Badger Coulee application “complete”
This in, earlier today:
Here’s an article in the La Crosse Tribune:
But Danielson was encouraged by the number of questions regulators asked.
This in, earlier today:
Here’s an article in the La Crosse Tribune:
But Danielson was encouraged by the number of questions regulators asked.
Above, that’s the “it’s all connected” map showing how some of the MVP projects fit in with existing and permitted/under construction 345 kV projects.
The rebuttal testimony has been filed:
ITC:
Ashbacker_Rebuttal_20144-98750-04
Collins_Rebuttal_20144-98750-08
Grover_Rebuttal_20144-98750-10
MISO:
MCEA, et al., supporters of the project:
Commerce:
Last week the meetings were held on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the ITC Midwest MN/IA 345 kV transmission line. Here are some reports:
Power line could be close to Blue Earth
April 27, 2014
Faribault County Register,A large, new electrical transmission line could possibly be joining the neighborhood.
The route from Huntley south to the Iowa border will be along the western edge of Faribault County.
Faribault County commissioner John Roper echoed those comments.
And in the Lakefield Standard (part of it):
And from the Fairmont Sentinal Online:
Power line generates comments
April 23, 2014
Fairmont Sentinel,“If something were to fail with those lines, it would be catastrophic,” Mixer said.
Health concerns also were expressed by others in attendance.
There also were concerns about property values.
E-mail:
As we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.” This post is about the connections between what’s been proposed by ITC Midwest as the MN/IA 345 kV project, and its relation to other projects in the area and its place in the “package deal” Multi Value Project (MVP) Portfolio. Remember in looking at these maps that in the Midwest, power flows roughly from the NW to the SE.
Once more with feeling, here’s the project map in Minnesota:
This project above, is the Minnesota part of MISO’s “MVP 3” which is in Minnesota and Iowa, and which connects directly to MISO’s “MVP 4” in Iowa, heading east:
So now, let’s look at the bigger picture, of which there are several. First, the full MVP portfolio, 17 transmission projects in the Midwest:
This MVP Portfolio was modeled, studied, and sold as a “package deal.”
Now let’s take a look at how this all fits together, MVP 2, 3, 4, 5 and other recent 345 kV additions to the system, remember, “It’s all connected” in transmission:
MVP 1 in the NW corner of this map runs from the Big Stone coal plant to the Brookings substation.
MVP 2 is the CapX 2020 Brookings-Hampton transmission project. No CapX 2020 and CETF intervened in the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need docket (06-1115) and No CapX 2020 and U-CAN intervened in the Routing docket (08-1474).
MVP 3 is in part, this ITC Midwest MN/IA line, in pink on the map, divided roughly 50/50 between Minnesota and Iowa, and 50/50 between ITC Midwest and Mid American. MVP 3 surrounds the “3” in the map, above, like a tuning fork, with two forks running west to east, and then a connecting line running north/south.
MVP 4 runs eastward from MVP 3, and connects into existing 345 kV transmission, the blue dots.
MVP 5 is in part the Badger Coulee line, in blue on the map. Note the connecting blue dots between MVP 2’s Hampton substation through SE Minnesota to La Crosse, WI. As above, CapX 2020 and CETF intervened in the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need docket (06-1115), and No CapX was an intervenor in that routing docket, jointly with U-CAN and North Route Group. The other part of MVP 5 is the part connecting MVP 3 and MVP 4, via existing transmission, into MVP 5 and running towards Madison.
Here’s a map from the MVP report, where you can graphically (in the “WOW” “DUH!” sense) see that the point of all these projects, the package, is to move power from the cheaper areas to the higher priced areas, from where electricity sells for $30-50 to $70-200:
The “benefit” of being able to sell power for so much more than is currently possible is one hell of a benefit!
It’s connected by benefits — the “benefits” claimed are the benefits achieved if, and only if, all 17 MVP projects are operating. All the modeling was done with that assumption, that ALL of the 17 projects are operating.
Here’s the full MISO Business Case document, check it out:
And even more, the full MVP Report:
And while we’re talking about “benefits” it’s time to trot out that ICF Benefits report again:
More in a bit — up next is cost info — there’s additional MISO stuff I need to look up.
A version of the old “joke,” how do you know Peter Valberg, Ph.D., is lying? His lips are moving…
Xcel Energy is challenging Florence & Dave Minar and their Cedar Summit Farm’s election of Minnesota’s Buy the Farm law, which allows landowners facing utility condemnation to say, “You must buy us out.” This is the law in Minnesota, but Xcel Energy hasn’t gotten the message.
