Got SOUL?

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 6, 2015 @ 2:01 pm

Why am I on this mailing list?

20150402_142722_resized_3

Let’s see… they got $75k from the PSC (PSC REF#: 212767, PSC REF#: 212769), $37,500 to CETF directly attributable to the IC Request I drafted…

CETF – SOUL $75,000 Intervenor Compensation Award

And look at the numbers presented above… oh my…

And about “soul” from the Wiki link:

Etymology

The Modern English word “soul“, derived from Old Englishsáwol, sáwel, was first attested to in the 8th-century poem Beowulf v. 2820 and in the Vespasian Psalter 77.50—it is cognate with other Germanic and Baltic terms for the same idea, including Gothicsaiwala, Old High Germansêula, sêla, Old Saxonsêola, Old Low Franconiansêla, sîla, Old Norsesála and Lithuaniansiela. Further etymology of the Germanic word is uncertain. A more recent suggestion[4] connects the word with a root for “binding”, Germanic *sailian (OE sēlian, OHG seilen), related to the notion of being “bound” in death, and the practice of ritually binding or restraining the corpse of the deceased in the grave to prevent their return as a ghost.

Yup, shoulda, woulda… that “practice of ritually binding or restraining the corpse of the deceased in the grave to prevent their return as a ghost” just might have been what was called for…

ITC Midwest – ALJ’s Recommendation due tomorrow!

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV,Uncategorized — posted by admin on September 7, 2014 @ 10:23 am

gavel

 

Monday, September 8, 2014, the ALJ’s Recommendation on the ITC Midwest MN/IA Transmission line is due — for the Certificate of Need and the Routing dockets.

To see the full docket, go to the PUC SEARCH PAGE and search for dockets 12-1053 (CoN) and 12-1337 (Routing).

Then, after the ALJ’s Recommendation is out, we’ve got until September 23rd (15 days) to file exceptions to the ALJ’s Recommendation.  I can’t copy the rule because the state’s site is down (for updating, I presume), so here’s a cut and paste of the explanation from a prior decision:

ExceptionsThis is important because it’s the opportunity for not just parties, but for “any party adversely affected” to address the specific parts of the ALJ’s Recommendation that are a problem.

No CapX 2020 will be filing Exceptions.

Questions?  Let me know!

 

 

 

CapX 2020 marching towards the Mississippi

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Uncategorized,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 2, 2014 @ 7:36 am

20140901_161831_resized2

Yesterday we went off for a picnic at Alma’s Buena Vista Park, with the beautiful “Buena Vista” overlook, a new picnic table right near the edge of the lookout, the buena vista over… well… over the new CapX 2020 line and the Alma John P. Madgett coal plant owned by Dairyland Power Cooperative.  CapX transmission has made it to the edge of the Mississippi, and no further.

20140901_162005_resized

What can I say… Little Sadie took one look, squatted, and promptly left her editorial and aesthetic opinion.

20140901_LittleSadie

20140901_175828_resized

Here’s the uncropped view:

20140901_162035_resized

And from the other way, looking towards Alma:

20140512_161913_1_resized

CapX 2020 contractor electrocuted

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on July 29, 2014 @ 6:27 am

We’ve had another tragedy on the construction of the CapX 2020 Brookings transmission line:

Worker electrocuted on CapX 2020 power line near Fairfax, MN

KMSP-TV

News reports from ITC MN/IA meetings

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 27, 2014 @ 9:26 am

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

Some residents of a housing development just north of Blue Earth received some shocking news last Thursday.

A large, new electrical transmission line could possibly be joining the neighborhood.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce held two information and listening sessions at Hamilton Hall in Blue Earth last Thursday to explain the project and gather any comments concerning it.

ITC Midwest is seeking a state permit to build a 73-mile long, 345 kilowatt electrical power line using 130 to 190 foot tall towers. The transmission line will start near Jackson, travel east to near Huntley, then turn south to the Iowa border.

The route from Huntley south to the Iowa border will be along the western edge of Faribault County.

