Comments sent on Q-1D South rebuild!

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Laws & Rules,News coverage,Nuts & Bolts,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 25, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

mailbox

SENT!  On behalf of No CapX 2020 I sent the following Comments:

No CapX 2020_Q-1D South_Comment_9-25-2015

I’ve asked how many times for more information, nada, still nothing.  N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

Of particular note is this handy-dandy chart that Bruce McKay had put together for the Brookings docket, and I plugged in the voltage, amps, MVA and here’s what we get for magnetic fields for various options of this 795 ACSS 161 kV transmission line — CLICK FOR A BIGGER VERSION, this is all that will fit in this format:

Q-1 161 kV 795 ACSS_ Calculated Magnetic Field

OK, Dairyland, USDA RUS — let’s see your calculations, let’s have disclosure of the peak and normal amps, the MVA, everything.  Show me this is wrong!  Note at what point mG levels drop to a 2-4 mG “safe” range.

For those of you who haven’t yet asked for an extension of time to comment, or who haven’t yet sent in comments, there’s still time, until 11:59 p.m. Sunday!

Send Comments, via email to BOTH:

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com  (608) 787-1432.
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov    (202) 720-1953

And who knows — with all the requests coming in, maybe they’ll extend the Comment period!!

Let us know, Chuck!

Book_Borchwriting

PR shill hits it out of the park!

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,News coverage — posted by admin on September 24, 2015 @ 4:43 pm

PB_ForumRochester Post Bulletin’s CapX 2020 Forum — 11/7/2010

Oh, Tim Carlsbad really did it today!  SNORT!!!  He’s doing a great job, though I do think he’s really needed back in sex trafficking at the UN.

This was a long, long, day, and here it is, I’ve arrived… I’ve reached the pinnacle of my illustrious legal career, well, second to the Senator Steve Murphy letter to a certain Minnesota Mayor… and… well… it’s certainly up there with the infamous Michael Murphy complaint to the Goodhue County Sheriff!

What the heck am I snorting about?

It’s the Carol Overland question!  But it’s not a question.  We all know it’s a statement,because CapX 2020 is transmission they don’t need and we don’t want!

Here ’tis, but be sure to swallow your coffee, tea, or even beer, first [with some comments, like this!] — wonder why they blocked me from making comments — guess I’ll have to do it here with No CapX 2020:

Answer Man: When power usage is generally flat, why build a power line?

Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:25 am

Dear Answer Man, you’ve been just about the only consistent source of local information on the CapX2020 power line. Can you remind me, why was this power line needed in the first place? Has power consumption been going up so much that a $2 billion power line was needed?

That’s a very good question, and tough to answer because the information is always a little dated, the project spans a huge area and involves many power utilities with different needs, and infrastructure of this kind is built in anticipation of future demand. The CapX people would tell you that it’s the largest power transmission system built in the state in 35 to 40 years, and that it was needed because the demand for electricity in the region has grown about 2 percent a year for the past decade.

It’s about 800 miles long and will cost more than $2 billion when the final checks are written.

When I asked Tim Carlsgaard, communications and public affairs manager for Xcel Energy, to recap the rationale for CapX2020, he called this “the Carol Overland question,” a reference to the activist attorney from Red Wing who was a leader in trying to stop the project.

I’m sure Carol will enjoy seeing her name attached to this question.

“Each CapX2020 utility will have a different answer to this question,” Carlsgaard said by email. “Concerning demand, you need to look at the Resource Plans that each utility must file with the respective public utilities commissions. Nevertheless, there are many factors as to why you build transmission, including meeting peak demand, regional reliability and providing capacity to support renewable energy development.

He also said the CapX lines “are helping the individual utility partners meet the Minnesota renewable energy mandate of 25 percent by 2025 (30 percent by 2020 for Xcel). As you know, there are not a lot of wind turbines within 20 miles of Rochester. I’m sure you are aware of the wind developers who have attempted to build wind farms in the vicinity of the Rochester metro area and were denied. … most of the wind farms in the Upper Midwest are located in far western and southern Minnesota and eastern Dakotas.”

Actually, I’m not aware of a gold rush in the immediate Rochester metro area for wind farms, though there are plenty in Dodge and Mower counties. But in any case, renewable energy is one reason the lines were needed.

Regarding power usage, project opponents have said from the beginning that electricity use has been flat for several years and will actually decline in the near term, thanks to conservation measures and greater efficiency. According to a filing last year by Xcel, which is a lead partner in the project, the utility said its “current forecast indicates a slight downward correction, projecting average growth over the 2017-2022 period to be less than 0.60 percent compared to the September 2013 update, which indicated average growth of 0.90 percent.  [CapX 2020 was predicated on their 2.49% annual increase, which we knew then, and their SEC filings now demonstrate, is utter bull-poo-poo.  The “Answer Man” still can’t admit that major “miscalculation.”]

“This lower expected growth rate in customer demand represents a 22 MW reduction in the forecasted median Peak Demand in 2017, growing to a 190 MW reduction by 2021, and a 388 MW reduction in 2024.”

The U.S. Department of Energy says that residential energy consumption in Minnesota was more or less flat from 2004 to 2011, which is the most current report I could find on that score. [somebody didn’t look very hard, they disclose this in their quarterly SEC filings, here’s the June 30, 2015:  Xcel Energy admits “growth” is down]Rochester Public Utilities and SMMPA are also partners in the project. According to a report in 2012, [note he’s citing an Xcel Resource Acquisition Compliance that I posted!  Yup, he sure has the answers…] the CapX upgrades to the 161kV lines around Rochester were expected to relieve transmission “constraints,” which will “benefit RPU in that it can rely more on imported power to meet its electric supply obligations.” Conversely, RPU can “reduce its reliance on internal generation to meet its reliability goals,” which is important with the closing of its smoke-belching, coal-fired generators at Silver Lake.

To my reader’s point about me being the best source of information on CapX2020 over the years, especially during the permitting process: I defy you to find a reporter who has followed this more closely, and I’ve posed more questions than I’ve answered.

Plan for Q-1D South near LaX?

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,News coverage,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 5, 2015 @ 5:43 am

QuestionMarks_crop

What’s the scoop??!!??

Deadline for comments is Sunday, September 27, so technically I’d say it’s Monday, September 28, but to be safe, send your comments in by Friday, September 25.

The notice says to send your comments to Dairyland’s Chuck Thompson, and that they’ll forward them to the USDA.  Ummmm, no, I’m not at all comfortable with that.  I recommend you send to both:

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com  (608) 787-1432.
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov    (202) 720-1953

What’s the plan for the 161 kV transmission line upgrade that Dairyland Power Cooperative plans for its “Q-1D South” transmission line that runs south of the Briggs Road substation in Holmen, WI, through Onalaska, and south across 90 to somewhere near or in La Crosse?

Who knows?  They’re sure not telling…  All we’ve got to go on is the notice, below.  From that notice, here’s a closeup of that map in the “Notice” published last week:

mAPNot OK.  Call and ask for more information, take 2 minutes and call, ask what it is that we’re supposed to be commenting on:

  • Chuck Thompson, Dairyland: (608) 787-1432
  • Dennis Rankin, RUS: (202) 720-1953

I’ve been on google earth and cannot figure out where this thing terminates.  Can you?  Please check it out and let me know.

DairylandNotice

UPDATE: Dairyland’s Q-1 “upgrades” through La Crosse

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,News coverage,Nuts & Bolts,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on August 30, 2015 @ 6:30 am

DairylandNotice

“Upgrade” through Holmen, Onalaska, La Crosse, from Briggs Road to some substation south of 90.

This is a “notice” found in the La Crosse Tribune on Friday.  Take a close look, yes, it’s hard to read, but multiple searches of the Notices section online have NOTHING, nada…

This is another USDA Rural Utilities Services project, yet here, there’s no indication of the status of the project, no RUS contact, and they want comments sent to DAIRYLAND, and we’re to trust they’ll send them to whoever.

Where’s the link to the USDA RUS site?  Where’s the link for the project application.  WHERE’S A DECENT MAP!!??!!??!!??

WHAT KIND OF NOTICE IS THIS?

$50 says it’s USDA’s Stephanie Strength on this project, as she was on the Dairyland Q-1D going north from Briggs Rd. to Marshaland, as she was on the Dairyland financing for its share of CapX 2020.

Any Comments you send to Dairyland’s Chuck Thompson, I’d advise you also send any comments or questions to (?? NOTE: Stephanie Strength’s two emails are NOT working… so who is Project Manager?):

Stephanie Strength, Project Mgr.

Dairyland Q-1D South Upgrade
USDA Rural Development Utilities Programs
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 2244
Mail Stop 1571
Washington, DC  20250-1571

… or by email:

stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov (doesn’t seem to be working!)

stephanie.strength@usda.gov

The map, for starters, is awful, can’t even see it, nothing identified but lines for a couple of major highways, but anyone in the area knows this line, running up and down Hwy 35. from near Briggs Road substation through Onalaska going south and darting with Xcel’s line on the other side, back and forth, through trailer parks, towards 90, across and then south.

This is what this line looks like, going right through people’s back yards, front yards, and over homes, directly overhead, right next to it, how can Dairyland think this should be “upgraded” — it should be torn down:

Kimberly St

And at Ulman St., there are two trailers right up against the structures:

Ulman_St[1]

It’s bad enough that Dairyland is planning this upgrade, but how does any city allow this to happen?  In what world is it OK to allow development under a transmission line?  On the other side of Hwy. 35 it’s the same thing, an Xcel transmission line over a trailer park.  This shows zero regard for human life.

CapX Brookings/Myrick route good for something!

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,Information Requests,News coverage,Reports - Documents — posted by admin on June 19, 2015 @ 5:00 am

map-lesueur-myrickroute

When the Applicants added the Myrick route, oh-so-improperly at the very end of a long proceeding when they saw they couldn’t get their way due to DOT easements, it was excruciating.  Successfully defeated, but excruciating because it was so wrong, so ham handed, and yet accepted by the judge and the Public Utilities Commission.

So then they proposed a similar route for a smaller transmission line, the Tyrone line, years later.  What?  Whatever were they thinking?  Apparently they weren’t, and it doesn’t seem they knew about “Myrick” and anything that had come before.

GREAT recap of the first Planning Commission meeting here:

Substation, transmission lines will damage environment, opponents tell Planning Commission – Le Sueur MN_ News

Well, this is a subject I know all too well, and I’ve been brought into this Tyrone 69 kV transmission and substation proceeding at Le Sueur County.  Way too familiar.  The thing about this that’s NOT been made clear is that the utilities snuck in a big honkin’ substation and attached it to the Wilmarth line.  There was a plan to connect the CapX 2020 Helena sub to Wilmarth, and to link that to the St. Thomas substation, but though they did build the Helena sub connecting CapX with Wilmarth, there was no line to St. Thomas to the south.  Instead, and how they did this is beyond me, they built a brand new unplanned-for substation, called the Shea’s Lake substation, and connected that to St. Thomas.  Had to have cost at least $15 million.  ???  Where did that come from?

So back to this Tyrone project at Le Sueur County.  Emily Pollack had intervened in the proceeding, allowed under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, and now I’m representing her in this, and we just sent out some information requests and will see what we can see:

Cover_Le Sueur P&Z

Attachment Binder_FINAL

Cover_Applicants GRE & MVEC

There’s good stuff in the Attachment Binder, particularly the North Mankato Load Serving Study and the Biennial Transmission Plans showing their plans for local load serving.  Without the basic information on this project, there’s no basis for a decision by the County.

But here’s the rub — they built this new Shea’s Lake substation to serve the Le Sueur and Le Center areas, so folks, that’s the substation that should be used!  No excuse to build it for this purpose, and then not use it!

Wild Planning & Zoning meeting in Le Sueur County!

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,News coverage — posted by admin on June 16, 2015 @ 1:01 pm

TyroneXmsn

This is an article you MUST read!  Here is the story of GRE and MNVEC trying to string transmission over an area that was demonstrated not suitable for CapX 2020 transmission and getting schooled in history, public process, and ecology:

Substation, transmission lines will damage environment, opponents tell Planning Commission

And in pdf: Substation, transmission lines will damage environment, opponents tell Planning Commission – Le Sueur MN_ News

And it turns out they don’t even know what infrastructure they’ve got on the ground and in the air.

DOH!

Bill Howley, “The Power Line” blogger, has died

Filed under:News coverage — posted by admin on April 26, 2015 @ 10:06 am

howley_4_25_15

Bill Howley died yesterday.

Bill Howley is known by anyone working in opposition to transmission projects.  Due to a transmission line proposed in his community, he learned pretty much everything there is to know about transmission, wrote about it faithfully and fearlessly for years, and became an expert on advocacy, economics and technology of all things electrical.  He’s one of the first resources people would turn to when they first learned of transmission projects.  Recently, he’d taken the position of Program Director for WV SUN.

Bill Howley’s blog, established in 2008 — take a few minutes to get an idea of the depth of his work.  Here’s hoping that his family will keep this blog going in perpetuity, a memorial to his work and as a guiding light for all those who are dealing with transmission projects:

The Power Line

The View from Calhoun County

From the Hur Herald from Sunny Cal:

People’s Advocate Bill Howley of Calhoun County has died.

His life’s work was based on his favorite quote by Ghandi, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

He was a well-known researcher, consultant, consumer advocate, activist, writer, and paralegal.

Howley, 62, of Red Bud Lane, Chloe, died in a vehicle accident on I-79 in Braxton County Thursday evening.

A graduate of Yale University, he and and his wife Loren Howley, Grantsville attorney, moved to Calhoun County years ago to live their lives in the country.

For several years he was a public advocate for consumer rights related to electric company abuse of consumers and published The Power Line, an on-line media outlet.

He was a leader defeating the goliath PATH electric transmission project promoted by WV’s coal fired power plants, that power would have exported to northeast urban areas, with a part of those costs being absorbed by consumers and taxpayers in West Virginia.

Howley protested the state’s taxing of deep coal that cannot be mined under 1,000 parcels of Washington District land, the Calhoun Commission taking action against the proposal, which was dropped.

He recently assumed a position as Program Director for West Virginia Sun, an organization that is helping West Virginia communities create affordable renewable power.

A memorial service will be held at a later date.

Another Buy the Farm win in MN Supreme Court!

Filed under:Appeal,Buy the Farm,Laws & Rules,News coverage — posted by admin on March 4, 2015 @ 4:15 pm

cheeringsection

YES, another Buy the Farm win, just released today!

OPA131474-030415

Check it out, read the decision.

On MPR: Supreme Court backs farmers in CapX 2020 powerline fight

On KSTP: State Supreme Court Rules Against Utility Companies in Farmland Dispute

For all of you across the country who live in states that do not have a “Buy the Farm” option, and that’s all of you anywhere but here in Minnesota, send our “Buy the Farm” to your state legislators and tell them you need it.  The relevant text is below, and if you click on it, you’ll get the Legislative Revisor’s site for the whole Minn. Stat.  216E.12.

216E.12, Subd. 4.Contiguous land.

(a) When private real property that is an agricultural or nonagricultural homestead, nonhomestead agricultural land, rental residential property, and both commercial and noncommercial seasonal residential recreational property, as those terms are defined in section 273.13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the owner shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous, commercially viable land which the owner wholly owns in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055. Commercial viability shall be determined without regard to the presence of the utility route or site. Within 60 days after receipt by the utility of an owner’s election to exercise this option, the utility shall provide written notice to the owner of any objection the utility has to the owner’s election, and if no objection is made within that time, any objection shall be deemed waived. Within 120 days of the service of an objection by the utility, the district court having jurisdiction over the eminent domain proceeding shall hold a hearing to determine whether the utility’s objection is upheld or rejected. The utility has the burden of proof to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property elected by the owner is not commercially viable. The owner shall have only one such option and may not expand or otherwise modify an election without the consent of the utility. The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose and for use in the utility’s business, for purposes of chapter 117 and section 500.24, respectively; provided that a utility shall divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming not later than the time it can receive the market value paid at the time of acquisition of lands less any diminution in value by reason of the presence of the utility route or site. Upon the owner’s election made under this subdivision, the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee, sought in the condemnation petition for a right-of-way for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more shall automatically be converted into a fee taking.

(b) All rights and protections provided to an owner under chapter 117 apply to acquisition of land or an interest in land under this section.

(c) Within 120 days of an owner’s election under this subdivision to require the utility to acquire land, or 120 days after a district court decision overruling a utility objection to an election made pursuant to paragraph (a), the utility must make a written offer to acquire that land and amend its condemnation petition to include the additional land.

(d) For purposes of this subdivision, “owner” means the fee owner, or when applicable, the fee owner with the written consent of the contract for deed vendee, or the contract for deed vendee with the written consent of the fee owner.

Just filed Petition for Intervention in Xcel’s e21 Docket

Filed under:Cost Recovery,Laws & Rules,News coverage,Nuts & Bolts,PUC Docket — posted by admin on February 6, 2015 @ 5:44 pm

e21

Yes, I’ve filed this under “Energy” “Disaster” because it’s a train wreck of a proposal, and I cannot believe people would buy into this… or sell out into this.  What, you say?  e21!

102115_e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014

In December, Xcel filed this, and I swear, this was the heading:

REQUEST FOR PLANNING MEETING AND DIALOGUE
ROADMAP FOR SUPPORTING THE e21 INITIATIVE

“Roadmap for SUPPORTING?”  Really…

So what is it?  It’s a lot of whining about how hard it is to be a utility and that things are changing.  Ummmmm… yeah.  As if Xcel didn’t know that?

It feels to me like it’s another whack at “restructuring,” a/k/a deregulation, and a “we’re too big to fail” argument.  And as before with “restructuring,” everyone’s getting in line, jumping on the bandwagon.

Listen to this recommendation:

(J)1. Encourage the use of, and give additional weight to, settlement agreements among parties, as long as the Commission determines that the agreements are in the public interest.

Really…

And now that we’ve permitted and built all this excess transmission capacity, they’re whining about under-utilization… can you believe it?  Check this recommendation:

(N) Identify and develop opportunities to reduce customer costs by improving overall grid efficiency.  In Minnesota, the total electric system utilization is approximately 55 percent (average demand divided by peak demand), thus providing an opportunity to reduce system costs by better utilizing existing system assets (e.g., generation, wires, etc.).

This sounds like the best opening to get into the CapX and MVP dockets and get them revoked.  Give me a break…

So I just filed this, we’re gonna do what we can:

Legalectric and Muller – Petition for Intervention

Why file for intervention?  Well, this thing is all about stakeholders, and argues that, hey, look, all the stakeholders agree so just do it.  Ummmm… right… and just who are the stakeholders?  Those who have made those agreements with them in the past that got us right where we are today, DOH! What a fine mess you’ve gotten us into… let’s not do it yet again!

finemess

ITC caught without conditional use permit!

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV,News coverage — posted by admin on October 27, 2014 @ 9:16 am

oops

ITC site needs a CUP

October 27, 2014

by Jill Roesler – Register Staff Writer (jroesler@faribaultcountyregister.com)
Faribault County Register

Within the past few months, several landowners in Faribault County have expressed their concern and dread over ITC Midwest’s upcoming installation of a large electric transmission line spanning 73 miles of southern Minnesota’s prime farmland.

Some residents have been able to rest easy knowing that construction will not begin until 2016; however, ITC Midwest has already begun their move into Faribault County.

During last Tuesday’s Faribault County Board of Commissioners meeting, Michele Stindtman, the Faribault County Planning and Zoning program administrator, addressed her discovery of an unauthorized staging ground outside of the city of Wells.

ITC Midwest, the company behind the construction of a new high-voltage electric transmission line in southern Minnesota, has set up a staging ground on a piece of property annexed by the city of Wells.

According to mn.gov, staging areas are required in 25 mile increments along the route to serve as a delivery and storage ground for construction equipment.

However, the staging area in question is not actually on the route; therefore, ITC needed to obtain rights to use the land from the affected landowners. “They would have asked the city for permission because it’s city property,” said Commissioner Bill Groskreutz addressing an inquiry as to who gave ITC permission to use the grounds. “But the city doesn’t have the authority to approve use because it’s outside the city limits; even if it is their property.”

Because the property is outside of city limits, the area still requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as issued by Faribault County Planning and Zoning. The piece of land being used by ITC is zoned A2, or a general agriculture site. The property includes three waste water ponds, a number of quonset huts, a rifle range and the ITC staging ground.

Stindtman spoke to Wells city administrator Robin Leslie about the unauthorized site and Stindtman suggested acquiring a conditional use permit that umbrellas the three areas the ITC staging ground, the waste ponds and the rifle range.

“Anything in A2 a rifle range, a waste pond, pretty much anything needs a conditional use permit,” Stindtman said. “It’s very black and white and we just need it to be taken care of.”

As of last Tuesday, Stindtman had not heard from Leslie.

ITC site needs a CUP

County not happy with little ‘village’

October 27, 2014
by Jill Roesler – Register Staff Writer (jroesler@faribaultcountyregister.com) , Faribault County Register

Within the past few months, several landowners in Faribault County have expressed their concern and dread over ITC?Midwest’s upcoming installation of a large electric transmission line spanning 73 miles of southern Minnesota’s prime farmland.

Some residents have been able to rest easy knowing that construction will not begin until 2016; however, ITC?Midwest has already begun their move into Faribault County.

During last Tuesday’s Faribault County Board of Commissioners meeting, Michele Stindtman, the Faribault County Planning and Zoning program administrator, addressed her discovery of an unauthorized staging ground outside of the city of Wells.

ITC Midwest, the company behind the construction of a new high-voltage electric transmission line in southern Minnesota, has set up a staging ground on a piece of property annexed by the city of Wells.

According to mn.gov, staging areas are required in 25 mile increments along the route to serve as a delivery and storage ground for construction equipment.

However, the staging area in question is not actually on the route; therefore, ITC needed to obtain rights to use the land from the affected landowners.

“They would have asked the city for permission because it’s city property,” said Commissioner Bill Groskreutz addressing an inquiry as to who gave ITC permission to use the grounds.

“But the city doesn’t have the authority to approve use because it’s outside the city limits; even if it is their property.”

Because the property is outside of city limits, the area still requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as issued by Faribault County Planning and Zoning.

The piece of land being used by ITC is zoned A2, or a general agriculture site. The property includes three waste water ponds, a number of quonset huts, a rifle range and the ITC staging ground.

Stindtman spoke to Wells city administrator Robin Leslie about the unauthorized site and Stindtman suggested acquiring a conditional use permit that umbrellas the three areas the ITC staging ground, the waste ponds and the rifle range.

“Anything in A2 a rifle range, a waste pond, pretty much anything needs a conditional use permit,” Stindtman said. “It’s very black and white and we just need it to be taken care of.”

As of last Tuesday, Stindtman had not heard from Leslie.

– See more at: http://www.faribaultcountyregister.com/page/content.detail/id/510344/ITC-site-needs–a-CUP.html?nav=5002#sthash.lQpFKh9s.dpuf

ITC site needs a CUP

County not happy with little ‘village’

October 27, 2014
by Jill Roesler – Register Staff Writer (jroesler@faribaultcountyregister.com) , Faribault County Register

Within the past few months, several landowners in Faribault County have expressed their concern and dread over ITC?Midwest’s upcoming installation of a large electric transmission line spanning 73 miles of southern Minnesota’s prime farmland.

Some residents have been able to rest easy knowing that construction will not begin until 2016; however, ITC?Midwest has already begun their move into Faribault County.

During last Tuesday’s Faribault County Board of Commissioners meeting, Michele Stindtman, the Faribault County Planning and Zoning program administrator, addressed her discovery of an unauthorized staging ground outside of the city of Wells.

