hearing process

Despite delay, Crown corporation hopes $453M line will be complete by 2020

Manitoba Hydro accepts a decision by the federal government to put a transmission line to the U.S. through the public hearing process, officials at the Crown corporation say.

The province-owned utility was told in December that Ottawa officials had accepted a National Energy Board recommendation that the $453-million Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project go through a certificate process, which means it will be subject to more public hearings.

Hydro had instead sought a process in which the energy board would do a technical assessment and issue a permit to build the 213-kilometre transmission line without more public hearings. Hydro officials said a public hearing process involving all stakeholders, including Indigenous groups, had already been done by the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission.

“We respect Ottawa’s decision to adopt the National Energy Board’s recommendation regarding a certificate process for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project,” said Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen.

The public hearing process and final decision to approve the line by Ottawa must be completed within 15 months, the energy board said.

Owen also said Hydro officials are happy the energy board has “expeditiously issued a directive regarding commencement of the federal proceedings” and committed to a Hydro request to try to avoid duplication of other measures that were completed by the province and the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission.

Last year, the Crown corporation expressed concern that the National Energy Board certificate process would delay the project, but Manitoba Hydro still hopes to complete the project by 2020, said Owen.

In late December, Hydro asked the NEB for a Jan. 17 advertising deadline to let people know when and where the hearings will take place. Those dates and places have yet to be made public.

And an earlier article:

$453M Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota could face delay after energy board recommendation

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Hearings, Meetings, Open Houses

November 6, 2017 · 10:41 am

Whoa, Manitoba Hydro line delayed!

$453M Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota could face delay after energy board recommendation

Really! And here’s the info straight from the National Energy Board’s “Manitoba-Minnesota” page:

31 October 2017: Recommendation to the Minister regarding Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project [Filing A87404]

Highlights

  • The recommendation to elevate the regulatory process to a certificate was made following careful analysis of recent Supreme Court rulings and the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission recommendation report for the project.
  • A certificate process will ensure that Indigenous considerations are fully taken into account as part of the Board’s assessment.
  • The process will provide greater regulatory certainty to Manitoba Hydro as it imposes a legislated time limit on the assessment.
  • Wherever possible, the NEB will seek to minimize duplication between the provincial and federal processes.
  • The NEB is committed to carrying out a regulatory assessment of the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project that is open, fair, timely and accessible.

Bottom line:

Therefore the Board is recommending to the Minister, pursuant to subsection 58.14 (1) of the NEB Act that the Project be designated by order of the Governor in Council under section 58.15 of the NEB Act as an IPL that is to be constructed and operated in accordance with a certificate issued under section 58.16.

There will be an Order, either following through on this recommendation, or denying it and proceeding. But this is an interesting twist, focused on First Nation rights.

Here’s where you can get more information from the Canadian side of the border:

National Energy Board – Manitoba-Minnesota transmission page

Here’s Canada’s Clean Environment Commission’s Manitoba-Minnesota transmission page

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Environmental Review, Hearings

June 11, 2017 · 3:06 pm

Line 3 DEIS Meetings NOW!

I’m putting this map of Enbridge’s “Line 3” proposal because it has way too much in common with the “Not-so-Great” Northern Transmission Line route.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been released, and there’s a limited time to comment on it.  Commerce says the DEIS available here:

Department’s Line 3 website

Here’s the meeting schedule, starting tomorrow (this site was down, my server disappeared it, and it just came back after three messages to them!!):

If you can’t make it to the hearing, send comments by July 10th.  From the Notice:

And don’t forget that there will be Public Hearings on both the Need for this project and the pipeline route (note that these dates and locations may change):

To keep up on this, check out the eDockets for filings.  To do that, go HERE, and plug in dockets 14-916 (for Certificate of Need) and 15-137 (for Routing).  When you get there, have the docket pulled up, subscribe by clicking on the docket column square under “subscribe” and it will bring you to a screen to sign up.