There are multiple variations of the proposed route. One of those alternate routes brings the line very close to the Riverside Heights development just north of Interstate 90.

“That one alternate route would bring the line within 100 to 200 feet away from my home,” Riverside Heights homeowner Randy Anderson says. “And yet I was not notified about this meeting. I just heard about it two hours ago.”

Faribault County commissioner John Roper echoed those comments.

“I am very disappointed the county was not kept in the loop on all this,” Roper said. “And I think you needed to notify all of the landowners near the proposed routes, not just the ones where you need easements for right-of-way.”

A staff member of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Ray Kirsch, replied he thought a copy of the environmental impact statement (EIS) had been sent to the county planning and zoning office.

“We are holding these meetings to allow everyone to make comments about the project,” Kirsch says. “We were here last July to gather information and comments and those have become part of the draft EIS.”

Besides the two meetings in Blue Earth, there also were listening sessions held in Jackson and Fairmont.

“People have until Friday, May 9, at 4:30 p.m. to make comments to my office,” Kirsch says. “We will incorporate all the comments into the final EIS.”

Then on May 13 and 14, an administrative law judge will hold comment sessions in Blue Earth, Fairmont and Jackson. Anyone can attend those sessions with questions, concerns and comment, Kirsch says.

On Thursday, approximately 50 people attended the afternoon comment session and about a dozen were at the evening one. Ten people made comments for the record, including several other residents of Riverside Heights.

Those giving comments included Tim Steier, Jeff Moore, Al Roesler, Carol Moore and Morris Hanson, as well as several persons from out side the local area.

And in the Lakefield Standard (part of it):

Running a 345-kilovolt transmission line just north of Interstate 90 — or even along it in some places — would be better from an aesthetic and agricultural standpoint than a route farther north, but worse in that it could affect an area of historical importance.

That finding is included in the draft environmental impact statement prepared for the ITC Midwest 345kV Transmission Line Project by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. ITC Midwest is proposing to construct a 73-mile transmission line from Lakefield east to Huntley, between 15 and 20 miles of which will run across Jackson County.

ITC Midwest has proposed two primary route options through Jackson County, one running nearly straight east from Lakefield along County Road 14 and 820th Street, the other running along the south edge of Boot Lake, jumping north along County Road 19, heading east at the intersection of County Road 16 and stair-stepping its way up to County Road 22.

And from the Fairmont Sentinal Online:

Power line generates comments

April 23, 2014
Jenn Brookens – Staff Writer , Fairmont Sentinel

FAIRMONT – Two meetings held in Fairmont on Tuesday offered information from a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed ITC Midwest 345-kV transmission line project.

The proposed line would run from Lakefield Junction in Jackson County, through Martin County, into Faribault County and then go south into Kossuth County in Iowa. The line would stretch 75 miles through southern Minnesota.

An original plan had the line running south of Interstate 90 on the north end of Sherburn, something that had many Sherburn residents concerned. But a modified route puts the transmission line north of the interstate instead.

While many in Sherburn may breathe a tentative sigh of relief, the original route will not be completely off the table until fall, when the state Public Utilities Commission decides on the certificate of need and route permit. To help, an administrative law judge is called in to review the project and issue a decision.

“The commission is not bound by the judge’s decision, but it holds a lot of sway, since they are the ones that hire him,” said Ray Kirsch, environmental review manager with the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

The judge is present at public hearings, comment periods and contested case hearings. Public hearings for the project will be held May 13-14.

Comments also are being accepted from now until May 9. Several people in attendance Tuesday at the Knights of Columbus Hall spoke on the record, many of them Sherburn residents who voiced concerns about the original route plan that took the lines into town.

“Route A, as it was proposed, would run 120 feet from our church building,” said Ron Mixer, pastor at Sherburn Regional Worship Center. “If that route is selected, it would make our church building unusable.”

Mixer went on to explain that the building is all metal, and the lines would likely interfere with the building’s P.A. system, low-level radio frequency that helps the hard of hearing and the church’s video transmission. But those problems pale in comparison to the potential dangers the line would pose to those who attend the church, he argued.

