Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on September 7, 2014 @ 11:12 am
Donate!!! Yes, you!!  See that “PayPal” button up to the right? Join the challenge to transmission that they don’t need and we don’t want! No CapX 2020 has Intervened in the ITC Midwest MN/IA Certificate of Need, a public interest intervention focused on showing up to weigh in on the big picture issues (Important note, No CapX 2020 is aiding public participation, but not taking a position on route.).
Oh yeah, it was a very weird meeting at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. The Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission was #41 (and #42 for closed session) on the agenda, but #1-40 were treated as a “consent agenda†and they rammed those through in maybe 5 minutes, maybe less (I couldn’t get online with laptop, phone, and fortunately, tablet worked)… I was late to the party! Just a couple of seconds late though…
Here’s the windup with the Applicants’ request and the comments filed on Tuesday:
In our Reply, Reply_Rescind-and-Rehearing_JJI, we noted that there was a PSC staff memorandum filed on June 29, 2021, a memo that was not made public, and lo and behold, it was filed, and reveals important information that for sure should have been in the docket prior to the PSC meeting yesterday:PSC-Memorandum_6-29-2021_414998Download
Let’s see, Applicants filed Motion 6/28 in court, and Commission joined in that Motion… and the following day, Applicants file request to rescind at the Commission… hmmmm… related? WELL, DOH! Important information for the public and intervenors not part of the court case to know? WELL, DOH!
As we say in transmission, “IT’S ALL CONNECTED!â€
How is this action before and by the Commission anything but an attempt to pull the jurisdictional rug out from under the Court? No CPCN, no jurisdiction, it’s moot. Please, prove me wrong!
The “notice†was provided on Tuesday. June 29, 2021 at 3:15 p.m., not even 36 hours before the meeting (note there’s a “CS memorandum of 6/29†where Commission staff offers background and suggestions that we don’t get to see):
How much more transmission can you possibly need? Oh, right, it’s not based on “need” anymore, and you’ve got your new “business plan” and make a lot more on capital expenditure ROI than selling electricity.
Need? Demand is down, down, down, not back to 2006 levels.
And those billions in CapX 2020 expenditures sure worked for you, rates are up, up, up!
May I live as long as Myer Shark and continue to be a pain in your corporate patoot! Have portable office, will travel… and I do so miss being on the road. Here we go!
This is just so nauseating though… as if there isn’t enough to do…
This is the final shot before the Commission at this PSC CPCN approval. The next possible step is Wisconsin’s Circuit Court, due 30 days after they (likely) reject this Petition. Other intervenors are planning on heading that way, ones with solid backing and resources.
Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on September 23, 2019 @ 6:12 pm
That’s the CapX 2020 345kV line crossing Minnesota’s Zumbro River at the White Bridge Road looking towards the “North Rochester” substation just north of Pine Island. Now they’re proposing yet ANOTHER 345kV line coming in from the west to “North Rochester.” It’s called the Wilmarth (Mankato, the garbage burner and gas plants there)-Faribault-North Rochester line, proposed for the “B” list (which typically moves up to the “A” list the following year) in the 2020 MTEP report.
Here’s the chart, sortable (very interesting by state and by “Geographic Location — meaning company), this line is on the bottom of the spreadsheet, highlighted in red, with no cost estimate:
Studied during the MN 44 exploratory analysis, this project adds a 345 kV line between Mankato and Rochester. The line will stop at a new 345 kV yard in Faribault to support the local 100 kV system.
Low voltages exist in the Owatonna and Faribault areas during P2 and P6 events. Load growth has brought the system to capacity. In addition to this, overloads due to future high wind scenarios occur throughout south central MN.
In the 2017 Biennial Electric Transmission Planning Report, the project was REJECTED as an “alternative” to the ongoing Wilmarth-Huntley 345kV line, but here it comes again?? From that Report:
This is absurd. It’s just like the WIREs-WRAO Report from 1998. The WRAO report rejected 20+ “alternatives” for the be-all and end-all of transmission, Alternative “3j,” the Arrowhead Transmission Project:
… and then slowly but surely they’ve been building each and every rejected “alternative” ever since. Here we go again, another transmission line that isn’t needed, but that will facilitate export.
We do NOT need another transmission line in southern Minnesota.
Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on August 19, 2019 @ 6:09 pm
First there was CapX 2020 transmission (following Arrowhead transmission, which was supposed to be the be-all and end-all of transmission)(and the SW MN 345kV line, precursor to CapX 2020. CapX transmission was based on a forecasted 2.49% increase in demand, which as we know, didn’t happen.
And there was the MISO 17 project MVP Portfolio:
Tomorrow, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission is making its decision regarding the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project, the southern part of MVP #5 above, and the LAST of the MVP projects to go through state administrative approval.
The schedule for IRP hearings was just released, it’s in October, so there’s time to make time for it:
We know Xcel Energy gets a “handsome” rate of return for transmission capital expenditures (hence “CapX transmission), so of course they want to build more.
How about shutting down some of those coal plants, and freeing up some capacity? How about siting solar on every rooftop, over every parking lot, putting the generation at load so we don’t need transmission? Oh, but wait, that makes too much sense, especially where a utility wants to keep control of the generation, and the expenditures, and rake in the dough.
Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on July 6, 2019 @ 9:24 am
I’ve been noticing that in the transmission applications for… at least a decade now… that they don’t provide the costs estimates as they did previously. For example, for the Arrowhead Project, there was a detailed estimate of everything down to the cost of the structures, the wires, salvage value of removed lines, land cost, etc., and now, it’s just one number, plus contingency (at a much higher percentage that earlier) and AFUDC. They say they use MISO cost numbers, but don’t provide that info.
Soooooo…. back to looking up info on claim that this Dodge County Wind 345kV is part of the “regional grid.”
Haven’t seen anything in this area since the utility pipedream of WRAO, most of which is already built.
See that red dotted line running east along I-90? Split Rock (S. Falls) to Lakefield Junction was the 01-1958 “SW 345kV lines” way back when.
It’s my belief that ITC’s MVP lines 3 and 4 connecting from Lakefield Jct., and heading into the northern part of Iowa was the rest of the “I-90” line, but perhaps not? Time will tell… as will the MTEP!