Waiting… waiting…

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on May 20, 2013 @ 12:03 pm

449px-dog_waiting_for_his_owners_to_come

Dog waiting for his owners to come (attribution)

Waiting for the decision of the Appellate Court.  It’s due soon… this month.  While that’s going on, Rochester Post Bulletin seems to have soy ink to spare to write about waiting.  Seems also Oronoco Township spent “a couple hundred thousand dollars” on “fighting the project.”

Below is what the Post Bulletin had to say, yes, it does go on, in search of hope that Oronoco will turn that decision around, and utterly ignoring the failure of the contractor, Barr Engineering, to get the “pre-existing corridor” characterization right, at BOTH dams where they had an interest, and then the Commerce employee in charge of this project, Matt Langan, resigned and went to work for Xcel Energy (on the other hand, the Xcel Energy employee in charge of this project (Tom Hillstrom) quit to work on light rail for the Met Council — does that make it even?  Noooooo!  Not even close.).

The PB has also taken a very narrow look at this and doesn’t know and/or omits basic facts.  From the sidebar:

Planning began in 2006 for the $2.2-billion CapX2020 project that will connect Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota to an improved energy grid by 2015, with South Dakota being added by 2017.

The route of the 345-kilovolt line from the Pine Island area to the Mississippi River has been one of the most controversial aspects of the project. Oronoco Township in Olmsted County has asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals to block the approved route across the township and send it back to the Public Utilities Commission for reconsideration.

About that first paragraph: Planning formally began in 2004, released in 2005 in the May 11, 2005 Capx 2020 Technical Update, in Kaul CapX letter – Sept 6 2005 – BSII, and October 2005 CapX Technical Update – Wisc PSC Docket 05-CE-136 entered by No CapX/CETF Item 5, but there are fingerprints in the WRAO Report from 1998 that gathered a the most amazing group of electrical engineers who put together a long laundry list of transmission lines, a transmission planner’s dream.  HELLO, it was APPLIED FOR in Minnesota in 2006 — search for PUC Docket 06-1115.

And that second paragraph: Have they not heard about the Minnesota River crossing on the Brookings line?  Or the Avon Township/St. John’s area on the Fargo line?  Wake up, it’s not all about the monied interests driving the Rochester Post Bulletin.

In this docket, they are ignoring the crossing of the Cannon River near Lake Byllesby, where the contractor, Barr Engineering, conveniently failed to disclose in the EIS that there was a massive transmission corridor along route 1P-003, the same area where that contractor had another contract to work on the Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan.  They’re completely ignoring the issues raised by Cannon Falls landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church.  And then there’s the route in Wisconsin, through Holmen, next to the school…  “One of the most controversial aspects of this project?”

Appellate Court Briefs of note:

Initial Brief – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners

Reply Brief – Cannon Falls Landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church

Laymen for Christ o/o of Woodland Camp (only one – Laymen for Christ is Respondent)

There have been at least one thousand very concerned people across Minnesota who put thousands of hours of time into fighting this CapX 2020 project over the last 9 years.  TAKE OFF THE BLINDERS!

And “pitting neighbor against neighbor” started in this Hampton-La Crosse routing docket when Oronoco Township strongly and specifically stated that it was advocating a “stick it there” strategy and said that the transmission line should go on the North Route, was even quoted as saying so in the Rochester Post Bulletin.  After they threw down the gloves, just before the intervention deadline, the  North Route Group intervened and presented factual, credible testimony and exhibits what were not challenged.  The manner in which the township approached this was disturbing, with witnesses making gross misrepresentations, such as Smith testifying about the impacts on supposedly existing developments, such as Zumbro Sound:

Oronoco witness Smith testified that when he said “developed” he meant they were “completed, construction is completed, ready for occupancy.” After plat maps of several subdivisions were entered into the record, and he was questioned about specifics of each subdivision plat map entered, and he then agreed, contrary to his prior testimony, that there were many vacant lots in the subdivisions. Ex. 86, Plat Maps of Landings at Sandy Pointe, Zumbo Haven, and Zumbro Sound.  Testimony of Smith, Tr. Vol. 2, p. 44-81. Smith testified that in Zumbro Sound subdivision, seven units were constructed, but agreed when questioned, that it was likely that only three homes had been built. Id. Broberg, when questioned about these subdivisions, also agreed there were many vacant lots. Testimony of Broberg, Tr. Vol. 2, p. 133-134. When questioned about the location of the subdivisions, Mr. Smith that the nearest one, Zumbro Haven, is about a quarter mile away from the proposed alignment, and Sandy Point, about one half mile away. Id., p. 82-84. None of these subdivisions is directly affected by the transmission line as proposed.  (See those citations — really, I couldn’t make this stuff up!!!)