For some reason, they hired shill Peter Valberg, Ph.D., to testify — I don’t see anything in “Buy the Farm” that makes this relevant. Oh well…
So now, on to the “mistatements” when Valberg testified. There were a couple of things he said that were patently false (not direct quotes, but the essence of what he falsely claimed):
The grid is 60 Hz so there’s no danger from ionizing radiation.
The EMF doesn’t transfer because it’s low frequency.
The magnetic fields were calculated at the “thermal limit” and the maximum was 100 mG at the centerline, and then decreased going outward.
1) 60 Hz — The grid is 60 Hz so there’s no danger from ionizing radiation.:
Folks, it’s basic physics, in which Valberg has a Ph.D., and basic electrical engineering, that the frequencies on the grid are NOT limited to 60 Hz and in fact go lower and go far, far higher. Art Hughes, Ph.D. was doing research on impact of frequencies in the 1,000-1,500 Hz range when he died, in a pig barn, where he was doing the experiments. Frequencies on the grid go up to the levels where it’s ionizing radiation. HUH? Yes, corona is that high, it’s ultra violet range, and it’s simple to demonstrate, just take a look at how utilities check for damage to the lines:
EPE_2013111816011292Â The Ultraviolet Detection of Corona Discharge in Power Transmission Lines
Corona discharge is at that “ionizing” level, and if there is particulate matter nearby (and where isn’t there particulate matter nearby), that particulate matter picks up the ionization:
Link to abstracts of Henshaw’s corona & criteria pollutant articles
Here’s a chart of where corona shows up on the frequency spectrum:
Easy to read Wiki on “corona discharge”
Here are two very interesting patent applications about corona and UV from transmission lines:
US5986276 – APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ELIMINATING X-RAY HAZARDS FROM ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION
EP1691461A1 – ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM SUPPRESSING CORONA DISCHARGE FROM VIEWPOINT OF ENVIRONMENT
2) The EMF doesn’t transfer because it’s low frequency.
Ummmm… what does Valberg think line loss is? And corona and line loss is a significant problem for utilities. They use the corona detectors, as above, to find sources of major losses:
EPE_2013111816011292Â The Ultraviolet Detection of Corona Discharge in Power Transmission Lines
3) The magnetic fields were calculated at the “thermal limit” and the maximum was 100 mG at the centerline, and then decreased going outward.
And let’s take a look at the magnetic field levels as addressed in the CapX 2020 Brookings-Hampton routing docket, because the levels were certainly not calculated for the “thermal limit,” as Valberg testified yesterday, they were calculated for at most 1/3 of the thermal limit amperage:
From the Brookings-Hampton application, pages 3-20 to 3-22, and look at the amps (click chart for larger pdf):
Now, note the range of amps, 1005.9, 841, 826.7 are the highest I see, but look at the thermal limits, and folks, this is IN THE CAPX 2020 CERTIFICATE OF NEED RECORD:
In this Information Request response, they admit that the thermal limit for amps for this line is much greater than 1,000:
So building on these numbers, from the Affidavit of Bruce McKay above:
As Miss Helen Lee Murphy’s math teacher friend would agree, 390.71 mG and 304.92 mG are both above 100 mG.
Some other similar mG transmission posts — do you see a trend?
CapX Hampton – La Crosse – Affidavit – Bruce McKay
Hiawatha Project — McKay Affidavit and Exhibits – Final
Here is a chart from the Split Rock-Lakefield Jct. line with various conductor sizes with voltages, amps, and MVA:
Some past posts about Valberg:
The ongoing saga of the Fargo-St. Cloud transmission line
CapX info dump in the Fargo docket (another McKay Affidavit here)
Peter Valberg, stop it! It’s a matter of record, and you’re misrepresenting at best:
What’s so important about these ITC Midwest MN/IA line, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement meetings that the Center for Rural Affairs would send someone show up in Jackson, Minnesota, but rather than join the discussion, get paid to sit through this afternoon’s meeting like a bump on a log? Oh, that’s right, they get paid to do this, it’s part of the RE-AMP transmission promotion program. Really… ya should’a been there. It seems Lucas Nelsen, the Energy Policy Associate at Center for Rural Affairs was here in Jackson, sitting right next to Duane Ninneman of CURE! Duane, the company you keep, and I’d guess this is part of your “new duties” as RE-AMP’s Clean Energy Working Group leader for the next three years:
“My job as RE-AMP’s Clean Energy Working Group leader is to facilitate interaction between top-level clean energy thinkers to keep us on target to reach our global warming pollution reduction goals,†Ninneman stated.Â
No wonder it was so quiet back there — and hey, why’d y’all leave so quickly?