ITC Midwest, the company behind the construction of a new high-voltage electric transmission line in southern Minnesota, has set up a staging ground on a piece of property annexed by the city of Wells.

According to mn.gov, staging areas are required in 25 mile increments along the route to serve as a delivery and storage ground for construction equipment.

However, the staging area in question is not actually on the route; therefore, ITC needed to obtain rights to use the land from the affected landowners.

“They would have asked the city for permission because it’s city property,” said Commissioner Bill Groskreutz addressing an inquiry as to who gave ITC permission to use the grounds.

“But the city doesn’t have the authority to approve use because it’s outside the city limits; even if it is their property.”

Because the property is outside of city limits, the area still requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as issued by Faribault County Planning and Zoning.

The piece of land being used by ITC is zoned A2, or a general agriculture site. The property includes three waste water ponds, a number of quonset huts, a rifle range and the ITC staging ground.

Stindtman spoke to Wells city administrator Robin Leslie about the unauthorized site and Stindtman suggested acquiring a conditional use permit that umbrellas the three areas the ITC staging ground, the waste ponds and the rifle range.

“Anything in A2 a rifle range, a waste pond, pretty much anything needs a conditional use permit,” Stindtman said. “It’s very black and white and we just need it to be taken care of.”

As of last Tuesday, Stindtman had not heard from Leslie.

– See more at: http://www.faribaultcountyregister.com/page/content.detail/id/510344/ITC-site-needs–a-CUP.html?nav=5002#sthash.lQpFKh9s.dpuf

ITC site needs a CUP

County not happy with little ‘village’

October 27, 2014
by Jill Roesler – Register Staff Writer (jroesler@faribaultcountyregister.com) , Faribault County Register

Within the past few months, several landowners in Faribault County have expressed their concern and dread over ITC?Midwest’s upcoming installation of a large electric transmission line spanning 73 miles of southern Minnesota’s prime farmland.

Some residents have been able to rest easy knowing that construction will not begin until 2016; however, ITC?Midwest has already begun their move into Faribault County.

During last Tuesday’s Faribault County Board of Commissioners meeting, Michele Stindtman, the Faribault County Planning and Zoning program administrator, addressed her discovery of an unauthorized staging ground outside of the city of Wells.

ITC Midwest, the company behind the construction of a new high-voltage electric transmission line in southern Minnesota, has set up a staging ground on a piece of property annexed by the city of Wells.

According to mn.gov, staging areas are required in 25 mile increments along the route to serve as a delivery and storage ground for construction equipment.

However, the staging area in question is not actually on the route; therefore, ITC needed to obtain rights to use the land from the affected landowners.

“They would have asked the city for permission because it’s city property,” said Commissioner Bill Groskreutz addressing an inquiry as to who gave ITC permission to use the grounds.

“But the city doesn’t have the authority to approve use because it’s outside the city limits; even if it is their property.”

Because the property is outside of city limits, the area still requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as issued by Faribault County Planning and Zoning.

The piece of land being used by ITC is zoned A2, or a general agriculture site. The property includes three waste water ponds, a number of quonset huts, a rifle range and the ITC staging ground.

Stindtman spoke to Wells city administrator Robin Leslie about the unauthorized site and Stindtman suggested acquiring a conditional use permit that umbrellas the three areas the ITC staging ground, the waste ponds and the rifle range.

“Anything in A2 a rifle range, a waste pond, pretty much anything needs a conditional use permit,” Stindtman said. “It’s very black and white and we just need it to be taken care of.”

As of last Tuesday, Stindtman had not heard from Leslie.

– See more at: http://www.faribaultcountyregister.com/page/content.detail/id/510344/ITC-site-needs–a-CUP.html?nav=5002#sthash.lQpFKh9s.dpuf

ITC site needs a CUP

County not happy with little ‘village’

October 27, 2014
by Jill Roesler – Register Staff Writer (jroesler@faribaultcountyregister.com) , Faribault County Register

Within the past few months, several landowners in Faribault County have expressed their concern and dread over ITC?Midwest’s upcoming installation of a large electric transmission line spanning 73 miles of southern Minnesota’s prime farmland.

Some residents have been able to rest easy knowing that construction will not begin until 2016; however, ITC?Midwest has already begun their move into Faribault County.

During last Tuesday’s Faribault County Board of Commissioners meeting, Michele Stindtman, the Faribault County Planning and Zoning program administrator, addressed her discovery of an unauthorized staging ground outside of the city of Wells.

ITC Midwest, the company behind the construction of a new high-voltage electric transmission line in southern Minnesota, has set up a staging ground on a piece of property annexed by the city of Wells.

According to mn.gov, staging areas are required in 25 mile increments along the route to serve as a delivery and storage ground for construction equipment.

However, the staging area in question is not actually on the route; therefore, ITC needed to obtain rights to use the land from the affected landowners.

“They would have asked the city for permission because it’s city property,” said Commissioner Bill Groskreutz addressing an inquiry as to who gave ITC permission to use the grounds.

“But the city doesn’t have the authority to approve use because it’s outside the city limits; even if it is their property.”

Because the property is outside of city limits, the area still requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as issued by Faribault County Planning and Zoning.

The piece of land being used by ITC is zoned A2, or a general agriculture site. The property includes three waste water ponds, a number of quonset huts, a rifle range and the ITC staging ground.

Stindtman spoke to Wells city administrator Robin Leslie about the unauthorized site and Stindtman suggested acquiring a conditional use permit that umbrellas the three areas the ITC staging ground, the waste ponds and the rifle range.

“Anything in A2 a rifle range, a waste pond, pretty much anything needs a conditional use permit,” Stindtman said. “It’s very black and white and we just need it to be taken care of.”

As of last Tuesday, Stindtman had not heard from Leslie.

– See more at: http://www.faribaultcountyregister.com/page/content.detail/id/510344/ITC-site-needs–a-CUP.html?nav=5002#sthash.lQpFKh9s.dpuf

ITC site needs a CUP

County not happy with little ‘village’

October 27, 2014
by Jill Roesler – Register Staff Writer (jroesler@faribaultcountyregister.com) , Faribault County Register

Within the past few months, several landowners in Faribault County have expressed their concern and dread over ITC?Midwest’s upcoming installation of a large electric transmission line spanning 73 miles of southern Minnesota’s prime farmland.

Some residents have been able to rest easy knowing that construction will not begin until 2016; however, ITC?Midwest has already begun their move into Faribault County.

During last Tuesday’s Faribault County Board of Commissioners meeting, Michele Stindtman, the Faribault County Planning and Zoning program administrator, addressed her discovery of an unauthorized staging ground outside of the city of Wells.

ITC Midwest, the company behind the construction of a new high-voltage electric transmission line in southern Minnesota, has set up a staging ground on a piece of property annexed by the city of Wells.

According to mn.gov, staging areas are required in 25 mile increments along the route to serve as a delivery and storage ground for construction equipment.

However, the staging area in question is not actually on the route; therefore, ITC needed to obtain rights to use the land from the affected landowners.

“They would have asked the city for permission because it’s city property,” said Commissioner Bill Groskreutz addressing an inquiry as to who gave ITC permission to use the grounds.

“But the city doesn’t have the authority to approve use because it’s outside the city limits; even if it is their property.”

Because the property is outside of city limits, the area still requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as issued by Faribault County Planning and Zoning.

The piece of land being used by ITC is zoned A2, or a general agriculture site. The property includes three waste water ponds, a number of quonset huts, a rifle range and the ITC staging ground.

Stindtman spoke to Wells city administrator Robin Leslie about the unauthorized site and Stindtman suggested acquiring a conditional use permit that umbrellas the three areas the ITC staging ground, the waste ponds and the rifle range.

“Anything in A2 a rifle range, a waste pond, pretty much anything needs a conditional use permit,” Stindtman said. “It’s very black and white and we just need it to be taken care of.”

As of last Tuesday, Stindtman had not heard from Leslie.

– See more at: http://www.faribaultcountyregister.com/page/content.detail/id/510344/ITC-site-needs–a-CUP.html?nav=5002#sthash.lQpFKh9s.dpuf


previous page · next page


image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace