Xmsn Cost Recovery – 12/19 at PUC

Filed under:Cost Recovery,PUC Docket — posted by admin on December 6, 2013 @ 1:14 pm

That’s the essence of what Xcel Energy wants, the increases in its rate tariff.

PUC Notice of Commission Meeting

We’ve got a problem, because in 2005, in the Ch. 97 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, strenuously promoted and pushed by Bill Grant of Izaak Walton League (now in Commerce and George Crocker of North American Water Office, together with other transmission signatories MCEA and Fresh Energy, we got screwed and Xcel got everything they ever wanted.  In addition to authorization of transmission only companies, and rate recovery for construction work in progress, this law included automatic cost recovery for transmission:

Minn. Stat. 216B.16, Subd. 7b

This has been in PUC dockets ever since that 2005 bill.  To look at the dockets, go to “Search Dockets” by clicking HERE.  Then search for docket numbers 12-50 (at PUC 12/19); for for prior years, 10-1064 (see comments of MN Chamber and Xcel Large Industrials);  09-1048; 08-1284; 07-1156; 06-1505.  I’ll have more on this as time allows.  But suffice it to say, it’s a mess.  In one of the dockets, there was a folding into the current rate case order, but I need to find more info on that.  That this stuff is going forward, and not being taken into account in standard rate case proceedings is so wrong, and there’s no on on this but the MN Chamber of Commerce, and the Xcel Large Industrials.  Where’s the public interest in this, partricularly after the funded “environmental” organizations sold us down the river on this.  What a headache.

Here’s Xcel’s Initial Filing 20121-70282-01 for this year.

Here’s Xcel Supplemental Info 201310-93005-01

Xcel Corrected Supplemental Info 201310-93121-01

No one has made any comments on this docket… surprise, surprise…

Here’s the relevant section:

Barr Engineering Complaint Before PUC Oct 4th


This Thursday, the PUC will be taking my the NoCapX 2020 Complaint against Barr Engineering of Conflict of Interest… again.


PUC staff recommendation is “no jurisdiction” and not action by PUC other than saying “no jurisdiction.”

PUC Staff Briefing Papers – October 4, 2012 Meeting

Here’s the filings on this — and no word from Barr Engineering on this, and they’re the respondent, together with Dept. of Commerce.  Not a peep from either of them.

Conflict of Interest Complaint Against Barr Engineering

Staff Briefing Papers for Barr Engineering Complaint, Sept 13, 2012 Meeting

Letter and Amended Complaint – September 10, 2012

Byllesby dam route in Dakota & Goodhue Counties

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,PUC Docket — posted by admin on March 19, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

Finally over most of the wheezing and coughing of the last week, let it be said on the record, that CapX 2020 makes me sick!!!  Massive doses of prednisone and Doxycycline and I’m almost able to hobble around without keeling over.  A few more days, and look out world.

In the mean time, lots has been happening, like the Wisconsin public hearings, most of which I missed, and there’s rumor of tentative scheduling of the Minnesota Commission’s deliberation on the Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse TENTATIVELY for April 12, 2012.   No contract, no bets, it’s not official until the 10 day notice goes out (and that doesn’t mean 9 days)!.  Supposedly it’s all that’s on the agenda, argument and then deliberation.  So we shall see, let’s see what April Fools Day brings!

Now for some history…


This is Henry Marison Byllesby (from the U of M Law Library’s Clarence Darrow Collection), THE guy who founded Northern States Power Company.  He was one of 5 investors who put together  the “Minneapolis General Electric Company” and then 17 or so years later,  Northern States Power.   NSP’s  “The Energy To Make Things Better” circa 1999 notes that “what Byllesby really wanted to do in 1892 was build and run waterpower developments.”  No surprise that the dam in Goodhue and Dakota County over the Cannon River is named after him.

That Byllesby Dam and surrounding area is a point of issue in the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse transmission line route.  Here’s an aerial of the park in Dakota County:


Here’s an aerial of the proposed route, 1P-003 is the pink line, 1P-001 is the blue solid line and 1P-002 is the yellow dashed:


Judge Sheehy recommended, in FoF 306 (p. 58), and Conclusion 7, p. 92, use of option 1P-003:

There are, however, significant problems following US 52 through the Cannon Falls area in the vicinity of Highways 19 and 24, because of the proximity of homes, churches, schools, and businesses.  Use of Option 1P-003 would bypass this area and would impact fewer total residences; would avoid the church, school, and businesses; would parallel existing transmission lines and use mostly existing road corridors; and would provide the opportunity to avoid potential conflicts with two future road projects (the railroad overpass and the County Road 24 interchange). (referencing the FEIS, Appendix A at A-11 Map NR 9, and Ex. 36, Sheetmap 10.

Here’s the Scoping Decision description:


I’ve looked at the FEIS and note that it does not mention for 1P-001, 1P-002 or 1P-003 that there’s an existing transmission line down Harry Ave., across the dam, and then continuing south.  Although the FEIS does address corridor-sharing in Figure, the descriptions on FEIS p. 74-76 for 1P-001, 1P-002 and 1P-003 do not list the existing  transmission corridor on Harry Avenue, only the transmission line headed across on the south side of Hwy. 19, Route 1P-001.  What’s that about?  A look at maps.google.com shows the lines running north from the dam, and south down to Hwy. 19.

I last looked at this when Dakota County declared last June that power lines and parks do not mix and passed a resolution urging the ALJ to choose a route that does not go through the Lake Byllesby Park.  Here’s the post: Dakota County resolution about CapX 2020.  And what continues to astound me is that they don’t get the origin of the park, that it’s a monument to Byllesby, who was into hydro-electric dams, that the dam is to generate electricity, did then and still does, and that there is transmission running from it both north and south.  I also wonder if the land was donated to the Couties on both sides by Northern States Power — does anyone know?  But a dam honoring Northern States Power’s founder, with transmission on both sides, isn’t that the logical place for transmission?  Isn’t that in keeping with the theme of the park?

YES, found it, Northern States Power donated the dam, lake and surrounding land to Dakota and Goodhue Counties in 1969!  See p. 4.6-4., and check out the “Interpretive Themes” on 4.19:

Byllesby Master Plan 2005

1P-003 landowners and residents are now wanting to weigh in:

Krass Letter requesting PUC time on behalf of 1P-003 landowners

Probably connected is this effort: CapX should go along Hwy 52

I hope that they’ll take down the Commissioners’ individual emails, as ex parte contact is a no-no.  And they’re way off base about the dwarf trout lily only growing there in all the world (!), that plant, though rare, is quite common here in Goodhue County and SE Minnesota.   And here’s a strange statement from the head post — I wonder what attorneys are saying this?

The Minnesota Public Utilities Meeting is on April 12 and they will decide the final route. But the Lawyers say the decision will probably happen before then, behind closed doors.

There was quite a bit of testimony at the Public Hearing from people in the area, but mostly due to the late notice to those along Hwy 19 a day or two before the hearing — see p. 45 of the ALJ’s report:

ALJ Sheehy’s Recommendation

Stanton Township’s Paul Schluter was on the Task Force, wasn’t he reporting on the meetings?  From what I can see googling, Stanton was on the watch from as early as 2006, with reports saying “No news about CapX 2020” and an update from a newspaper report of a June 15 meeting (what year??):


In other business, Paul Schluter reported on meetings he attended about the proposed CapX-2020 power line. There is a move to route it along Hwy. 56, he said, rather than Hwy. 52, so as to keep it away from the city area of Cannon Falls. The Board will oppose the Hwy. 56 route, pointing out the need to keep the line away from Stanton airport.

The applicants Preferred Route in this area has a problem, and when that came out front and center, that they didn’t have a workable option, it was right over a church and school, well, not “right over,” they’d NEVER do that… ahem… but right there, next to the church and school, right next to Joe Lopez’ house, and it encroached on (loomed near?) DOT Right of Way, and so then they tried to jury-rig another option at the last minute, sending notices to people the day before the public hearing, calling them, and that just isn’t right to foist it on people like that, like they did with the Myrick Road “alternative” in the Brookings case.  So if it’s going somewhere, the Byllesby dam becomes the logical route, to the north there are transmission lines heading north along Harry Ave.  and to the south there are transmission lines extending from the dam to just south of Hwy. 19.  I think Dakota County has a lot of gall to object to transmission through Byllesby Park.  Without Northern States Power there would be no Byllesby Park.

Dakota County Board Mtg – June 14, 2011

Dakota County Board Mtg – June 21, 2011

South of Hwy. 19 it becomes another matter, there’s no existing corridor. But that’s probably 2-3 miles, which in the cosmic realm probably wouldn’t alter the route, making it a matter of alignment adjustments.

RUS Draft EIS is released… almost…

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,PUC Docket,Reports - Documents,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on December 15, 2011 @ 11:23 am

Just got word that Notice for the USDA’s RUS Public Meetings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is in the Zumbrota Shopper, and that the DEIS is released.


HUH?  I looked at the link in the notice… nada… turns out, per USDA’s Stephanie Strength, “The Federal Register notice and posting of the DEIS are not scheduled until Friday.”

So hold your horses!

The Comment period is open for 45 days following publication of US EPA’s notice… probably Friday too.

Also, there’s nothing in the Notice that says where to send Comments.  It says for further info or to request a copy of the DEIS to contact Stephanie Strength:


Public meetings are scheduled for evenings of the week of January 9, all week, with an “open house” from 5-6 p.m. and a “discussion period” from 6-8 p.m.

January 9, 2012, 5-8 p.m.
Alma High SchoolGym
S1618 State Rd 35

January 10, 2012, 5-8 p.m.
Wanamingo Community Center
401 Main Street
Wanamingo, MN

January 11, 2012, 5-8 p.m.
Cannon Falls High School Cafeteria
820 Minnesota St
Cannon Falls, MN

January 12, 2012, 5-8 p.m.
American LegionHall
2153rd St SW
Plainview, MN

January 13, 2012,  5-8 p.m.
Centerville/Town of Trempealeau Community Center
W24854 StateRd 54/93
Galesville, WI

Every time I try to PDF the Notice, Firefox crashes.  Here’s what I’ve got, it’s hard to read.  When I get a better copy, I’ll post that.

Sort of legible Notice, p. 1

A not so legible Notice, p. 2

CapX Hampton-LaCrosse line in the news

Filed under:PUC Docket,Uncategorized — posted by admin on July 29, 2011 @ 9:39 am


After the absurdity of the Oronoco attempt to run the transmission line over unsuspecting township residents and landowners (and away from others!) without notice:


…and the Post Bulletin reporting that “new” route, complete with the above “Exhibit 89” map, and then its suddenly “oh, that was an error, here’s a correction” move (yup, transparency is a good thing!!!  How transparent can you get?  You didn’t get the map from the PUC’s shut down site… it was GIVEN to the Post Bulletin in its backfiring PR attempt)…

… and then the Post Bulletin then does a forum featuring Oronoco’s position.

It was… interesting… particularly where the editor made a bizarre assumption in one of his “questions” asking why only Oronoco Township is being vocal about this (or some such)!  As with misbehaving dogs, I had to make a quick “correction.”

Even more bizarre was consultant Jeff Broberg’s “taking the hit” for proposal and advocacy for the route on Exhibit 89 through his statement that he advanced the Exhibit 89 illegitimate route on his own without authority from the township!  Uh-huh… right…  I was there at the evidentiary hearing, and it’s too bad that the editor of the paper and forum moderator wasn’t there because then he’d understand the bizarreness of Broberg’s statements.  Broberg testified at the hearing, when asked whether the landowners had been given notice, that it had been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting the night before (the Planning Commission?  Oh really?!?!), and attorney Rod Krass pulled out the Exhibit 89 from his bag of tricks,Jeff Broberg testified about it at length.  When it was introduced, they both looked like the cat that ate the canary


… that is until it fell apart during cross-examination, when it was finally clear to them that they could not propose a route at the last minute, that there was a process to go through that they hadn’t bothered with, that their “new” route on Exhibit 89 could not and would not be considered by the ALJ or the PUC, and worse, they didn’t appear to even know what the rules were about it!!!  Oh, my, goodbye catbird, hello deer in the headlights:


There they were, wedged into the grill, and cross-examination of Jeff Broberg continued for at least half an hour.

As soon as I can get at the transcript, we’ll set that record straight about his testimony about their Exhibit 89, above.

Back to the PB “create-some-news” event, here’s the KAAL piece (click below to get to their page and the video):

CapX 2020 Project Moving Forward

(ABC 6 NEWS) — As plans for a new high voltage powerline line move forward, those in its path are coming out to get more information, and for some, to share their opposition.

The message is clear from Oronoco residents like Paige Collins – no one wants the powerline in their front yard.

“It’s kind of a case of nobody wants these, right? And so you have to look at where the best placement is,” says Collins.

Collins represents Oronoco’s planning commission and says at least part of the proposed route doesn’t make sense.
She says, “[Oronoco is] much more populated than some of the other areas along the alternative routes.”

At Wedneday’s meeting at the Rochester Public Library, people listened while both sides explained their positions.

CapX 2020 is a multi-state project that’s been in the works for around six years. Xcel Energy is behind it and the company says the recent heat and humidity prove why the project is needed.

“All of the utility partners in this project broke records as far their electricity use on their system so the system is demanding we upgrade it,” says Xcel spokesperson Tim Carlsgaard.

A number of routes is still being considered. One travels from just north of Cannon Falls, down toward the Rochester area, and over to Lacrosse, Wisconsin.

“People are using electricity more than ever and we need to be able to meet that demand,” says Carlsgaard.

A judge has all the data and testimonies collected by both sides. She’ll give her recommendation to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. It’ll make the final call as to where the power line will go up.

Either way, those against it say they’ll continue their fight.

“We’re trying to protect our residents because we have so many of them,” says Collins.

The judge is expected to make a decision in September. The utilities commission will  make the final call in December or January. Construction could start then sometime next year.

And a pretty even-handed article from the Post Bulletin:

Companies, opponents continue work on power line

SharePosted: Jul 28, 2011, 2:42 pm
By Jeffrey Pieters
The Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN

On the web

CapX2020: www.capx2020.com

No CapX2020:https://nocapx2020.info/

Oronoco Township:http://tinyurl.com/3dgkjak

A decision is nearing on a route for the proposed CapX2020 power-transmission line through southeastern Minnesota, but opponents still hope to unplug the whole project with a legal victory in Wisconsin.

The power companies behind the project are about to unveil new plans for a segment of the line, called the Chester Line, to run south through Farmington and Haverhill townships in Olmsted County to a substation on U.S. 14 East near Rochester.

The transmission-line project was the subject of a Post-Bulletin Dialogues discussion Wednesday at Rochester Public Library. About 45 people attended.

A decision on the route for the main line is in the hands of a Minnesota administrative law judge, who will issue a report, based on project studies and public testimony, this fall. A state Public Utilities Commission vote would follow, in December or January, and the 125-mile, 345-kilovolt line would be set for construction in this area starting in 2012 or 2013. The Hampton-to-La Crosse line is one of several that are part of the CapX2020 project.

But first, the regulatory process in Wisconsin will unfold. According to Carol Overland, an attorney representing a group of project opponents, decreased electrical demand in recent years might have weakened the power companies’ case for the need for the line. “The basis for the local need in Rochester was nominal,” Overland said, “and if you look at the reports for Wisconsin, it’s even less.”

Tom Hillstrom, who oversees the project for Xcel Energy, one of 11 partner utilities participating in CapX2020, said it is the first major upgrade of the electrical transmission system in this area in three decades. The region’s power system “is strained right now,” he said. “It needs to be improved.”