And Oronoco witness Jeff Broberg, the guy who testified that Lake Zumbro is the only lake in Olmsted County, how credible can he be?  Well, here’s his “Exhibit 7” representing the boat as pulling up to the landing, when in fact you can’t get there from here, the boat landing at the White Bridge Road is closed and has been for years and has a big ol’ overgrown sand bar in front of it (Barr Engineering had a contract regarding dredging of Lake Zumbro, they should know!):

boat-landing

If you look in the upper right corner over the bridge, you can see the distribution line that crosses White Bridge Road.  More importantly, here’s what that boat landing really looks like, the rest of the story, the true picture, this is not new, it’s been this way for years:

dscf0475

It’d be nice if the Post Bulletin would report the entire story, and not just that of the monied interest in this mess.

auntbee

Back to the Post Bulletin:

‘Nobody is a winner’ in CapX routing dispute

Elizabeth Nida Obert / enida@postbulletin.com

Substation construction site, 1 mile north of Pine Island along Highway 52, west side of highway.

Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:30 am

Brett Boese, bboese@postbulletin.com

If Lake Zumbro area residents and stakeholders were divided into winners and losers with regard to current CapX 2020 power line plans, David Nelson and his Christian camp would be among the winners.

That said, he’s not happy about it. The executive director at Camp Victory Ministries says it’s “sad” that his camp was able to claim victory only by others having to deal with the power line route approved last year by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

“One of the things I can’t stand about this thing, personally, is that it pits neighbor against neighbor,” said Nelson. The camp hosts 1,200 kids each summer and up to 200 people on weekend retreats.

“Nobody is a winner when they have power lines running through their property. It pits Minnesotan against Minnesotan. I don’t know that there’s a way to avoid that, but it’s disappointing.”

(more…)

CETF/SOUL files Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 12, 2013 @ 10:44 am

ferclogo

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:

Incoming! Answers & Comments on FERC Complaint

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on March 21, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

ferclogoBig 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!

CapX in the news!

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on February 14, 2013 @ 7:20 am

We’re taking a quick trip while there’s a break in the action, had a Pollo Loco take-out picnic at the beach, weather could not have been better, 70s, clear blue sky.

Thanks to Suzanne and Charlotte for sending these snippets that didn’t even show up in a Google Alert.  First the one from Suzanne, a depressing video about the 161kV construction in the Rochester area.

CapX2020 construction underway – KTTC

And on the condemnation end of things:

A massive electrical transmission line project is prompting Minnesota farmers and homeowners to invoke the state’s “buy the farm” law in record numbers, hoping it will force utilities to buy them out so they can move away from the looming towers.

The consortium of 11 utilities behind the CapX2020 project says 79 landowners have demanded to be bought out. The landowners cite the law enacted in 1977 after violent protests erupted against another transmission project.

But some landowners said Tuesday that the 35-year-old law — the only one like it in the nation — isn’t working because utilities and courts have sharply restricted how it’s applied.

“We have experienced endless stalling tactics,” said Brad Lindberg, who raises cattle on 68 acres of land in Clearwater, Minn., that now features five transmission-line towers where once stood a row of trees.

Lindberg, whose buy-the-farm request has languished for two years, testified with other landowners before the state House Energy Policy Committee in support of a bill that would strengthen landowners’ rights at the expense of utilities’.

The CapX2020 project is a $2.2 billion upgrade to the regional electrical grid that adds nearly 800 miles of new transmission lines in four states, including a major segment along Interstate 94 from Monticello to Fargo that passes Lindberg’s property. Other segments span the state’s southern tier from Brookings, S.D., to La Crosse, Wis. A northern line has been completed from Bemidji to Grand Rapids.

Ordinarily, utilities acquire only a 150-foot-wide easement — a right to cross a property — to construct major power lines. But the 1977 law aimed to change that, requiring utilities to purchase an entire farm or residential property if an affected landowner demanded it. The law does not apply to commercial and industrial properties.

“Before the CapX process, the buy-the-farm statute rarely was used in Minnesota,” said Dan Lesher, who leads the right-of-way acquisition on part of the project for Great River Energy, a wholesale cooperative that is the state’s second-largest power supplier.

Two other property owners testified that it isn’t easy to pull up roots to avoid living next to CapX2020 transmission lines.

Dave Minar, whose grandfather started Cedar Summit Farm in New Prague, Minn., said he believes the organic, grass-fed dairy cow operation “can’t be sustainable beneath a high-power line” that’s planned through the property. Yet it’s just as hard to move, he said. It would take three years to certify new grassland as organic, he added.

Julie Schwartz, who with her husband Dale, own a dairy farm in Arlington, Minn., said they chose to sell their home, farm buildings and 160 acres to avoid living and raising their herd near the CapX line, but the process has taken months. She said a Wisconsin farmer told her his herd’s milk production dropped significantly after transmission lines were built across his property.

A big problem for the Schwartzes is that “there are not dairy farms for sale,” she said.

Their attorney, Rod Krass of Minneapolis, who represents 20 landowners affected by CapX2020, said that a 2012 state Appeals Court ruling bars landowners like the Schwartzes from collecting relocation and other expenses, which are allowed in other types of condemnation proceedings. The bill proposed by Rep. David Bly, DFL-Northfield, would undo that court decision, which also is on appeal.

A product of the 1970s

The law grew out of the mid-1970s unrest over a 176-mile power line through west-central Minnesota to a substation near Rockford, Minn. Protesters toppled 15 transmission towers amid bitter opposition and civil disobedience that drew national attention. The line did get built, delivering electricity from a North Dakota power plant.

Former state Sen. Gene Merriam, who sponsored the 1977 law, said in an interview that “it was the greatest degree of civil unrest I had ever seen in the state.” He said the restrictive interpretation of the buy-the-farm law by utilities and courts is not what he intended.

The CapX2020 project, while contentious, has not provoked violence. The utility group is led by Xcel Energy, Otter Tail Power Co. and Great River Energy, and the sponsors have been holding meetings with property owners for more than three years.

“We’ve sat in the same room and the same public forums and have debated each other,” said Tim Carlsgaard, a project spokesman who has handled many of the meetings. “It has always been civil and constructive.”

Carlsgaard denied that utilities have stalled farmers like Lindberg and the Schwartzes. He said their properties are to be purchased, though the final terms have not been worked out. He said the valuation on Lindberg’s property is complicated because the land is near a planned future Interstate 94 interchange and eventually could become a commercial site.

“There is frustration definitely,” Carlsgaard said. Once a buy-the-farm request is made, “it goes into this very long process.”

Utilities have accepted 46 of the 79 requests by CapX2020 landowners so far, he said. Many are for homes, rather than farms, he said. Additional requests may be made on the last segment in southeast Minnesota, on which property acquisition has just begun, he said.

Along the Monticello-Fargo transmission line, utilities agreed to buy 30 properties and opposed 15 requests, Carlsgaard said. Some cases landed in the courts, which have long overseen land condemnations.

So far, $5 million has been spent to purchase 18 properties on the Monticello-Fargo line, Carlsgaard said. That compares to an estimated $500,000 the utilities would have spent on easements, he said. Purchased properties are being resold, but utilities take a loss, he added.

Carlsgaard said utilities have taken no formal position on the bill, but would prefer to wait for a ruling later this year from the state Supreme Court on a disputed case. He said utilities are willing to discuss changing the law to improve the pace of property purchases.

HF 338 – Buy the Farm to House Energy Policy

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on February 5, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

The “Buy the Farm” bill of this session has been introduced in the House and referred to House Energy Policy Committee.

Please contact your legislators and each of the members of the House Energy Policy Committee ASAP!

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

Stay tuned for updates!

SF 183 going to Environment & Energy Committee

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on February 1, 2013 @ 9:14 am

Change of plans

SF 183, Buy the Farm, is going to Environment and Energy Committee… here is the list, PLEASE contact each member of the Environment and Energy Committee and tell them to pass SF 183 Buy the Farm amendments through!

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COMMITTEE

Two use a form only, and the rest use emails, all below:

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

It’s important to call/email them about this.  One person who called yesterday was told by staff, “Wow, you all sure are coming out of the woodwork on this!”  GOOD!  They ain’t seen nothin’ yet!  Keep at it!!!

DNR Hearings on Threatened and Endangered Species

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on January 28, 2013 @ 8:54 am

eagles-rwvisitorconventionbureauPhoto from Red Wing Visitor and Convention Bureau – for more, go HERE!

Beginning TOMORROW, the DNR is hosting a series of hearing on rulemaking to amend Rules Relating to Engangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species, Minn. R. 6134.0170, 6134.0200, 6134.0300, and 6134.0400.

DNR Rulemaking Notice

One by one, the rules at issue per the DNR:

Minn. R. 6134.0170 (DOES NOT EXIST?!?!)

Minn. R. 6134.0200

Minn. R. 6134.0300

Minn. R. 6134.0400

The hearings are beginning tomorrow evening in Rochester:

Yes, bald eagles are on this list, at issue in the CapX Brookings and LaCrosse transmission projects, as are loggerhead shrike and trumpeter swans, all at issue in the Goodhue Wind project.  It seems to me that Golden Eagles ought to be acknowledged and added, they’ve been sighted in the area as well, and no take permits are allowed by USFWS.

CLICK HERE for some comments they received recently.

Oral Arguments – March 21, 2013

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on January 24, 2013 @ 10:36 am

court-of-appeals

Just got the notice – the oral arguments for the appeals of the CapX 2020 Hampton – La Crosse transmission line are on March 21, 2013.

Notice of Oral Argument – set for March 21, 2013

The panel of judges is:

Judge Louise Dovre Bjorkman
Judge Francis J. Connolly
Judge Larry B. Stauber, Jr.

FINALLY, the Appellate Briefs are scanned

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on January 3, 2013 @ 7:29 pm

Here they are… finally — the appellate briefs for the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse transmission routing permit.  Yes, I scanned in the briefs.  Wasn’t easy, I had to get a new printer/scanner, very daring — something other than HP — the old one just wasn’t workable and if I kept trying, it would take a couple days to scan these, and instead, I’d probably toss it right out the window.

Starting with the Initial Briefs of Appellants:

Initial Brief – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners

Initial Brief – Oronoco Township

And the responses came in Wednesday:

Laymen for Christ – Response to Oronoco Township

PUC – Respondent Brief – addressing Cannon Falls and Oronoco

Xcel – Respondent Brief – addressing Cannon Falls and Oronoco

Soon, the Reply briefs… I’ll post those soon after they’re due!

epson-wf-3540

Rulemaking expanded to PUC CoN and Siting/Routing

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on December 13, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

There’s the ongoing rulemaking at Office of Administrative Hearings, and now there’s a notice from the Public Utilities Commission requesting comments.

‘Bout time — here we go, the preamble to rulemaking notice:

Comments Requested 201212-81506-01

At this point, there’s nothing to comment on, it’s a free form free-for-all about what needs to be changed and how in Minnesota Rules Chapters 7849 and 7850.  Ch. 7849 doesn’t exist now, but they’re going to move the Certificate of Need Notice Plan rules in 7829 to 7849.  But 7828.7849 is Certificate of Need and 7850 is Siting/Routing.  EH?

Here’s what they say:

Subject of Rules. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requests comments on possible amendments to two rule chapters governing large electric power plants and high-voltage transmission lines: Chapter 7849 and Chapter 7850. The Commission also intends to move the notice plan requirements for high-voltage transmission lines contained in Minn. R., part
7829.2550 into Chapter 7849. The Commission is considering rule amendments to streamline and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of both processes. The Commission aims to align the procedures of both rule chapters to the extent feasible, to clarify the structural framework of the processes, to resolve inherent timing conflicts, to maximize citizen participation, and to
incorporate new statutory criteria required for demonstrating that a project is needed.

Links to the rules they’re looking at:

Minn. R. 7829.2550  Notice Plan when seeking certification of high voltage transmission lines

Minn. R. Ch. 7850 (it’s LARGE)

Go figure…  Does this mean they’re looking at applying Notice Plan rules to both Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing?

Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. January 24, 2012.

Kate Kahlert, Staff Attorney
Public Utilities Commission
121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147

Telephone: 651-201-2239,
FAX: 651-297-7073

email kate.kahlert(a).state.mn.us

TTY users may call the Commission at 1-800-627-3529

Anyway, now we have yet another opportunity to propose specific changes, as I’ve done over the years at the PPSA in filing rulemaking Petitions:

Overland Rulemaking Petition – 2010

Goodhue Wind Truth Rulemaking Petition 2011


previous page · next page