Lucas Nelson, Center for Rural Affairs, is the principal named as author on the “Energy From the Ground Up” report:
This report is a review of media coverage of transmission projects, looking at how to handle objections to transmission:
100 discrete media pieces, examining a total of 14 different transmission projects. Each piece was then analyzed and organized based on the clear concerns identified within. Those concerns were used to inform the common themes used in the review section, and to provide data that gives insight into the general views of stakeholders.Â
why are you focused on handling objections? Oh, that’s right, it’s part of the RE-AMP transmission promotion work. What projects were you interested in? “My” projects, and more:
Of these projects, I’ve worked on half of them — the only ones I’ve not worked on are the Reynolds-Topeka, Grain Belt Express, Rock Island Clean Line, Illinois Rivers, Plains and Eastern, Center-Grand Forks, and Gateway Power.
What conclusions did they draw? Center for Rural Affairs takes the position in this report, for example, ono p. 8, that “As transmission serves a public need, utilities and developers serve as agents of the government and can receive this power.“ NO!!! Much transmission does NOT serve a public need, and in particular, this ITC Midwest serves a PRIVATE desire, not need, the desire for profit.
And in the section on “need” there is utter disregard for the statutory criteria for need!
Ahhh, yes, we know what complaint they’re talking about now, don’t we (haven’t read the article, but I’m a bettin’ it’s us):
Booted out of FERC
The bottom line of this “report” is an exercise in figuring out how to best handle objections, get these projects through, circumvent the obstacles, or as Beth Soholt says, “remove the impediments,” (I say, speaking as a proud impediment!), inherently presuming that the projects should go through — and what should be disclosed in this “report,” and which is not, is full disclosure of the Center for Rural Affairs’ motivation for publishing this, i.e., did they get paid for this, and why would they take money to do this? If they’re agriculturally focused, shouldn’t they be furthering landowners’ interests, helping explain eminent domain and helping landowners protect themselves from egregious developer/utility eminent domain practices? I could go on and on, but you can see for yourself by reading this report that it’s a RE-AMP transmission promotion puff piece. Nothing more.
Center for Rural Affairs has also weighed in specifically on this ITC Midwest MN/IA transmission line:
Two-State Transmission Project Takes Important Regulatory Step
It’s unfortunate that they don’t contribute to this need or routing process, don’t help landowners, farmers, and agricultural interests. They’re the Center for Rural Affairs, but they’re not furthering their mission, and instead are working against it, and in favor of, and for, utilities and transmission developers. What’s their mission?
And then there’s this RE-AMP promotion of transmission and revenue generation – RE-AMP_Foundations_Master_Grant_List. How does that fit in to their mission?  Center for Rural Affairs‘ budget is over $5 MILLION annually. Do they “need” the money that badly? I think the term “Affairs” is off point, and a little baser word would be more apt… we know what y’all are and we have an idea of your price!
So yesterday, as I’m on the way into the meeting hall, a guy’s coming out, and I offer a flyer, and he holds his hands up, “No, I’m not part of this, I’m part of the burn!” … the BURN? Yup, seems they had scheduled a burn of a little swale/prairie behind the K of C Hall. Shortly thereafter, the fire trucks pull in, little torches are lit, and burn, baby, burn…
Today is the start of a three day series of transmission meetings, and we started with a good crowd here in Fairmont for this afternoon’s meeting.
Fairmont Area Residents Voice Opinions Over Proposed High Voltage Transmission Lines
It’s the ITC Midwest MN/IA line, from Lakefield Jct. to Huntley, then south to IA, and ultimately off to Madison…
I’ve got a handout, with a few things for people to consider, most importantly, WRITE UP SOME COMMENTS BY MAY 9!
The most important part of this whole proceeding is that this is NOT needed. It’s wanted, it’s desired, but that’s not need. Just because they want to build it and make money is not sufficient reason for them to take people’s land and charge Minnesotans even one dollar for this project! The DEIS quotes ITC’s need statements, and accepts them, using the ITC framing.
ITC is a transmission-only company. ITC wants to build transmission so it can profit from building it and from providing transmission service.
This afternoon, I’m mostly concerned about Section 4 of the DEIS, “Alternatives to the Proposed Project.” And as I commented, in looking at “Alternatives to the Proposed Project,” there’s really no alternative to their transmission for profit project, other than putting money directly in their pockets!!!
Some problems with the DEIS, omissions, clarifications, additions needed:
There were a lot of great comments, my favorite was Helen Lee (Lea?) Murphy who has a way with words, and noted we need an MLK or Nelson Mandela to challenge this line! She also had a reasonable request, asking for another week to send in comments.
Many people were concerned about the EMF, and recognize the dangers of transmission. It seems that the perception is that transmission lines are dangerous! GOOD! This is a pretty basic fact that has been hidden for way too long.
KEYC – Mankato News, Weather, Sports –
Speaking of which, here are the three documents I put into the record, pertaining to ultra violet related to transmission, associated with corona, and a byproduct of transmission, two patent applications and a study:
US5986276 – APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ELIMINATING X-RAY HAZARDS FROM ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION
EP1691461A1 – ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM SUPPRESSING CORONA DISCHARGE FROM VIEWPOINT OF
ENVIRONMENTEPE_2013111816011292Â The Ultraviolet Detection of Corona Discharge in Power Transmission Lines
There were a lot of people from Sherburn promoting the Modified Route A, particularly concerned about the church, and about the impact of the line if ot goes on the south side if I-90:
In the Fairmont Sentinal:
Power line generates comments
April 23, 2014
“If something were to fail with those lines, it would be catastrophic,” Mixer said.
Health concerns also were expressed by others in attendance.
There also were concerns about property values.
E-mail:
On to the next meeting…
This week we have three days of DEIS meetings, that’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the uninitiated. The schedule:
Fairmont Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Knights of Columbus Hall 920 East 10th Street Fairmont, MN 56031 Â Jackson Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. National Guard Armory 108 County Road 51 Jackson, MN 56143 Â Blue Earth Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Hamilton Hall 209 South Main Street Blue Earth, MN 56013
This project is important because, well, look at the red line in the map above that represents this project. It connects on the west to the Split Rock-Lakefield Jct. line from a decade ago, and then goes east, and drops down into Iowa, to become part of a web headed toward Chicago. The red and green on that map constitute MISO designated MVP3, and to the east, the orange and blue are MVP 4, and further to the east, 1/2 of which is Badger Coulee, is MVP 5. Important to note that there are 17 MVP projects, and all 17 must be built to offer the benefits touted, the modeling included all 17. Not only that, but cost apportionment also included costs to states beyond just the percentage of the one project under review, i.e., there are claims of benefits of MVP 3, but those benefits require MVP 4 and MVP 5, and in fact, ALL the 17 MVP projects. Costs to Minnesota ratepayers are “just” a portion of MVP 3, but there are also costs to Minnesota of MVP 4, MVP 5, and I think ALL of the 17 MVP projects. So the benefits that are reliant on all the 17 projects being built must be balanced against the costs attributable to Minnesota for all 17 projects! See, that wasn’t so hard, was it!
Here’s the DEIS from the Commerce ITC MN/IA DEIS page, it’s easier to cut and paste, though it’s a good idea to download because you never know when links will be changed or disappear:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Text
Appendices
It’s all about “Buy the Farm,” and Xcel Energy doesn’t want anyone to tell them they have to “Buy the Farm.“Â Xcel, it’s the law!
Xcel Energy is saying “NO” to many landowners’ legitimate election of “Buy the Farm” under Minn. Stt. 216E.12, Subd. 4, where a landowner can force a utility to buy out all of its interest and take the farm, rather than condemn just a small easement. In this case, they’re resisting Cedar Summit Farm’s efforts to get out from under the line. How dare they!
Cedar Summit is an organic dairy farm, in the Minar family for many years and now operated by Flo and Dave Minar. Throughout the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need and Route Permit process, they were there, very clearly telling Xcel that an organic dairy farm is no place for a transmission line. But here comes Xcel… Cedar Summit elected to make them buy out the farm so they could move out from under the line, no small thing when you’re talking an organic dairy, and one that’s been in the family forever, and Xcel objects. When Xcel Energy objects, then the landowners have to fight for their rights. And every time landowners have to fight, even up to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the landowners win, and Xcel Energy loses. Here’s a great example, a Minnesota Supreme Court case where they told Xcel Energy what they could do with their legal theories:
So why do landowners have to go into court, over and over and over and over. SHAME, Xcel!
The Minar’s anad Cedar Summit Farm are in court next week in Scott County, Wednesday through Friday (though that can always change).
Here’s the case info on the courts site — there are three trials scheduled, and it’s not possible to tell who all is involved in each of them, but the STrib reports that the Minars will indeed be in court next week:
Here’s the write-up in the STrib: