Tag Archives: DOE

DEIS Comments due NOW!

MISORestoftheStory

Comments are due on the DEIS for the Great Northern Transmission Line TODAY!  If you send them to Julie Ann Smith at the DOE you can send them up until 11:59 tonight!  Get to it!

Send comments to Juliea.Smith@hq.doe.gov

Here’s what I fired off just now, what a struggle to get anything done — it’s all on the volunteer plan:

Legalectric_GNTL_DEISComment_8-10-2015

Here’s something that sticks in my craw — GNTL is MISO project 3831, and note that as such it’s a lot different than the Application for this project — it’s more than the 250, 383 or 833 megawatts, try 1732 MVA, and it goes a lot further than from Manitoba just down to the Blackberry substation near Grand Rapids (click for larger version) (pdf version here MTEP14 Appendices AB):

MISO

Leave a 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

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

Invitation to Consult on GNTL

DOE_Logo

Interesting letter arrived today:

GNTL_Invitation to Consult

It says that “DOE is contacting you because you submitted comment(s) related to cultural resources during the open NEPA public scoping period for the proposed GNTL project.”

RRANT Scoping Comment

???

So what does that mean? What’s involved?  Sending info to them?  Sending more Comments?  Attending meetings? A free trip to D.C?  A self-funded trip to International Falls in February?

“Consultation” is a term of art in federal permitting, and is required with all Indian tribes, of which there are several in the area of the project.  In this case, they also specify “the State Historic Preservation Officer” and “the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” and also “certain individuals and organizations…”

Here’s the  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)

Working with Section 106

Energy Development, Transmission and Historic Preservation

Are “historical resources” all that they’re concerned about, is there a special category for “cultural resources?”  Or are different people invited to consult on different categories?

And if this is something I want to do, and it is, I have to “include information about your demonstrated legal or economic relation to the undertaking” … (odd word, that)… ” or to properties potentially affected by the proposed GNTL project…”

UntitledGuess I’d better figure out what I said in those comments first!

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Presidential Permit

Comment Period open through Friday 8/15

clockringing

It’s not too late!!!  Get your scoping comments in by Friday!

For some specific ideas, see this post:

DOE Scoping Hearings last week

There’s a conflict in the dates set for comments on scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement.  MN Dept. of Commerce deadline for comments is August 15, this Friday.  The DOE Comments were due August 11, Monday, but at the meetings held a couple of weeks ago, they announced they’d also accept comments through August 15, Friday.

Here’s the Commerce Notice.

From that page:

Bill Storm
Environmental Review Manager
Dept. of Commerce
85 – 7th Place E., Suite 500
St. Paul, MN  55101
 
email to: bill.storm@state.mn.us

Web Site Comment Form: Minnesota Department of Commerce Website (Comments due by August 15)

And I recommend you also send anything you send to Commerce to the DOE:

Julie Ann Smith                                                                 
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585

via email: Juliea.Smith@hq.doe.gov

Here’s their DRAFT Scoping that they’re planning — do review it and comment on what’s missing, things you know that others wouldn’t know.

DRAFT Scoping for EIS 20147-101149-01

Once more with feeling: It’s not too late!!!  Get your scoping comments in by Friday!

Leave a Comment

Filed under DOE (Dept of Energy), Environmental Review

DOE Scoping Hearings last week

20140723_173610_resized

How can this be, it was “last week” already?  Anyway, yes, meetings were had, comments were made, and now we’ve got to put it all in writing and send to the federal Dept. of Energy to be tossed into the hopper for consideration of the scope of their Environmental Impact Statement.

Send your comments, by August 14 (changed to 15?) to:

Julie Ann Smith                                                                  
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
 
Via email: Juliea.Smith@hq.doe.gov

20140723_181740_resized

The things that I’m particularly concerned be addressed are:

  • Alternatives to WHAT?  This is a purely economic project, there’s a 250 MW Power Purchase Agreement and a contractual obligation, but that doesn’t translate into “need” for a mega-huge High Voltage Transmission Line.
  • Segmentation — this is part of a much larger project, and the full package must be considered.   Untitled
  • The full capacity of this project must be considered and a range of capacity for calculation of the potential EMF levels.  Thus is a tri-bundled 500 kV line.  For the NEPA review, look at the line specifications, configuration, and address a range of capacity from the claimed 750 MW to the emergency rating of the line, likely 5,000+ MVA.
  • Does this require an eagle take permit?  Consider potential for bird deaths, and the Migratory Bird Protection Act.
  • Address system alternatives, particularly options for electricity at the receiving ends (looks like Michigan any way you get there!).
  • Consider current corridors, and include map of all transmission lines in study area 69 kV and above.
  • Consider corridor and project fatigue, particularly how many corridors can a person stand!  Very important because in this area many have multiple corridors on their land, and many have had other projects hanging over their heads for years.
  • Consider impact on real estate values, and consider impacts such as loss of marketability, because the minute a project like this is noticed, the property is impossible to market.  Any opportunity to sell is lost when the potential project is disclosed, as it MUST be, to potential buyers.
  • Consider the range of affected parties.  It looks like notice is being provided to only those directly affected or directly adjacent, and not close residents and landowners, who should be getting notice.
  • The FEIS must be filed in the state’s record prior to the public hearing and evidentiary hearing.

Again, write up your comments and send, prominently noting the DOE Docket Number, PP-398 and DOE/EIS 0499, and Minnesota PUC Dockets 14-21 (Routing docket) or 12-1163 (Certificate of Need) and send to:

Julie Ann Smith                                                                  
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
 
Via email: Juliea.Smith@hq.doe.gov

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Not-so-Great Transmission in the news

In at least a couple of Forum newspapers:

Landowners riled up by Minnesota power line

Moving into the last leg of the planning process, Minnesota Power is hoping the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will approve the proposed route for its Great Northern Transmission Line, which would run from the northwest corner of the state near Roseau to Hermantown. The line would carry power generated by hydroelectric plants in Manitoba.

Wednesday’s meeting in Roseau, which drew a crowd of about 45, and others like it will allow the commission to gather public input about two proposed routes. The input will be taken into consideration when an environmental impact survey is released later this year, which ultimately determines which route Minnesota Power will have to pursue when it constructs the transmission line in 2017.

“It was helpful, but it appears they only say so much and it’s hard to get real answers,” said Rice, who attended the meeting.

As it stands, the proposed route would force Rice to sell 48 acres of farmland — farmland that has been in his family for four generations.

“There are lots of issues they don’t really think about,” he said. “I won’t be able to do any aerial application — to fly around (the 150-foot poles); they just aren’t going to do it.”

Uncertainty

While no specific design for the transmission line has been selected, the 750-megawatt line is expected to be fully operational by 2020 with a lifespan of nearly 120 years.

A 3,000-foot corridor will mark out where the line will run from Canada into the Iron Range, but the actual line can be constructed anywhere within the corridor, which has landowner Darin Heller concerned.

“I don’t know where it will actually go compared to where they say it would go along the road,” he said. “My concern is they will use that discretion to put it in the easiest route for them, not the least intrusive.”

Heller said about 90 percent of his property in Dieter Township falls within the corridor.

Despite his concerns, Minnesota Power said it has proposed the least intrusive route options based on more than 75 stakeholder meetings it has organized throughout the last two years.

“We want to make sure we are siting this line with the least possible disruption to people and the environment,” said Amy Rutledge, a spokeswoman for Minnesota Power. “It’s a very thoughtful, lengthy process.”

Airport impact

One of the latest concerns to arise is the line’s proximity to the Piney-Pinecreek Border Airport located along the U.S.-Canada border in Dieter Township.

The proposed power line would fall within the right-of-way for a planned 1,500-foot expansion of the north-south runway, and also hinder plans for a crosswind landing strip heading east-west. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, which owns the airport, is not currently working on the project but has it on file for the future.

Marlin Elton, chairman of the Piney-Pinecreek Airport Commission, is pressuring Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro to shift the entire power line route farther east to avoid the aviation complications.

“When you’re dealing with organizations like this, they are standing to make lots of money, but they are losing sight of what they are trampling over,” Elton said.

He said he is initiating conversation with the Federal Aviation Administration to see what more can be done to push for the route to be moved east toward Department of Natural Resources land — an area Elton, Heller and Rice said would be less intrusive because it is state land.

Like Rice, Elton also would have to forfeit about 48 acres of farmland he uses to grow certified seed grass to make way for the proposed transmission line.

“We’ve spent a lot of time and money to maintain certification status, and this is a step backwards,” he said. “Once (Minnesota Power) is approved by the environmentalists, eminent domain kicks in, and that’s a whole different ballgame.”

Area meetings

The U.S. Department of Energy is holding more public input meetings on the Great Northern Transmission Line at the following times:

Kelliher

Wednesday: 11 a.m. at Kelliher Public School, 345 Fourth St. N.W.

Bigfork

Wednesday: 6 p.m. at Bigfork School, 100 Huskie Boulevard.

Grand Rapids

Thursday: 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. at the Sawmill Inn, S. U.S. Highway 169, Grand Rapids, Minn.

More info: 1.usa.gov/1mX00NR.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Media