And FYI, here’s a process chart, I added to the PUC’s official process chart, because opportunities for people to participate were not on the chart!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Enbridge 3L pipeline

April 24, 2016 · 6:47 pm

ALLETE, GRE & MISO Joint Answer

FERClogo

ALLETE, Great River Energy and MISO have filed a response to the Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) and Residents and Ratepayers Against the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line (RRANT) comments filed earlier this month:

ALLETE GRE MISO_Reply to MRES and RRANT

Here are the previous filings in reverse chrono order:

Supplemental Protest_MRES_20160405-5187(31361348)

Comments_RRANT_ER16-1107_ER16-1108_ER16-1116

MP&GRE_JointAnswer2MRES_20160329-5071(31343963)-1

FERC_Notice_Extenstion_20160330-3021(31346379)

MRES_Intrervention&ExtensionRequest_20160324-5182(31336403)-1

Notice_CancellationServiceAgmt_MISO-ALLETE_20160308-5259(31297754)

(search FERC dockets ER16-1107; ER16-1108 and ER16-1116 for initial filings)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

April 5, 2016 · 11:11 pm

GNTL – FERC Docket and Comments

FERClogo

Looks like MP, GRE, and MISO are trying to shift things around through new “Zonal Agreements.  I learned about this scrolling through the junk box — those newsletters can be a great source of info, but getting to the wheat takes some wading.

So after learning about this docket, and getting the FERC_Notice_Extenstion_20160330-3021(31346379) filing, stating that the Comment period had been extended for interested parties, that TODAY was the deadline, I quick filed this on behalf of RRANT:

Comments_RRANT_ER16-1107_ER16-1108_ER16-1116

What’s this about?  MP, GRE and MISO have filed new “Zonal Agreements” which are:

  1. Coordinated Local Planning Agreement
  2. Joint Pricing Zone Revenue Allocation Agreement
  3. Revenue Credit Agreement for the Great Northern Transmission Line Project
  4. Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement

Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) objected, “protested” and filed a Motion to Intervene and I think they’ve got credible points, that these filings would/could have the impact of transferring GNTL costs to non-Minnesota Power ratepayers, despite this being a “participant funded” project.  Here’s their Motion:

MRES_Intrervention & Request for Extension_20160324-5182(31336403)

And to that, here’s their response:

MP & GRE_Joint Answer 2 MRES_20160329-5071(31343963)

To look at the proposed “Zonal Agreements” and everything filed in this docket, go HERE (FERC eLibrary) and scroll down to “Docket Number” and plug in “ER16-1116” (for cancellation docket) and “ER16-1107” and/or “ER16-1108” for the new agreements (BIG FILES).

What does all this mean?  I think they’re trying to circumvent the policies of FERC (and Minnesota PUC, too) regarding “participant funded” transmission projects, and/or trying to shift the costs of the Great Northern Transmission Project to other rate payers, beyond the “participants.”  Possible?  Yes.  Only time and SCRUTINY will tell if that’s the case.  As MRES notes, and of course MP and GRE objects to that characterization, these were negotiated “outside of Commission processes” and are inconsistent with MISO tariff and Commission precedent.  Let’s get it all out in the sun and give it a look-see!

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under FERC Filings

February 26, 2016 · 5:12 pm

Watch the GNTL Commission deliberation NOW!

BogLine

The Great Northern Transmission Routing Permit is now up at the Public Utilities Commission.

LISTEN HERE, NOW!

Just click on the link, and you’re there!  Live!

PUC STAFF BRIEFING PAPERS – AMENDED

New Commissioner Matt Schuerger does understand transmission, and has exposed their nonsense of this being a “reliability risk” issue.  Will they care?

Libschultz: It’s a continuum, not a precipice?

And MP is hiding their theory under “Trade Secret” evidence that was withdrawn from the record.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Meetings, MISO, Routing Docket

February 12, 2016 · 5:13 pm

Commission Meeting 2/25 — this is it!

High-Voltage-Warning-Sign-S-2217

Hot off the press — the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will deliberate, and most likely decide, on the route for Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line at its February 25, 2016 meeting:

Notice of Commission Meeting_20162-118248-01

Thursday, February 25, 2016, no earlier than 10:30 a.m.

Public Utilities Commission

Large Hearing Room, 3rd Floor

121 – 7th Place East, St. Paul, MN  55101

On the other hand, they might put the decision off until early March:

2-25-2016NoticeNotice issues — you may recall the notice issues raised at the public hearing — this is another one of those transmission dockets where additional routes were added and landowners on those new routes were not given notice:

Last Minute Notice to Landowners — NOT OK!

LATE NOTICE to Landowners, and Public Hearings Aug 12 & 13

From the ALJ’s Recommendation, the issues I’d raised — the lateness of the EIS was not made part of the Findings, the FEIS came out long after the Public Comment period closed, and even after the party briefs were due.  How could anyone comment on the adequacy of the FEIS?  Here’s the cut and paste from the ALJ’s report:

Overland1Overland2
The issues raised should have been stated here, and not dismissed via referral to the Order Denying RRANT’s Motion… The contortions and contradictions of Commerce’s ongoing “explanations” should be a matter of public record, because it started out bizarre at the hearing, and over the next couple of weeks got even stranger:

20158-113450-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL DOC-EERA LETTER 08/21/2015
20158-113402-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL OAH LETTER–CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. JENSEN 08/20/2015
20158-113405-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL OAH OTHER–CORRESPONDENCE 08/20/2015
20158-113397-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS AGAINST NOT-SO-GREAT-NORTHERN TRANSMISSION RRANT REPLY BRIEF–RRANT REPLY LETTER BRIEF TO DOC-EERA 08/19/2015
20158-113390-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL DOC-EERA BRIEF 08/19/2015

Oh, it’s my job to enter the Work Group report into the record?  Methinks that’s the job of Commerce, why didn’t Commerce enter it into the record?  Turns out it IS in the record:

201411-104621-06 PUBLIC 14-21 TL DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF WORKING GROUP MEETINGS 11/13/2014

The ALJ did look into these notice issues, and in the ALJ’s Findings, there was a lot more than “just” the notice issues I raised:

NoticeFindingsNotice97

And the footnotes to the ALJ’s findings about Notice referenced in the above snippets show that the Applicant has not met the statutory notice requirements:

Notice

fn2

And generally, a few points of interest:

  • The ALJ recommended the EffieVariation (East Section) including the East Bear Lake Variation;
  • The ALJ recommended the Trout Lake Alignment;
  • And the ALJ recommended addressing issues raised by Charlotte Neigh in the Findings of Fact:

216Neigh

217NeighAnd in the Recommendation:

25_NeighCharlotte Neigh’s complete Comments:

201511-115341-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL PUC PUBLIC COMMENT–PUBLIC COMMENT OUTSIDE OF OPEN COMMENT PERIOD 11/02/2015
20159-113725-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL PUC PUBLIC COMMENT 09/02/2015

Leave a Comment

Filed under PUC Filings, Routing Docket

January 5, 2016 · 8:38 pm

ALJ’s Recommendation is out!

gavel

The ALJ’s Recommend for a route for the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line is out:

ALJ Recommendation_20161-116959-01

Short story, the ALJ recommends the Effie alternative, and the Trout Lake alternative, and more to follow.

Leave a Comment

Filed under PUC Filings, Routing Docket

December 22, 2015 · 6:49 pm

Oxymoronic Manitoba Hydro!!

CanadaDry

RECEIVED!!!  Damaged in transit, one can blew up, and I’d guess caused much consternation and intrigue at the Post Office.  Package ripped up, stuck half in a bag, or half in the bag put in the bag by someone on overtime.

OH MY…  A BRIBE!!!  A CapX 2020 La Crosse hat, and now this!!!  In a plain brown wrapper, but we know where this came from (ginger pale ale next time?!?!) (and about that little retirement tico in Costa Rico?!?).  To be clear, it’s not Manitoba Hydro because that would indeed be contrary to Canada Dry!

Here’s a toast to Minnesota Power, and their attorney ERK too, and to another year of being a royal Pain In The Patoot to them.  We’re not done with the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line, and we’re not done with the Menahga Transmission Project yet (though on Menahga, we’re making progress, EH?).

p.s. I don’t know where I put my coal supply, it’s gonna be late this year…

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Presidential Permit, Routing Docket

December 20, 2015 · 6:58 pm

Federal Court says NO to appeal of a Presidential Permit

Presidential Permit_155 201611-126757-03Download

AC-SL-Projects-Map

No, it’s the Enbridge Line 67 Expansion and not the Great Northern Transmission Line, but it’s relevant because the court says that because it’s a Presidential Permit, based on an Executive Order, it’s not an agency action, and it cannot be appealed.  Really:

Line 67 ruling Dec 2015

Here’s the full lineup from the Great Northern Transmission Line site (they’ve done a good job of thorough posting of documents under the “Resources” tab – WHICH HAS DISAPPEARED!!):

Presidential Permit

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Presidential Permit