No CapX 2020

Two CapX 2020 transmission-related issues are before the PUC on July 8th, so do mark your calendars!

July 8 PUC Meeting Notice & Agenda

3rd and 8th on the agenda:

The following items will not be heard before 10:30 a.m.

3.     E-002/M-09-1048 Northern States Power Company d/b/a/ Xcel Energy
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, for Approval of a Modification to its TCR Tariff, 2010 Project Eligibility, TCR Rate Factors, Continuation of Deferred Accounting and 2009 True-up Report.

8.     E002, ET2/TL-09-246 Northern States Power Company (dba Xcel Energy); Great River Energy
In the Matter of the Application for a Route Permit for the Monticello to St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Line Project.

Should the Commission find that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the record adequately address the issues identified in the Scoping Decision?

Should the Commission issue a Route Permit identifying a route and permit conditions for the Monticello to St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Line? (PUC: DeBIeeckere; OES: Birkholz)

And here’s a powerpoint from January 2005 (it popped up in a Google Alert this morning):

CapX2005co_tf

The last point in this says it all:

… and yours truly too… though the names of NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN were not mentioned.  Probably because those two names say it all!

It’s always about economics, as is CapX:

ICF - MISO Benefits Analysis Study

This is about the capital costs of transmission.  Capital costs of transmission have heretofore (HUMPH!) been paid by those utilities constructing transmission, and then they recover reasonable and prudent expenditures in the rates.  Now they’re wanting to change the rules of the game, have to some extent already — Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) costs are now recoverable (Minn. Stat.216B.16, Subd. 7b).  They want to changes the rules even more, and I can see a few reasons.  First, there is no capital to be building huge infrastructure projects.  The CapX Certificate of Need record reflects that the promoters were looking to Lehman Bros. for money!  That got a snort in the hearing, not reflected in the record.  Second, utilities can recover CWIP, they’re public service corporations, but a transmission only company is not a public service corporation.  Sooooooo, if the CapX utility developers can recover their costs now as “utilities” and what happens when/if they transfer the “transmission assets” over to a transmission only company (which is also now allowed for the first time thanks to that 2005 transmission bill, see Minn. Stat.216B.16, Subd. 7c.)???  And then, the MISO tariff, which needs to be approved by FERC, and which then is probably going to be the subject of a challenge in Federal Court, all that is up in the air!  So, utility transmission promoters and developers don’t want to go beyond dipping their toe in the water, they aren’t about to put their own capital at risk!  It’s so much more fun to screw around with ours!

So, back to the St.PPP article.  The headline of today’s article bothers me because I’d say it’s not so much “sharing the cost of shipping wind energy” as “shifting costs away from transmission owners.”

1. It’s not sharing, it’s a cost shift. The idea is for someone, anyone, other than the project proponents to pay, for someone, anyone, other than those owning the infrastructure to pay.  As for CapX, we don’t even know who the ultimate owner will be, THEY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE;
2. It’s not “shipping,” it’s the construction capital costs at issue. Transmission service cost, “shipping,” is in the tariff, though not in the busbar cost, the cost focus of economic dispatch, and it should be, as should costs for reactive power and line losses, because power is cheap as long as you don’t consider the costs; and
3. It’s not wind, it’s electric generation connecting to the grid, be it wind, coal or whatever! Transmission service providers must be open to all, wind, coal, hydro, nuclear.

And that Marya White, Dept. of Commerce, it’s good a regulator recognizes that the East Coast does not want Midwest transmission (the don’t want it because it’s too costly, doesn’t address East Coast renewable energy development, AND that it’s for COAL!  See DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission), she’s missing an important aspect of why “a lot of eastern states are not crazy about that.”  There is that teensy matter of the FEDERAL COURT not liking it either, and given that they tossed out the PJM scheme to shift costs to the entire PJM region, MISO had best be very, very careful and not be shifting costs to those who do not benefit, that they very explicitly lay out why they are apportioning as they propose:

Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC - Aug 6, 2009

This cost shifting is “new.”  They’re trying to do it differently than it was in the days of gas plant proliferation.  Plants like Lakefield Jct. didn’t have any interconnection costs, and then when we got around to the SW MN 345kV line (often falsely called the 825MW wind line) we were at a deficit, and had to put in a lot of infrastructure before even 1MW of ANY generation could be put into the system.  INCLUDING THE LONG PROBLEMATIC FT. CALHOUN INTERFACE IN NEBRASKA!!!  Cost shifting isn’t anything new, but it must be recognized as such to get a handle on what the “problem” is and what will solve it — and more importantly, IF it is a problem that needs solving.

Here’s the article in the St. PPP:

MISO unveiling plans to share costs of shipping wind energy
Cost-sharing plan proposed, but industry advocates say it’s still too expensive

By Leslie Brooks Suzukamo
lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 06/20/2010 11:33:17 PM CDT

A yearlong, behind-the-scenes struggle among wind developers, utilities and transmission line owners is coming to a head Tuesday. At stake is Minnesota’s and the rest of the Upper Midwest’s aspirations to build a business of exporting wind energy to other parts of the country in the coming decades.

The fight centers on who pays for the construction of costly high-voltage transmission lines expected to carry electricity from isolated wind farms to the Twin Cities, Chicago and points east.

Wind energy advocates who have seen early drafts of the new rules say a plan to require energy generators to pay about 20 percent of the cost of new lines — whether they use wind, coal or any other fuel — is too heavy a burden for their industry.

If the 20 percent share goes through, wind industry advocates say projects may leave the region for other parts of the nation where the costs of new transmission is cheaper.

The defections would slow down efforts to turn the Upper Midwest into a wind energy powerhouse, they say.

Some of the nation’s strongest wind resources are locked in a corridor running from the Dakotas down to Texas, and tapping the excess wind resources can generate sales to eastern states with renewable energy needs but less wind resources. It might also persuade more turbine and blade manufacturers to build facilities here instead of shipping their products from overseas.

The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, the
Advertisement
Quantcast
group that controls the Midwest’s largest power grid, expects to lay out Tuesday a new way to share the costs of the lines throughout its 13-state territory, which stretches roughly from the Dakotas to Ohio and includes Manitoba, Canada. The plan will be unveiled at MISO headquarters in suburban Indianapolis.

Then MISO must submit its new cost-allocation idea to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on July 15.

MISO says it’s still considering reducing the 20 percent cost-share on the energy generators. MISO might even spread the entire cost of projects across utilities throughout its entire 13-state area, which would dilute the impact, said Jennifer Curran, executive director of transmission infrastructure strategy for MISO.

Curran said MISO is not responding to complaints solely from the wind industry. Different interest groups have weighed in with some degree of unhappiness, participants agree.

But it is regional wind developers who are threatening to pull proposed projects from the waiting line to get on MISO’s grid if MISO doesn’t make an adjustment, warned Wind on the Wires, a regional wind industry association based in St. Paul.

“They’re going to be voting with their dollars,” Wind on the Wires executive director Beth Soholt said.

“The big enchilada here is to develop much more (wind energy) than is needed here and ship it out,” she added.

MISO said it is trying to figure out an equitable way of paying for these new projects. Under the grid operator’s present rules, roughly 90 percent of the costs would have to be picked up by power generators such as the wind developers, while only 10 percent would be paid by the rest of MISO utilities in its 13-state territory that buy power, Curran said.

That tended to work when projects had strictly local impact, but these new projects tend to cross broad areas, which runs up the cost, observers said.

So MISO staff came up with a classification called the Multi-Value Project that would divide the cost of projects, with generators such as wind, coal and other plants paying roughly 20 percent of the cost and the remaining balance spread out among the utilities buying power in the 13-state MISO territory.

This 20/80 split flips the 90-10 formula, but wind developers say it’s still too expensive.

“Sure, it’s 20 percent, but we ask, 20 percent of what?” Soholt said. High-voltage transmission is so expensive that the 20 percent share adds up to more than wind developers can shoulder, she said.

A prime example could be the $700 million to $725 million Brookings Line proposed in the state’s three-line, $1.7 billion CapX 2020 project spearheaded by Xcel Energy and Great River Energy.

The Brookings Line extends from Brookings, S.D. to Hampton in Dakota County. It is the “poster child” for delivering renewable energy from the Dakotas and the Buffalo Ridge region in Minnesota’s southwest where many wind farms are already located, said Terry Grove, co-executive director for CapX 2020 and Great River Energy’s director of transmission.

There’s no guarantee the Brookings Line would qualify for MISO’s Multi-Value Project classification. But with its emphasis on carrying wind energy and increasing the reliability of the grid, it appears to be just the kind of multiple-purpose project for such a classification.

Great River Energy and Xcel Energy both support the concept of the Multi-Value Project for projects such as Brookings, but they are waiting for MISO to unveil its proposal before saying whether they support the new rules, officials from both utilities said.

State regulators are also watching.

While the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is taking a wait-and-see approach, another agency, the Minnesota Office of Energy Security, prefers that utilities benefiting the most from the transmission projects pay the greater share for them.

Since a large project such as a Brookings Line could open up renewable energy to eastern states, the burden could migrate into the Rust Belt, said Marya White, manager of energy regulation and planning and energy facilities permitting for the state’s Office of Energy Security.

But White acknowledges that “a lot of eastern states are not crazy about that.”

Charging only the utilities that benefit from transmission lines is the fairest way to divvy up their costs, even though that may make projects less attractive, said Rochester attorney Carol Overland, who represents two groups of landowners opposed to the Brookings Line.

Spreading the cost of a Brookings Line across the entire MISO territory hides the true costs, she said. “The entire grid isn’t going to benefit from it,” she said.

The Brookings project recently got approval from the Minnesota PUC to push back its start date from 2013 to 2015 because it is waiting to see if MISO’s proposal gets federal approval.

The American Wind Energy Association, the industry’s largest trade group, has no opinion on MISO’s ideas.

But the association endorsed a plan in the neighboring Southwest Power Pool that covers states such as Kansas, Mississippi and New Mexico.

That grid operator does spread out the cost of high-voltage transmission across its entire footprint, and FERC approved that plan last week.

Upper Midwest wind developers have already started to hedge their bets.

Jack Levi, co-founder and co-chairman of National Wind, a development company in Minneapolis, said his company has 2,200 megawatts waiting to connect to the grid in Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota.
i
But he stopped proposing wind projects in the MISO territory about 18 months ago and instead proposed them for states such as Colorado, Texas and Montana outside MISO.

He moved because if his MISO-bound projects cannot compete with wind energy from other grid operators, he’s afraid utilities will simply buy their wind power elsewhere, like Kansas, for example.

“If MISO doesn’t provide the same level of cost for its electricity as other system operators, MISO will be at a disadvantage,” he said.

Another little birdie told me that there were filings in both the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need docket (06-1115) and the Brookings routing case.   I’d checked yesterday about noon or so, go figure… and I’m not receiving notice of these filings electronically.  Are you?  The system has a problem.

Certificate of  Need(06-1115) - CapX 2020 has requested approval of delay of the in-service date for the Brookings-Hampton transmission line.  To access the entire docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, then “Search Documents” and then search for 06-1115.   We had a short hearing after Commerce asked for a variance and additional time for comments and responses.  The PUC agreed, and didn’t deal with other issues — here’s their notice:

Notice - Comment & Reply deadlines

Here’s the upshot:

The exciting news — US Fish & Wildlife Service has now filed additional comments in the Brookings routing docket.  To access the entire docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, then “Search Documents” and then search for08-1474.  These just were filed, though the letter is dated last Friday, and they’re pretty direct.  :

USFWS Letter to Great River Energy

And here are the main points (click on the link above if you want a better view):

Is Belle Plaine paying attention?

Oh, great, look at this, “THE MEETINGS HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE AT THE TIME THE EMAIL WAS SENT.” (EMPHASIS ADDED).  It’s in the Cannon Falls Beacon:

Township Concerns about CapX2020

Debbie Stark, township clerk, received an email about a task force that is being formed to study the routes of the CapX2020 powerline. The email was outdated and the meetings had already taken place at the time the email was sent. Because the power line runs through the township, Keith Smiley had asked the clerk to respond and ask that the township be allowed to send a representative. One township resident had called concerned that the route might run along the service road on Highway 52. The route of the power line would affect property values and limit what can be built under the power lines. The board will continue to follow the CapX2020 project as it continues.

… and on the Editorial page:

Filed to suspend CapX

To the editor:

There’s big news on the CapX2020 transmission project. NoCapX2020 and U-CAN have filed Motions to Suspend the Proceedings in both Brookings-Hampton and Hampton-Alma/LaCrosse transmission routing dockets. Why? Because last week, CapX 2020 and Xcel gave notice that the Brookings-Hampton line will be delayed by at least one year. It’s already delayed and the lights haven’t gone out! This proves CapX 2020 is not about electricity or reliability - it’s economically driven - there is no local load need, and without Big Stone II interconnecting, there’s no big generator to pay for it. We filed to suspend because if Brookings is delayed, the Hampton-Alma line should be too, they’re connected physically and electrically at Hampton.

CapX and Xcel’s admission of delay was timed carefully. In the next month, the Appellate Court is expected to rule on NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN’s challenge that the PUC should look at the evidence of sharply decreased peak demand, down over 15% since 2006. Also pending is the PUC’s decision whether to issue a route permit for Brookings.

Why did CapX file notice of delay? Supposedly because it will take time to establish methodology to recover costs of building the line, in limbo at the federal level. Plus last month at the state, the PUC denied Xcel’s cost recovery for construction work in progress on Brookings, $1.9 million of a $2 billion project. That’s chump change for Xcel. Xcel has asked the PUC for “clarification” and whether they should continue already slowed work, delay or cease work! Cease work? Yes, we’d appreciate that “clarification.”

If Xcel is delaying Brookings over just $1.9 million, 1% of CapX Phase I cost, why? What’s the real story? We’ll have updates at www.nocapx2020.info. It’s not over yet!

Carol A. Overland
Attorney for NoCapX 2020 and
United Citizen Action Network

Here we are, long after the CapX 2020 Brookings transmission routing docket has been closed, and what do we see as of yesterday? Piles and piles of paper filed by CapX Applicants.  The first one filed is odd pages only, so don’t be surprised. The rest of it, well, it seems pages are missing… we shall see.

To see them in the docket, go to:

• www.puc.state.mn.us
• and “Search Documents”
• and search for docket 08-1474

LOOK AT THE TOP DOCUMENTS, THOSE FILED 5/24/2010.

May 24 CapX filings - spreadsheet to help locate docs

I put this spreadsheet together so it’d be easier to figure out what all is here, because the mishmash of things is confusing.  The files are outrageously large, I don’t know what they’re doing, but it sure is effective — the docs are too big to email or post, and I’m going to have to break them all down.  That, I believe, is what they’re doing.  There’s just no excuse for pdfs to be that large.

THIS FILING IS A BIG DEAL.  We are in the pause between the ALJ’s Recommendation (a non-recommendation in this case) and the arguments before the PUC and the PUC’s decision. And NOW this info comes out?

There are nine huge pdf files.  I’ll start loading them here after I break them down.  But it may take a day or two, today is Kenya’s last day with us and she’s the priority and I’m in no frame of mind to deal with CapX today.

Please check out the spreadsheet and if there’s anything that interests you, go to the PUC site and look it up — directions are above. This is a lot of new information, a lot of important information, including, inexplicably, undergrounding estimates for the Mississippi River crossing for the Hampton to Alma/LaCrosse line and undergrounding through Lakeville, from the Lake Marion substation to near Farmington.  There’s undergrounding information for the Fargo line too.   And an undated “summary” of undergrounding issues.  Some of this is info from 2008, some recent.  And now it’s produced… Go figure.

Suffice it to say, there will be a response to this from NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN!  Stay tuned!

… and tonight…  Here we are in the midst of the CapX 2020 Hampton-Alma Commerce sponsored scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Statement.

For those of you not here right now, they’re looking for specifics on what should be in the EIS.  The Comment period is open until May 20th, and you can email or mail comments in.

Here’s my form, with criteria copied from the rules to trigger your brain when you’re writing your comments:

Comment Form

Where to send it?  The info’s on the form, and once more with feeling, directly copied from MOES:

The OES will accept written comments on the scope of the EIS until May 20, 2010.   Please include PUC Docket No. TL-09-1448 on your comments. Comments should be mailed, emailed, or faxed to:

Matthew Langan
State Permit Manager
Minnesota Office of Energy Security
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101-2198

Fax: 651-297-7891

matthew.langan@state.mn.us

Comments may also be submitted on the Commission’s energy facility permitting website:
http://www.energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us

FYI, I gave the wrong email for Matt Langan on my handout, SO, here’s the correct email, please notice, check, and send it to him (IT at the state will be checking, his DNR email was MATT but now that he’s moved to Commerce, he’s MATTHEW!

Right now, Mairi Doerr is speaking right now.  She’s asking about the wind projects, and structures, and that the lines could accommodate carrying tat generation, and so why wouldn’t you know of wind projects and paying attention to that potential?

A: Matt - Our office does evaluate this, individual wind projects, but they aren’t part of this project, the focus is on this transmission project.  Tom - Wind either builds substation or connects to substation, through MISO to manage which come on transmission system.  It’s very complicated, and there’s not one overarching agency that tracks that.   This wasn’t developed for any particular wind development.

Q: Are the 161kV lines going to be used for wind?

A: They weren’t developed for that, were to get it off of 345kV system into the City of Rochester.

Q: Bill Bether representing St. Paul’s Church and School, I know they moved the line for a Buddhist temple and they should move it for us too.  We have 55 students…  Also, there’s a helicopter landing pad right across the highway.

Q: Is it all or nothing or what are segment lines, alternate and preferred.

A: State rules require them to have a preferred and alternate, but once it gets into our review, there really is no “preferred” because we’re measuring each under the same criteria.

Q: Karen Bjorngaard - are there plans to relocate people in that 150 - 300 foot corridor, and if we’re in that corridor, how do we find out if we’re on the route?

A: Applicants submit a route, that’s 1,000 feet, and they need 150 foot right-of-way. 

(sorry - missed some here)

Q: Mairi Doerr again - why can’t you double up on the existing corridor?

A: We do when we can.

Q: Hall Kalass (?) - I’ve done surveying work, and when I’m under the Prairie Island line, the hair on my arms stands up — is that right?  Yes, study it in the EIS.

A: There are many studies and we’ll look at that.

Q: What type of buffer does Xcel look to for an easement.

A: 75 feet is the minimum, based on that safety clearance, electrical clearance.   75′ is a minimum, and there’s no requirement that it be further than that.  (long discussion of EMF)

End of discussion… too much silence…

Above - That’s the CapX 2020 Hampton to Alma line as proposed.

Today is the start of the CapX 2020 transmission project’s “Hampton-Alma” line scoping meetings.

What are “scoping meetings” for?  The purpose is to get comments from US THE PEOPLE about what all should be considered in the Environmental Impact Statement.  SO, to be on point here, you need to bring up specific issues to be considered, and ones that fall within the criteria the PUC will use for their decision, which does include just about everything.

May 4, 2010 - 1:30 & 6:30 p.m.
Plainview
American Legion
215 3rd Street SW

May 5, 2010 - 1:30 & 6:30 p.m.
Pine Island
American Legion
108 1st Avenue SE

May 6, 2010 - 1:30 & 6:30 p.m.
Cannon Falls
Grandpa’s Event Center

What are the criteria?  The specific factors considered from Minn. R. 7850.4100:

In determining whether to issue a permit for a large electric power generating plant or a high voltage transmission line, the commission shall consider the following:

A. effects on human settlement, including, but not limited to, displacement, noise, aesthetics, cultural values, recreation, and public services;

B. effects on public health and safety;

C. effects on land-based economies, including, but not limited to, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and mining;

D. effects on archaeological and historic resources;

E.  effects on the natural environment, including effects on air and water quality resources and flora and fauna;

F.  effects on rare and unique natural resources;

G.  application of design options that maximize energy efficiencies, mitigate adverse environmental effects, and could accommodate expansion of transmission or generating capacity;

H.  use or paralleling of existing rights-of-way, survey lines, natural division lines, and agricultural field boundaries;

I.  use of existing large electric power generating plant sites;

J.  use of existing transportation, pipeline, and electrical transmission systems or rights-of-way;

K.  electrical system reliability;

L.   csts of constructing, operating, and maintaining the facility which are dependent on design and route;

M.  adverse human and natural environmental effects which cannot be avoided; and

N.  irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

Attached is a comment form you can use, with the factors there to guide you:

Comment Form

Come on down to Plainview today, and then Pine Island and Cannon Falls!

UPDATE FROM SUZANNE ON THE CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCES FOR CAPX 2020 HAMPTON-ALAM(LaX):

THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED!  PUT YOUR APPLICATIONS IN RIGHT AWAY!!!

ALERT: Hampton-Alma (LaCrosse) Citizens Advisory Task Force!

NOW - Do I have your attention?

Today is the day that people are supposed to receive notice of whether they are selected to be on the Hampton-Alma (LaCrosse) Citizen Advisory Task Force.  However, supposedly due to lack of response, the deadline has been extended indefinitely.   SEND IN YOUR APPLICATION RIGHT AWAY!

Task Force meetings begin the week of the 27th.

General Advisory Task Force Solicitation with Candidate Form

NOTE THERE’S AN APPLICATION FORM in the link above.

If you haven’t sent in a Candidate Form, now’s the time, like RIGHT NOW.  Ask that members of the public be appointed, and ask for equal membership for both Task Forces, there is NO reason to limit the River Crossing Task Force to 10 members.

Here are a couple of problems with this Solicitation:

• 15 members for Hampton to Northern Hills, only 10 members for Northern Hills to Mississippi River
• NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, NO UNAFFILIATED PUBLIC ALLOWED
• Meetings will be held in the afternoon — who can do that?

So, again, this looks like an attempt to limit participation

And although the PUC has ordered the Task Forces, there is still no scheduled Prehearing Conference, at least not listed on the PUC docket site for this part of CapX 2020.

Sherburne, that triangle shaped county bordering the Mississippi River, and home of the Sherco coal plant, woke up recently to the CapX 2020 nightmare.

345kv line placement has county folk worried

By Gary W. Meyer, Editor

An alternative route for the line through northwest Sherburne County, once considered a remote possibility, seems to be more a favored option, given discussions before the county board of commissioners Tuesday.
Lynn Waytashek, assistant zoning administrator, was called before the board to update them on the issue.
Her news wasn’t the best.
Alternate D, that follows and existing line running through Haven, Clear Lake and Becker townships, somehow had become the least-costly route for Xcel. The chatter, although not confirmed by Xcel, was that it had become a primary route. Xcel officials recently reported the line would cost $60; cost reductions for the Sherburne County alternative route now had it set at $53-$54 million.
This is in spite of the fact the line would have to cross the river - first from the west into Haven Twp. and secondly - from Xcel property at Becker back across the river to the Monticello nuclear plant.
Waytashek told the Tribune following the meeting the draft environmental review statement (EIS) would continue to be reviewed by administrative law Judge Beverly Jones-Heydinger, who has conducted local hearings on the matter.
She has until late May to render a decision on a route for the line. Following that, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would be charged with a final decision, likely to come this summer.
Sherburne officials, though never invited to be part of the discussion process, finally became involved when Commissioner Felix Schmeising testified before a Clearwater area hearing in early March.
Argument of the locals was for Xcel to keep the line along I-94 through Stearns and Wright counties to Monticello, as it would travel adjacent to the freeway from Fargo to that point.
Four routes were set in early decision-making, with three of them along or adjacent to I-94 to Monticello.
Waytashek said her office has attempted to talk to Darrin Lahr, Xcel spokesman, but he was unavailable to provide further information for the commissioners.
The county officials will continue to seek a meeting with Lahr. Meanwhile, County Attorney Kathy Heaney was asked to study legal procedures which might be available to defend against a Sherburne County line siting.
The county does have the Minnesota DNR on its side in the issue; the DNR is opposed to any unnecessary crossing of the Mississippi River by the line, it was reported Tuesday at the meeting.
Reaction from Schmeising and Commissioner Ewald Petersen to the local-line news was not good.
“We need to get our local legislators in and cry ‘foul’,” said Schmeising. “This is absolutely absurd!
“Hopefully we have made enough of an effort.”
“There’s an odor coming from Denver (Xcel’s headquarters),” said Petersen. He questioned Xcel’s statements they do not have enough land on their Monticello plant site to handle all their issues.
More so, why would they expect a route that travels across the river twice and through Sherburne County cost less than their I-94 routes? he asked.
“This is either a huge folly - or a strategic masterful art,” said Schmeising.

There is no “Route D” in the Scoping Decision (see p. 8 for list of those alternative routes to be covered in the DEIS).  Hmmmmm…  maybe it had another name then?  From the DEIS, “Route D” is described as:

Route D follows the existing Osseo-Monticello-St Cloud 115kV line north out of the Monticello Substation for a distance of approximately 1.75 miles. It then follows a field line northwest for approximately 0.6 miles until it meets back up with the Osseo-Monticello-St Cloud 115kV line.  The route continues along the 115kV line for several miles until it reaches a GRE 115kV line in Haven Township. The route follows the GRE line west and southwest for a distance of approximately 0.7 miles. The route continues southwest until it reaches I-94. At I-94 the route proceeds to the northwest following I-94 until it reaches the ramp for MN-23. At the MN-23 ramp the route heads northeast and north until it reaches MN-23. The route then follows MN-23 to the proposed substation site.

df

This site with some (not all) of the CapX 2020 environmental documents and history popped up on Google Alert today, covering the 06-1115 docket:

Project: CapX2020 Phase I Transmission Projects Certificate of Need Environmental Review

This is not to say that it hasn’t been there a while (though Wayback turned up nothing) but it did pop up today, and it never has before.