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.

Moving forward!  On March 1, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its Notice of Complaint, that the Complaint of CETF and SOUL has been filed and opening up the matter for comments:

FERC Notice of Complaint - March 1, 2013

Comments are due on March 21, 2013, that’s NEXT WEEK!  Comments, protests and interventions should be filed using FERC’s eFiling system, HERE!  If you can’t figure that out, then FERC requires an original and 14 copies be sent to FERC, 888 1st Street, NE, Washington, DC  20426.  How’s that for motivation to figure out how to eFile!

For reference, here’s the Complaint:

FERC Complaint - CETF and SOUL

Be sure to put the docket number on your Comments, EL13-49-000.

Like wow, here it is in the Federal Register:

78 FR 14783

Xcel Energy has been spreading more than their share in their “acquisition” of land for their CapX 2020 transmission project.  They’ve been lowballing landowners, and worse, when landowners elect “Buy the Farm” under Minn. Stat. 216B.12, Subd. 4, Xcel Energy is claiming that they’re not entitled to “minimum compensation” and ” relocation” under Chapter 117 eminent domain laws, and in some cases they’re even saying that their “Buy the Farm” elections are not valid.

Corrective bills have been introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate:

HF 338

SF 183

Contact the House Energy Committee members and ask them to pass the bill out of committee — landowners need these changes to Buy the Farm NOW!  As members of the Energy Committee it’s their job to represent all of us in Minnesota, it’s their job to protect our Constitutional Rights to just compensation!

rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn, rep.will.morgan@house.mn, rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.susan.allen@house.mn, rep.joe.atkins@house.mn, rep.mike.beard@house.mn, rep.andrew.falk@house.mn, rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn, rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn, rep.tim.kelly@house.mn, rep.sandra.masin@house.mn, rep.duane.quam@house.mn, rep.peggy.scott@house.mn, rep.yvonne.selcer@house.mn, rep.barb.yarusso@house.mn, bob.eleff@house.mn

District Courts have been siding with landowners, and Xcel Energy has gone to the Appellate Court, which sided with Xcel, and so now it’s at the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Oral Arguments are scheduled for April 3, 2013.

Dairy Star — Schwartzes looking to relocate dairy

And in the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Farmers want power company buyouts

By Leslie Brooks Suzukamo
lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com

Posted:   02/12/2013 12:01:00 AM CST

Updated:   02/12/2013 10:19:18 PM CST

Julie and Dale Schwartz have a 100-cow dairy farm in Sibley County that has been in Dale’s family for three generations. It might not make it to the fourth, they say.

A group of 11 regional power utilities is laying one of the state’s newest high-voltage lines from Brookings, S.D., to Hampton, Minn., in a project called CapX2020. It runs down the driveway to the Schwartzes’ house and near their cows.

The Schwartzes fear stray voltage and the electromagnetic field from the power line will harm their cows and themselves, so they want the utilities to buy out a 160-acre section of their 575-acre farm so they can relocate themselves and their cows. Selling just the 150-foot right-of-way won’t satisfy them.

“They talk about a safe distance — we don’t have a safe distance,” Julie Schwartz told members of the Minnesota House Energy Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 12. “We work there and live there.”

So the couple invoked a little-used 1970s law dubbed “Buy the Farm” that allows farmers to force utilities to buy an entire farm if necessary to clear the way for high-voltage transmission projects.

The law grew out of ferocious power line battles in the early 1970s between utilities and farmers that required state troopers to intervene.

Now the power line battles are back. The Schwartzes were one of three farm operators who testified Tuesday that “Buy the Farm” needs to be strengthened.

Their attorneys charge CapX2020 leaders Twin Cities-based Xcel Energy and

Great River Energy are dragging their feet and refusing to follow the law in hopes of waiting out the farmers and making them take lesser offers. “People get to the point where they’re so tired, they just capitulate,” attorney Kirk Schnitker said. “They’re like, ‘Just pay me and get me on my way.’ And I think (the utilities) know that.”

Specifically, the farmers are backing a bill authored by Rep. David Bly, DFL-Northfield, that calls for the utilities to pay relocation costs and compensation to make the farmers whole again.

Minnesota law already provides for relocation and make-whole compensation for eminent domain takings in other cases, and it’s implied in the existing Buy the Farm law, Schnitker said.

Bly’s bill also calls for the utilities to file any challenge to a “Buy the Farm” claim within 60 days to prevent stalling, Schnitker said.

The utilities believe the changes are unnecessary and could add to the costs of the projects, said Great River Energy’s Dan Lesher, the route and land rights leader for CapX2020’s Brookings project.

The CapX2020 consortium expects to spend more than $2 billion on its five high-voltage projects across the state. The Brookings line will be put into operation in July 2015.

The utilities want the Legislature to wait until the Minnesota Supreme Court rules on a case that could decide whether the utilities should pay the relocation and compensation. A decision is expected in summer.

The utilities dispute that payments for relocation and compensation are part of the existing law and want the Supreme Court to clarify that. “There is a framework, but there is not a lot of definition — there is not a lot of meat behind that framework,” Lesher said.

The House committee took no action on the matter Tuesday.

In the TC Daily Planet:

‘Buy the Farm’ changes fair to farmers, or too expensive?