Upcoming routing schedule for GNTL

DSC01053

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.

THE COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015, FOR THE ALJ EVIDENTIARY TRACK OF THE ROUTING DOCKET.

PublicEvidentiaryHearingSchedule1PublicEvidentiaryHearingSchedule2PublicEvidentiaryHearingSchedule3

Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Hearings, Routing Docket

Greetings from Grand Rapids – DOE EIS Hearings

20150722_112810_resized

Live and in living color!  Today is the final day on the DOE’s road show for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement — more correctly, the public hearings, and yes, public HEARINGS, not public meetings.  And good treats too, excellent coffee, much needed.  Hearings today are right now, starting at 11 a.m., and this evening beginning at 6 p.m.  This is ONLY about environmental review.  The substantive routing hearing is coming up in a couple weeks (more on that later).

As usual, we’re in the intros.

Comments are due August 10, 2015.  Send to:

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

JulieA.Smith@hq.doe.gov

+++++++++++++++++

William Cole Storm, Environmental Review Manager
Energy Environmental Review and Analysis
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

bill.storm@state.mn.us

I’ve started on my comment, and I’ll post it here and send it via mailchimp at least a few days before comments are due, because it might be helpful to provide some ideas on what to comment about.  They don’t particularly care about arguments why not on a particular parcel of land, but they do care if there are things about the area, environmental impacts, that they haven’t considered, taken into account.  In this environmental review, the DOE is not taking “need” into account, which they should!  They’re also not addressing the breadth or depth of alternatives necessary under NEPA

What’s the DEIS?  Read it here, this is cut and paste from DOE site:

Table of Contents, Cover Sheet, Abstract, Summary (.PDF, 5.7 MB)

Summary (.PDF, 6.0 MB)

Chapter 1 – Regulatory Framework (PDF, 2.5 MB):Describes the regulatory framework associated with the proposed Project, including the purpose and need for agency action, major federal permits (including the U.S. DOE Presidential permit), federal consultation requirements, state permitting requirements (including the MN PUC Route Permit), other state and local permits, and a summary of agencies, tribes, and persons consulted.

Chapter 2 – Proposed Project (PDF, 2.8 MB): Describes the project as proposed by the Applicant including proposed routes, structures, objectives, route selection process, estimated costs, and proposed schedule. Chapter 2 also describes the Applicant’s engineering, design, and construction plans, land acquisition processes, and Applicant proposed measures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.

Chapter 3 – No Action Alternative (PDF, 1.2 MB): Describes the “No Action alternative,” in which the DOE would not issue a Presidential permit and the proposed Project would not be built. The analysis of the No Action alternative summarizes the impacts of not constructing the project and provides a baseline for analyzing and comparing potential environmental impacts from DOE’s proposed action and alternatives.

Chapter 4 – Route and Alignment Alternatives Proposed during Scoping (PDF, 19 MB): Describes the four border crossing alternatives, 22 route variations, and nine alignment modifications that were proposed by agencies and the public during scoping. Chapter 4 also summarizes the process used by DOE in coordination with the DOC-EERA to jointly determine which border crossings and routes to include in the scope of this EIS. Chapter 4 also describes how the selected routes, route variations, and alignments are analyzed by dividing the 220-mile long project area into the three major sections: the West Section, the Central Section, and the East Section.

Chapter 5 – Affected Environment and Potential Impacts (PDF, 32 MB): Describes the affected environment for the proposed Project, including descriptions of each resource, the region of influence (ROI) of the proposed Project on the resource, and impacts expected from the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of the proposed Project. Chapter 5.0 first describes the impacts of the proposed Project that are common to all geographic sections and do not vary by route or route variation. Chapter 5.0 then describes the resources that do vary by geographic section and for which impacts vary by route and route variation—the impacts and resources are carried forward for detailed analysis and comparison in Chapter 6.0.

Chapter 6 – Comparative Environmental Consequences (PDF, 65 MB): Presents detailed analysis and comparison of the potential human and environmental impacts of the proposed Project and alternative route variations, and describes mitigation measures by geographic section, route, and route variation.

Chapter 7 – Cumulative and Other Impacts (PDF, 4.8 MB): Describes reasonably foreseeable projects in the proposed Project area and assesses impacts of the proposed Project in the context of these reasonably foreseeable projects along with other past and present projects in the same area. Chapter 7 also describes unavoidable, irretrievable, and other impacts as required by federal and state regulations.

Chapter 8 – List of Preparers (PDF, 1.7 MB): Provides a list of the preparers of this EIS.

Chapter 9 – References (PDF, 1.8 MB): Provides references for resources used in development of this EIS.

Chapter 10 – Acronyms and Abbreviations (PDF, 1.7 MB): Lists of the acronyms and abbreviations used in this EIS.

Chapter 11 – Index (PDF, 1.4 MB): Provides an index of terms used in this EIS.

Appendices – Provides information to support the analysis in this EIS:

Here’s the state process for a routing decision:

20150722_114721_resized

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Environmental Review

Greetings from Roseau! Hearings today and tomorrow!

20150715_114622_resized

Greetings from Roseau, MN, on the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line road show!  It’s the public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and there’s another hearing today in Baudette at 6 p.m., and then tomorrow in Littlefork at 11 a.m. and International Falls at 6 p.m.

To see the DEIS, scroll down for links.

COMMENTS ARE DUE BY AUGUST 10, so there’s some time.  Send your comments to:

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

JulieA.Smith@hq.doe.gov

+++++++++++++++++

William Cole Storm, Environmental Review Manager
Energy Environmental Review and Analysis
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

bill.storm@state.mn.us

20150715_115642_resized

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Environmental Review

GNTL – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Heading up north for a time out… errrrrrr… GNTL Draft EIS hearings, yeah, that’s it!  Figured I’d best take a look at the DEIS, woke up with that on the brain.  One sick puppy, for sure.  Anyway, the Minnesota Power GNTL site doesn’t have the files right, so best to go here:

DOE Great Northern DEIS page

Here’s a cut and paste of all the docs — some are too big to upload here:

Table of Contents, Cover Sheet, Abstract, Summary (.PDF, 5.7 MB)

Summary (.PDF, 6.0 MB)

Chapter 1 – Regulatory Framework (PDF, 2.5 MB):Describes the regulatory framework associated with the proposed Project, including the purpose and need for agency action, major federal permits (including the U.S. DOE Presidential permit), federal consultation requirements, state permitting requirements (including the MN PUC Route Permit), other state and local permits, and a summary of agencies, tribes, and persons consulted.

Chapter 2 – Proposed Project (PDF, 2.8 MB): Describes the project as proposed by the Applicant including proposed routes, structures, objectives, route selection process, estimated costs, and proposed schedule. Chapter 2 also describes the Applicant’s engineering, design, and construction plans, land acquisition processes, and Applicant proposed measures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.

Chapter 3 – No Action Alternative (PDF, 1.2 MB): Describes the “No Action alternative,” in which the DOE would not issue a Presidential permit and the proposed Project would not be built. The analysis of the No Action alternative summarizes the impacts of not constructing the project and provides a baseline for analyzing and comparing potential environmental impacts from DOE’s proposed action and alternatives.

Chapter 4 – Route and Alignment Alternatives Proposed during Scoping (PDF, 19 MB): Describes the four border crossing alternatives, 22 route variations, and nine alignment modifications that were proposed by agencies and the public during scoping. Chapter 4 also summarizes the process used by DOE in coordination with the DOC-EERA to jointly determine which border crossings and routes to include in the scope of this EIS. Chapter 4 also describes how the selected routes, route variations, and alignments are analyzed by dividing the 220-mile long project area into the three major sections: the West Section, the Central Section, and the East Section.

Chapter 5 – Affected Environment and Potential Impacts (PDF, 32 MB): Describes the affected environment for the proposed Project, including descriptions of each resource, the region of influence (ROI) of the proposed Project on the resource, and impacts expected from the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of the proposed Project. Chapter 5.0 first describes the impacts of the proposed Project that are common to all geographic sections and do not vary by route or route variation. Chapter 5.0 then describes the resources that do vary by geographic section and for which impacts vary by route and route variation—the impacts and resources are carried forward for detailed analysis and comparison in Chapter 6.0.

Chapter 6 – Comparative Environmental Consequences (PDF, 65 MB): Presents detailed analysis and comparison of the potential human and environmental impacts of the proposed Project and alternative route variations, and describes mitigation measures by geographic section, route, and route variation.

Chapter 7 – Cumulative and Other Impacts (PDF, 4.8 MB): Describes reasonably foreseeable projects in the proposed Project area and assesses impacts of the proposed Project in the context of these reasonably foreseeable projects along with other past and present projects in the same area. Chapter 7 also describes unavoidable, irretrievable, and other impacts as required by federal and state regulations.

Chapter 8 – List of Preparers (PDF, 1.7 MB): Provides a list of the preparers of this EIS.

Chapter 9 – References (PDF, 1.8 MB): Provides references for resources used in development of this EIS.

Chapter 10 – Acronyms and Abbreviations (PDF, 1.7 MB): Lists of the acronyms and abbreviations used in this EIS.

Chapter 11 – Index (PDF, 1.4 MB): Provides an index of terms used in this EIS.

Appendices – Provides information to support the analysis in this EIS:

And this week and next are the hearings, HEARINGS, so be there or be square:

DEIS Public Hearings

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Environmental Review, Hearings

Coming up W & Th — DOE holds public hearings

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are due Monday, August 10, 2015.  

This week the DOE’s Public Hearings (and Commerce “Meetings”) begin on the DEIS for the Presidential Permit and route for the Great Northern Transmission Project.

Here’s the schedule:

DEIS Public Hearings

And here’s the DEIS that we’re supposed to read up on and comment about — from the DOE’s site:

Comments are due 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.

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

JulieA.Smith@hq.doe.gov

+++++++++++++++++

William Cole Storm, Environmental Review Manager
Energy Environmental Review and Analysis
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

bill.storm@state.mn.us

Leave a Comment

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

GNTL Final Order is posted for Certificate of Need

gavel

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission final Order Granting a Certificate of Need for the Great Northern Transmission Line has been posted and served… it’s OFFICIAL.  The clock for Motion for Reconsideration starts ticking, there’s 20 days to file a Motion.  July 20, 2015!

Order_20156-111920-01

The Order in writing usually seems different than what was talked about, mostly in the narrative to how they get to the bottom line, so let’s read!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, PUC Filings

YES! The DOE has announced HEARINGS!!!

EIS Maps

Some may think it a petty point, but there is a difference between hearings and meetings, and the DOE seems to get that.  Our Minnesota Department of Commerce isn’t concerned, but they are so wrong on this.

Here’s the DOE’s notice that the DEIS has been released, which includes notice of DOE HEARINGS.

EIS-0499-DEIS_DOE_NOA-2015

HEARINGS!

From KDAL:

Draft EIS released for Great Northern Transmission Line

From Duluth News Tribune:

Great Northern Power Line findings ready for review

Whew… now on to bigger battles…

HEARING SCHEDULE:

DEIS Hearings DOE

DEIS Hearings DOE2

Here are the routing options over Scenic Hwy. 7:

Corridor_ScenicHwy7

As an aside: Hydro’s man with the power stepping down

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Environmental Review, Hearings

DOE says it is holding HEARINGS, not meetings, on GNTL

Hot off the press, the DOE is holding DEIS HEARINGS for the Great Northern Transmission Line:

FINAL DOE Response Letter to Overland_June 23_2015_GNTL inquiry to DOE and MN DOC-1 (oops, didn’t post this one previously — and it’s the important one!!)

DOC with DOE_Letter – 20156-111735-01

The Minnesota Department of Commerce has taken to holding public “meetings” when there’s an opportunity to comment on a DEIS, but that’s NOT sufficient, and I’ve been raising that issue for years now, particularly in our rulemaking docket, Minn. R. Ch. 7850.  Here we have a joint EIS with the Minnesota Dept. of Commerce and the DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.

Here’s their joint initial filed notice, and notice the title:

Notice of DEIS Meetings FINAL DOC-DOE Approved (V-2)

With DOE involvement, I’d expected public hearings, and so filed a letter requesting public hearings.

Cover_DOE-Commerce_June 23, 2015

Seems the DOE is sensitive to the distinction between public MEETINGS and public HEARINGS!  Beyond that, I’m not real clear on what all this letter means, but I trust we’ll find out.

Thanks, DOE!

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Environmental Review

GNTL Draft Environmental Impact Statement released!!!

DSC01053

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: http://mn.gov/commerce/energyfacilities//resource.html?Id=34161

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
202-586-7668
JulieA.Smith@hq.doe.gov
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
bill.storm@state.mn.us

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

Toots about Minnesota Power on process

Scarlet Tanager

A little birdie let me know that … IT’S SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE!!!!

That’s SNL Financial, LLC

OH… nevermind…

nevermind

So, from SNL Financial, LLC:

Transmission line developer, DOE pilot more open siting strategy

Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:45 PM ET

By Esther Whieldon

The Department of Energy and the developer of the 500-kV Great Northern Transmission Line from Minnesota to Canada are piloting a potential new federal process for siting grid projects that they believe is key to preventing the kinds of delays that have plagued some other projects. Their plan: work out most of the kinks through stakeholder meetings and joint agency discussions before the developer files an application.

A pre-application process is not a new concept. Hydropower project and natural gas pipeline developers go through a pre-application process at FERC, for example. However, there is no formal pre-application process at the federal level for high-voltage transmission projects.

Large, multistate transmission lines, particularly those that require approvals from more than one federal agency, often take between five and 10 years to complete. Construction can take as little as two years, but getting all the necessary permits and approvals from the federal government, state regulators and local permitting authorities can take five years or more. President Barack Obama and the DOE have tried to accelerate these timelines but with minimal success.

The DOE in 2013 sought public input on whether a voluntary transmission project pre-application process would be useful. Electricity trade groups and some others gave the idea a thumbs down, arguing the process would be fraught with timing and redundancy issues that would deter developers from using it.

One developer, however, ALLETE Inc. subsidiary Minnesota Power Inc., has adopted the general concept of a pre-application process for its Great Northern Transmission line and officials from the utility and the DOE are now touting the effort as a success, thus far.

About two years before Minnesota Power filed applications for the project, the utility reached out to the department and other agencies and started holding public stakeholder meetings to narrow down the scope of its proposal and avoid areas that are likely to draw local opposition. The utility started with a study area covering about a quarter of Minnesota and, through consultation with stakeholders in more than 70 public meetings, narrowed the project route down to about 220 miles, said Minnesota Power senior attorney David Moeller. Also, the DOE in late 2012 arranged a multi-agency meeting with Minnesota Power on the project. It is “really kind of unheard of to have that type of engagement before we even filed a permit application,” Moeller said in an interview.

Early stakeholder engagement has become even more valuable following the advent of social media, which project opponents have wielded to coordinate their efforts. “People have a lot of different platforms to communicate their support or opposition,” said Amy Rutledge, spokeswoman for ALLETE.

“Traditionally you can draw a line and say that looks like a good area but, until you talk to people and agencies, you don’t know what’s happening on the ground and what the best opportunities and constraints are for developing large transmission projects,” Moeller said.

To avoid duplication, the DOE and the Minnesota Department of Commerce also agreed to prepare a joint environmental impact statement on the project, according to the energy department’s website for the project. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission uses the commerce department’s analysis in reviewing the project.

Projects of a size similar to the Great Northern line typically take about three to four years to get through the federal process, Moeller said. And while the total time Minnesota Power will have dedicated to the project is expected to fall within that range, the application process itself should take only about a year and a half, Moeller said.

The Minnesota PUC on May 14 approved a certificate of need for the Great Northern Project, which is expected to cost up to $710 million in 2013 dollars, according to a Minnesota Power press release. Hearings on Minnesota Power’s pending route permit application at the PUC are scheduled for July and August. Also pending is the DOE’s decision on a presidential permit for the project, which is required for projects that cross into another country.

The DOE and the White House have at least twice in the last year pointed to the Great Northern Project as the poster child for improving the transmission siting process. In its quadrennial energy review in April, the department noted it is piloting its idea for a pre-application process through the proposed Great Northern Transmission Line.

Among other things, the DOE initiated monthly meetings with other federal agencies, the project developer and other non-federal entities to “ensure early coordination,” the White House said in a May 2014 infrastructure siting fact sheet. For its part, Minnesota Power held more than 70 public meetings, according to Rutledge and Moeller.

“Through these early coordination meetings, the company was able to narrow down potential corridors to two routes in their application which address agency concerns and will facilitate a more efficient review process,” the White House said.

The DOE declined to comment.

About the Great Northern Transmission Line

The Great Northern Transmission Line is planned to span from the U.S.-Canada border to Minnesota Power’s Blackberry Substation near Grand Rapids, Minn. North of the U.S. border, provincial government-owned utility Manitoba Hydro plans to build its portion, called the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project, from a major converter station near Winnipeg to the border.

Initially, Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro will split ownership of the U.S. portion of the line, with Minnesota Power owning 51%. Manitoba Hydro will have sole ownership of the Canadian portion of the line. In addition to Minnesota Power buying hydropower from Manitoba Hydro, the two utilities have reached a deal under which Minnesota Power can use Manitoba Hydro’s system to store some excess wind energy.

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Presidential Permit