“If something were to fail with those lines, it would be catastrophic,” Mixer said.

Health concerns also were expressed by others in attendance.

“We have great concerns about Route A,” said Martin County West Superintendent Allison Schmidt. “About 500 of the 700 students in my school district attend schools in Sherburn. While we appreciate the modified Route A, I believe there still is a concern for the health of those 500 students and staff members, so we would like that clarified.”

“It has been shown that high-voltage exposure is harmful for children and unborn children,” said Sarah Jagodzinske Rohman, a Martin County West school board member. “We hope you will look into protecting us as rate-payers, but more importantly as humans and our children, who are our future.”

There also were concerns about property values.

“A business that planned to build on some property just south of the interstate said he wouldn’t if that power line went through,” said Helen Murphy. “He said, ‘This line will kill Sherburn.'”

Verbal comments at the meeting were recorded for the report to the PUC, and other comments will be accepted until May 9 by mail, fax or e-mail to Kirsch. Comments can be left online at mn.gov/commerce/energyfacilities

Mailing address: Ray Kirsch, Environmental Review Manager, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-2198

Fax: (651) 539-0109

E-mail:

raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us

ITC Midwest’s MN/IA line – MVP project

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV,Nuts & Bolts,Uncategorized — posted by admin on @ 4:46 am

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:

Map from 20132-83982-01-1This 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:

ITC MVP Study 3

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:

MVP portfolio map

This MVP Portfolio was modeled, studied, and sold as a “package deal.”

MVP Portfolio Costs

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:

Map_2345

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:

LMPThe “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:

20110919 MVP Proposed Portfolio Business Case

And even more, the full MVP Report:

MVP Portfolio Analysis Full Report

And while we’re talking about “benefits” it’s time to trot out that ICF Benefits report again:

ICF – MISO Benefits Analysis Study

More in a bit — up next is cost info — there’s additional MISO stuff I need to look up.

 

Center for Rural Affairs is SILENT!

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 23, 2014 @ 3:10 pm

Center4RuralAffairs

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. 

No wonder it was so quiet back there — and hey, why’d y’all leave so quickly?

LucasNelson_CRA

Lucas Nelson, Center for Rural Affairs, is the principal named as author on the “Energy From the Ground Up” report:

Energy From the Ground Up

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. 

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:

Untitled

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.

Untitled2And in the section on “need” there is utter disregard for the statutory criteria for need!

 

Untitled3

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?

Establish strong rural communities, social and economic justice, environmental stewardship, and genuine opportunity for all while engaging people in decisions that affect the quality of their lives and the future of their communities.

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!

 

 

Burn, baby, burn…

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on @ 10:08 am

DSC02367

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…

DSC02377

DSC02379

CapX Hampton & Briggs Rd. substations today

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 11, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

They’re up and gleaming in the sun… beautiful new substations… NOT!

Hampton:

20140411_150009_resized

20140411_150213_resized

And Briggs Road in La Crosse, WI:

DSCN0155

CETF and SOUL file Petition to Reopen

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on January 9, 2014 @ 10:07 pm

CapXSubstation

CapX Substation – photo stolen from CapX 2020

Today Citizens Energy Task Force (CETF) and SOUL of Wisconsin filed a Petition to Reopen Based on New Information, followed by a Cover letter and three documents for the footnote links (fn 10, 12, & 22) weren’t working:

FILED_CETF-SOUL Request to Reopen

Jan 10 Cover Letter & fn 10 – MN PUC Order

Fn 12 – ICF’s Independent Assessment of MISO Operational Benefits, February 27, 2007 (my all-time favorite of studies)

Fn 22 – ATC’s Answer to Xcel, FERC Docket 12-28-000

Here are links to media coverage, will update as more are published:

Citizens groups ask PSC to reopen CapX 2020 decision

CAPX2020 opponents say electricity demand down

Business Briefs 01/10/14

SOUL and CETF Request the Reopening of the CAPX2020 Case

CAPX2020 Protests – Winona Radio Portal


previous page · next page


image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace