No CapX 2020

It died in conference committee, where it was in the House Environment and Ag Finance bill and not in Senate, and was removed utterly in the conference committee.  But surprise, thanks to Sen. Kevin Dahle it was amended into HF 854, the Energy Ominous (Omnibus) bill, and it passed, 49-16.

Here’s the language and the votes:

Senate Journal, p. 229-230, Sunday May 19, 2013

Then the next day, it passed in the House, 114-18:

House Journal, p. 6435, May 20, 2013

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HA!

Now Dayton has to sign it!

From Cedar Summit Farms:

MN Legislature Passes “Buy the Farm” Bill

This means so much to each and every one of the thousands of landowners affected by CapX 2020 and all the other big transmission projects coming down the pike.  THANK YOU!!!

Please send a note to Sen. Kevin Dahle (sen.kevin.dahle@senate.mn) and Rep. David Bly (rep.david.bly@house.mn) for all their hard work on this and for persistence over the long haul and fighting to the very end, making it happen!!!

And pay attention to who voted against it — utility toadies all — in the Senate:

And who voted against it in the House:

Hey - Hey, Ho - Ho, utility toadies got to GO!

Dog waiting for his owners to come (attribution)

Waiting for the decision of the Appellate Court.  It’s due soon… this month.  While that’s going on, Rochester Post Bulletin seems to have soy ink to spare to write about waiting.  Seems also Oronoco Township spent “a couple hundred thousand dollars” on “fighting the project.”

Below is what the Post Bulletin had to say, yes, it does go on, in search of hope that Oronoco will turn that decision around, and utterly ignoring the failure of the contractor, Barr Engineering, to get the “pre-existing corridor” characterization right, at BOTH dams where they had an interest, and then the Commerce employee in charge of this project, Matt Langan, resigned and went to work for Xcel Energy (on the other hand, the Xcel Energy employee in charge of this project (Tom Hillstrom) quit to work on light rail for the Met Council — does that make it even?  Noooooo!  Not even close.).

The PB has also taken a very narrow look at this and doesn’t know and/or omits basic facts.  From the sidebar:

Planning began in 2006 for the $2.2-billion CapX2020 project that will connect Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota to an improved energy grid by 2015, with South Dakota being added by 2017.

The route of the 345-kilovolt line from the Pine Island area to the Mississippi River has been one of the most controversial aspects of the project. Oronoco Township in Olmsted County has asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals to block the approved route across the township and send it back to the Public Utilities Commission for reconsideration.

About that first paragraph: Planning formally began in 2004, released in 2005 in the May 11, 2005 Capx 2020 Technical Update, in Kaul CapX letter - Sept 6 2005 - BSII, and October 2005 CapX Technical Update - Wisc PSC Docket 05-CE-136 entered by No CapX/CETF Item 5, but there are fingerprints in the WRAO Report from 1998 that gathered a the most amazing group of electrical engineers who put together a long laundry list of transmission lines, a transmission planner’s dream.  HELLO, it was APPLIED FOR in Minnesota in 2006 — search for PUC Docket 06-1115.

And that second paragraph: Have they not heard about the Minnesota River crossing on the Brookings line?  Or the Avon Township/St. John’s area on the Fargo line?  Wake up, it’s not all about the monied interests driving the Rochester Post Bulletin.

In this docket, they are ignoring the crossing of the Cannon River near Lake Byllesby, where the contractor, Barr Engineering, conveniently failed to disclose in the EIS that there was a massive transmission corridor along route 1P-003, the same area where that contractor had another contract to work on the Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan.  They’re completely ignoring the issues raised by Cannon Falls landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church.  And then there’s the route in Wisconsin, through Holmen, next to the school…  “One of the most controversial aspects of this project?”

Appellate Court Briefs of note:

Initial Brief - St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners

Reply Brief - Cannon Falls Landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church

Laymen for Christ o/o of Woodland Camp (only one - Laymen for Christ is Respondent)

There have been at least one thousand very concerned people across Minnesota who put thousands of hours of time into fighting this CapX 2020 project over the last 9 years.  TAKE OFF THE BLINDERS!

And “pitting neighbor against neighbor” started in this Hampton-La Crosse routing docket when Oronoco Township strongly and specifically stated that it was advocating a “stick it there” strategy and said that the transmission line should go on the North Route, was even quoted as saying so in the Rochester Post Bulletin.  After they threw down the gloves, just before the intervention deadline, the  North Route Group intervened and presented factual, credible testimony and exhibits what were not challenged.  The manner in which the township approached this was disturbing, with witnesses making gross misrepresentations, such as Smith testifying about the impacts on supposedly existing developments, such as Zumbro Sound:

Oronoco witness Smith testified that when he said "developed" he meant they were "completed, construction is completed, ready for occupancy." After plat maps of several subdivisions were entered into the record, and he was questioned about specifics of each subdivision plat map entered, and he then agreed, contrary to his prior testimony, that there were many vacant lots in the subdivisions. Ex. 86, Plat Maps of Landings at Sandy Pointe, Zumbo Haven, and Zumbro Sound.  Testimony of Smith, Tr. Vol. 2, p. 44-81. Smith testified that in Zumbro Sound subdivision, seven units were constructed, but agreed when questioned, that it was likely that only three homes had been built. Id. Broberg, when questioned about these subdivisions, also agreed there were many vacant lots. Testimony of Broberg, Tr. Vol. 2, p. 133-134. When questioned about the location of the subdivisions, Mr. Smith that the nearest one, Zumbro Haven, is about a quarter mile away from the proposed alignment, and Sandy Point, about one half mile away. Id., p. 82-84. None of these subdivisions is directly affected by the transmission line as proposed.  (See those citations -- really, I couldn't make this stuff up!!!)

And Oronoco witness Jeff Broberg, the guy who testified that Lake Zumbro is the only lake in Olmsted County, how credible can he be?  Well, here's his "Exhibit 7" representing the boat as pulling up to the landing, when in fact you can't get there from here, the boat landing at the White Bridge Road is closed and has been for years and has a big ol' overgrown sand bar in front of it (Barr Engineering had a contract regarding dredging of Lake Zumbro, they should know!):

If you look in the upper right corner over the bridge, you can see the distribution line that crosses White Bridge Road.  More importantly, here's what that boat landing really looks like, the rest of the story, the true picture, this is not new, it's been this way for years:

It'd be nice if the Post Bulletin would report the entire story, and not just that of the monied interest in this mess.

Back to the Post Bulletin:

'Nobody is a winner' in CapX routing dispute

Elizabeth Nida Obert / enida@postbulletin.com

Substation construction site, 1 mile north of Pine Island along Highway 52, west side of highway.

Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:30 am

Brett Boese, bboese@postbulletin.com

If Lake Zumbro area residents and stakeholders were divided into winners and losers with regard to current CapX 2020 power line plans, David Nelson and his Christian camp would be among the winners.

That said, he's not happy about it. The executive director at Camp Victory Ministries says it's "sad" that his camp was able to claim victory only by others having to deal with the power line route approved last year by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

"One of the things I can't stand about this thing, personally, is that it pits neighbor against neighbor," said Nelson. The camp hosts 1,200 kids each summer and up to 200 people on weekend retreats.

"Nobody is a winner when they have power lines running through their property. It pits Minnesotan against Minnesotan. I don't know that there's a way to avoid that, but it's disappointing."

(more...)

Yeah, I know… haven’t posted anything for a while.  But things are a happenin’ !!!

From the Echo Press in Alexandria, a Letter to the Editor:

Letter - Energy company’s actions are downright petty

To the editor:

As a retired dairy farmer, I remember the hard fought battles between family farmers and utility companies over high voltage power lines cutting across Minnesota in the 1970s.

One of the outcomes of this was the “Buy the Farm” law. Essentially, this law says that farmers and landowners have the right to require that companies purchase their entire farm if high voltage power lines are forced onto their property. The law was intended to require utilities to fully reimburse farmers and landowners for their land, relocation expenses and lost business.

When I heard that Xcel Energy and the other backers of CapX2020 are claiming that farmers are “voluntarily” relocating their farms and any reimbursements for moving expenses and lost business would be “extra compensation,” I can’t say I was surprised.

Farmers and landowners didn’t have a choice about the high voltage lines cutting across their land. It was forced upon them. The Buy the Farm law has been on the books for 35 years and Xcel Energy and the rest of them knew it.

But the energy conglomerate backing the project thinks that by using their considerable resources (Xcel Energy alone has 37 registered lobbyists in Minnesota) they can sidestep the law.

CapX2020 is estimated to cost $2.2 billion. With less than 100 landowners expected to file for relocation across the entire state, their attempt to short change farmers and landowners is downright petty.

The Minnesota House did the right thing by including in their Ag Omnibus Finance bill language that clarifies the original intent of the Buy the Farm law. That bill is in conference committee right now and the conferees from both the House and Senate should stand up for family farmers and make sure the Buy the Farm clarification is included in the final bill.

Alan Perish

Browerville, MN

Now, to be clear, this doesn’t go back all that far.  But I’ve been doing some research, omphaloskepsis perhaps, digging back aways into transmission, looking at where we are given the status of CapX 2020 transmission these days, and I’ve been finding details I’d forgotten about, explanations of how we got here with CapX 2020 transmission going up across the state.  There are gems here and there and some things posted before that bear repeating.

Here’s one, a presentation that House Energy Chair gave the “Hilty Jilty” and wouldn’t allow the Committee to hear.  Gee, I wonder why?

House Energy Jan 29 2007

I was asked not too long ago what should be done to fix this mess, a legislative fix, particularly since the passage of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell that gave Xcel and others everything they ever wanted (well, not quite, they always want more).  The most obvious is that the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell should be repealed (and don’t forget that this bill was brought to us as a deal, a package deal, and a good deal by our fiends at Izaak Walton League - Midwest, Fresh Energy, MCEA and North American Water Office, Bill Grant and George Crocker especially).  More specifically, “how to correct it” is much the same now as it was in 2007 (p. 24-27 of House Energy Jan 29 2007):

Simple, huh… particularly if we’re looking to reduce CO2 generation.

Here’s another blast from the past that bears repeating:

PUC Commissioner Reha: Enhancing the Nation’s Electricity Delivery System

One that strikes me as more than a bit odd (who wrote this?) is on p. 12:

Will federal policymakers and regulators force states in our region into a catch–22, compelling us to stand down public opposition to economic projects or default to federal backstop authority?

I realize that electricity is binary, but why is this framed this way?  Comments welcome as to the meaning of that sentence!

Good news from our friends the Minars, of Cedar Summit Farms — “Buy the Farm” is in the House Ag Omnibus Bill!

HUGE HOLLERS OF CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS TO REP. DAVID BLY FOR GETTING THE “BUY THE FARM” CHANGES INTO THE HOUSE ENVIRONMENT AND AG FINANCE OMNIBUS BILL!  Let him know you appreciate his effort: rep.david.bly@house.mn

Now, QUICK, get on the Senators on the Bill’s conference committee to do the same:

Senator David Tomassoni (DFL-Chisholm) 651-296-8017
sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn

Senator Tom Saxhaug (DFL-Grand Rapids) 651-296-4136
www.senate.mn/senatorsaxhaugemail

Senator Dan Sparks (DFL-Austin) 651-296-9248 sen.dan.sparks@senate.mn

Senator James Metzen (DFL-South St. Paul) 651-296-4370
sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn

Senator Torrey Westrom (R-Elbow Lake) 651-296-3826
sen.torrey.westrom@senate.mn

Here’s a proposed message from the Minars (and a few edits) for the Senators:

I’m calling about the Environment and Ag Omnibus Finance Bill. As a member of the conference committee, I urge you to include language that restores the original intent of the “Buy the Farm” law. This is about justice. Family farmers didn’t have a choice about the CapX 2020 high voltage lines cutting across their land — it was forced upon them. The provisions in section 52 of the House bill would require that a utility taking land from farmers and landowners as part of the CapX transmission project to fully and promptly reimburse them for their land, and pay relocation expenses and lost business. Please include these provisions in the final version of the bill. It’s time for corporations to pay their fair share to landowners carrying the burden of transmission lines.

And next contact the House Ag Omnibus conference committee members — urge them to fight to keep Section 52, “Buy the Farm,” in the Omnibus bill, HF 976:

Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL-Minneapolis) 651-296-4720
rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn

Rep. David Dill (DFL-Crane Lake) 651-296-2190 rep.david.dill@house.mn

Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) 651-296-6828
rep.rick.hansen@house.mn

Rep. Andrew Falk (DFL-Murdock) 651-296-4228 rep.andrew.falk@house.mn

Rep. Jeanne Poppe (DFL-Austin) 651-296-4193 rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn

OK, I’ve sent mine — it’s your turn!

How did this happen?  Somebody’s sleeping at the switch!  I forgot to post the link for the 2012 Earnings Call transcript from Seeking Alpha! And it’s a doozy.  You can find the FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE.

Northern States Power – Minnesota estimates a  decrease of demand in Minnesota of about 1.2% (-1.2%) in 2013:

Andrew M. Weisel - Macquarie Research

A few questions on behalf of Angie Storozynski. First question is you talked quite a bit qualitatively about the load growth expectations, but can you give us the number that you’re expecting for 2013 and in the long term?

Teresa S. Madden - Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President

Sure. I mean, in terms of 2013, maybe if I just talk about it by operating company. We’re — for NSP-Minnesota, we’re looking at a decrease of about 1.2%, NSP-Wisconsin expected to be flat. In Colorado, just under 1%, actually, that’s more about 0.6%. And in Colorado — I mean, excuse me, and in Texas, over — just around 3%, I would say. So overall, we expect it to come in between up to 0.5% on a consolidated basis.

XEL Earnings Call, January 31, 2013.

Benjamin G. S. Fowke – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

Well, everything — overall, on the residential side, it’s safe to say everything is pretty flat. So then you move to the C&I side, and actually, the strongest C&I growth was in Wisconsin this year, followed by Texas, I think, followed by Colorado, which had small growth. And then we were — we didn’t grow at all in Minnesota for a number of reasons. That said, the economy definitely saw some signs of improvement in 2012. Housing permits were up. Job growth was better than the national average. Unemployment was equal to or better than the national average. So I think the economies are in decent shape across all our jurisdictions. Doesn’t necessarily mean it translates to high sales growth. And that’s consistent with our forecast. I mean, we’re not anticipating that we’re going to see a tremendous rebound in sales, even as the economies start to improve. I mean, I think, that’s our new normal, frankly.

That’s also reflected in their SEC filing showing decreased peak demand, from 9,792 in 2011 to 9,475 in 2012, and a forecast of 9,215 for 2013:

Northern States Power 10-K (2012).  Those are numbers I like to see.

Meanwhile, for example, Xcel has produced “forecasting” for the Hollydale Transmission Project that shows another picture entirely — that’s because the Hollydale application is based on old and outdated forecasts from 2006, the peak demand prior to the 2007 economic crash, and bases its need claim on a forecast of 1% annual growth in peak demand:

Hollydale Application, p. 42-48; 50-57; see also 12, 14, 35, 38; see also Table 2 and Table 3, p. 48-49.  Xcel’s “Hollydale Need Addendum,” dated January 24, 2013, exacerbates this error claiming a 1.8% growth rate and using a 1.8% growth projection for its forecasts.  Michlig Direct, Schedule 2, Hollydale Need Addendum, p. 24.  For the full Hollydale docket, go HERE and search for CoN Docket 12-113 or Routing Docket 11-152.

Remember the 2.49% annual increase of peak demand that CapX 2020 is based on?  What would this “Percent Load Growth Over Time” chart look like with a -1.2% and no expected improvement for the foreseeable future?

Methinks they doth protest too much…

Second Answer of Respondent Utilities - EL13-49

To see the entire docket and all the filings go to FERC Library and search for docket EL13-49.

Yes, another FERC post, and apologies for taking so long about this.  Last Friday, CETF and SOUL filed a request at FERC to respond to the Answers of the Responding Utilities and the other usual suspects to our Complaint against MISO, MRO and Xcel, et al.  Here we go, in reverse chronological order:

CETF/SOUL Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer

Here’s the original Complaint:

FERC Complaint - CETF and SOUL

And for all the Answer and Comments and Interventions, go HERE!

Incoming! Answers & Comments on FERC Complaint

And now for today’s musical interlude:

Big CapX 2020 day today, what with oral arguments at the Appellate Court on Segment 1 and Segment 3 of the Minnesota routing docket, and LOTS of Answers and Comments due today on the FERC Complaint filed by CETF and SOUL regarding the CapX 2020 Hampton-La Crosse transmission project.

Here’s the Complaint:

FERC Complaint - CETF and SOUL

And here are the Answers and Comments, the despondent Respondents first and then everyone else!

MISO Answer to Complaint EL13-49-000

MRO Answer to FERC Complaint EL13-49-000

Respondent Utilities Answer to FERC Complaint EL13-49-000

PSC Wisconsin Motion to Intervene - FERC EL13-49-000

MISO Transmission Owners Motion to Intervene - FERC EL13-49-000

Rochester Public Utilities Motion to Intervene - FERC EL13-49-000

SMMPA Motion to Intervene - FERC EL13-49-000

Good reading on a cold spring night!  Fire up that printer and start running the tub!

Today in Senate Environment and Energy there are five bills up for consideration today, meeting resumes at 5:30 p.m.

TODAY’S SCHEDULE.

QUICK, let Senators on the Committee know what you think.  Here are links and emails to the Committee members:

John Marty: http://www.senate.mn/members/member_emailform.php?mem_id=1035&ls=

Chris Eaton http://www.senate.mn/members/member_emailform.php?mem_id=1192&ls=

sen.david.brown@senate.mn, sen.john.hoffman@senate.mn, sen.michelle.benson@senate.mn, sen.scott.dibble@senate.mn, sen.foung.hawj@senate.mn, sen.lyle.koenen@senate.mn, sen.david.osmek@senate.mn, sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn, sen.bev.scalze@senate.mn, sen.matt.schmit@senate.mn, sen.katie.sieben@senate.mn, sen.bill.weber@senate.mn, john.fuller@senate.mn

Clarifications of Buy the Farm are up today.  SF 183 and HF 338 need to get through Committee and on to the full Senate and House to protect landowners under siege through condemnations by Xcel Energy for CapX 2020 and other transmission lines. IMPORTANT AMENDMENT: High Voltage Transmission Lines, HVTLs, are defined in MN as 110kV and above and Buy the Farm should apply to all high voltage transmission lines, 100kV and above.

SF 716 (and HF 1205):  This one needs a simple change because the PUC has no jurisdiction to order a distribution level alternative, so under this law, it would then become an issue at the route permit stage, SO, address it at the route permit stage too:

1.14 section 216B.243. The certificate of need or route permit may be approved only if the commission finds
1.15 by clear and convincing evidence that there is no feasible and available distribution level
1.16 alternative to the transmission line.

SF 454 (and HF 438):  This one is for the Legislative Energy Commission to study 1) need for intervenor compensation; and 2) compensation of landowners adjacent to transmission lines.  On number 2), it’s stretching it to think that BTF or other compensation would be applicable to adjacent landowners — look at how hard directly affected landowners are having to fight for compensation… and I think this gets in the way of that fight and necessary legislative changes.  On 1), we don’t need a study on need for intervenor compensation, we have over a decade of testimony at the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing about this, the last two or three years with an administrative law judge and court reporter.  Transcripts are readily available, links at this post:

MUST ATTEND - PPSA Annual Hearing

SF 455 (and HF 655): This would prohibit designation of a “Preferred Route” and “Alternate Route” in an application and in the routing process.  I don’t see the point.  My understanding is that this is a response to complaints of those lulled into complacency by the “Alternate Route” designation in CapX 2020 proceedings.  I know well how hard it is to get people to get involved, having been to hundreds of meetings across the state urging people to stand up, show up, raise some hell, intervene and at the least file comments.  It’s particularly hard at the Certificate of Need level, before Routing even begins, because typically all people care about is “is it going across my land” and it’s hard to get people to spent the incredible amount of time and effort to be part of a transmission proceeding.  Even harder to get through on the importance of addressing the “need” or “routing” criteria with a big picture view and not “Not This Route” approach.  When it comes to routing, someone is going to get it, and to have an impact, you’ve got to dig into it, do the house counts, look for the dwarf trout lilies and turtles, map out the forests, do the surveillance.  It’s difficult — regular people end up doing the work that the state and their conslutants, and the applicants and their conslutants do, the burden of proof essentially shifts to regular people, the intervenors.  You can’t make anyone participate — I personally can testify that I tried and tried and tried to bring people into the process, to encourage participation, put on so many miles going to hearings from Fargo to the Metro, from Brookings to Hampton, and from Hampton to La Crosse, in the Certificate of Need, Routing, and RUS EIS proceedings, covering 700 miles of transmission lines several times over.  I posted and provided hard copies of Comment forms, attended meetings and hearings to explain the process and encourage participation, and even attended a couple of meetings WITH compensation to explain the process and encourage participation.  Those who did not participate knew well that this was going on, knew for years that this was an ongoing transmission need and routing process, and chose to sit it out thinking they were not affected (the implication being that it didn’t affect them, that it affected someone else, and which meant it was OK not to show up).  In energy policy, people need to look beyond themselves and their property boundaries to address the big picture policy issues of how we get our electricity, how much we want and need to use, and what price we are willing to pay.  Addressing these larger issues are a part of our responsibility as citizens of the planet.  So again, in short, I don’t see the point of this bill.

SF 674 (and HF 439): This has two components, first including impact of property values as a specific consideration in routing (rather than an implied consideration in “socioeconomic” issues).  NEEDED: specific direction that the impact of condemnation amounts should be considered in environmental review — currently it is not. The second part of this is application of “Buy the Farm” to adjacent landowners.  With the struggle directly affected landowners are up against, with Xcel challenging their election of Buy the Farm at every turn (this is at the MN Supreme Court, oral arguments are in April), this is over reach and isn’t realistic.