Overland and Hillstrom were joined at Wednesday’s discussion panel by Paige Collins, a member of the Oronoco Township Planning Advisory Commission, and Jeff Broberg, a principal of McGhie & Betts Inc., which was hired by the township to help with its opposition to a proposed transmission line route.

The preferred of three main routes passes through Oronoco Township, but Broberg said that other routes to the north in Wabasha County would pass through less-populated areas. “You avoid the greatest amount of human conflict by avoiding Olmsted County,” Broberg said.

In addition to the 345-kilovolt main line, the CapX2020 plan includes a 161-kilovolt offshoot from near Pine Island to a substation in west Rochester. In addition, Hillstrom said, plans are being introduced next week for a second 161-kilovolt offshoot to another substation east of Rochester. That line is being referred to as the “Chester line.”

The new route will be presented during an Aug. 2 public meeting at the Farmington Township Hall, 11534 County Road 128 N.E. The meeting will start at 6:30 p.m.

The two lines would improve electrical transmission capacity and reliability for Rochester. Rochester Public Utilities is another partner utility in the CapX2020 project. Other partners include the Rochester-based Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and Dairyland Power Cooperative.

GRE & Xcel hustling for $$$$$


Apparently Great River Energy and Xcel Energy are outlooking for money.  Gee, I wonder why?  I remember the snorts and hoots that broke out in the room way back during the CapX Certificate of Need hearing when they admitted to presenting their CapX 2020 financing dog & pony show to Lehman Brothers.

As for GRE, from Monday’s article in Finance & Commerce:

For example, GRE’s 2009 revenues fell $42.1 million to $787.8 million at the same time the utility was paying to develop a coal-fired plant in North Dakota and helping develop the CapX2020 system of transmission lines with 10 other state utilities.

Xcel just made an SEC filing that shows some creative efforts:

The primary purpose of the Plan is to provide our common and preferred shareholders as well as new investors with a convenient and economical method of purchasing our common stock.  Once enrolled in the Plan, you may reinvest cash dividends and, through optional cash payments, purchase additional shares of common stock from time to time or at regular intervals.  Although we expect the Plan to appeal to many shareholders, it is entirely optional.  A secondary purpose of the Plan is to enable us to raise additional capital by selling newly issued shares of our common stock under the Plan.

“Secondary purpose of the Plan…”  (click the quote for the full filing)  “Secondary purpose…”

Yup, uh-huh…   …WHAT… EVER!

Here’s the full article from Finance & Commerce about GRE’s capital raising efforts:

Great River Energy to sell $450M in mortgage bonds

Posted: 4:35 pm Mon, October 18, 2010

By Bob Geiger

Faced with declining power-usage revenues and rising utility-plant costs, Maple Grove-based Great River Energy (GRE) on Monday issued $450 million in taxable first mortgage bonds to meet costs and pay down debt.

The mortgage bonds are intended to fund capital spending for the utility’s power generation and transmission as well as paying off $325 million of GRE’s $2.4 billion outstanding debt, said Susan Brooks, GRE treasury director.

“It’s part of our long-range plan to meet member costs in the most cost-effective manner,” said Brooks, who expects bond pricing to be set today.

The mortgage bond sale is the second such transaction in 2010 by GRE, which in April announced it would sell $106 million in tax-exempt first mortgage bonds issued by McLean County, N.D.

It’s not unusual for utilities to sell mortgage bonds to help make ends meet at a low cost. Such financing makes sense because GRE is making additions to its system and paying for generation and transmission improvements in the wake of the recession.

For example, GRE’s 2009 revenues fell $42.1 million to $787.8 million at the same time the utility was paying to develop a coal-fired plant in North Dakota and helping develop the CapX2020 system of transmission lines with 10 other state utilities.

Fitch Ratings assigned an A- credit rating to the $450 million mortgage bond sale. Fitch noted that, “while GRE’s debt level remains a concern, (it) has been effective in managing the higher debt loads, even in what has been a difficult operating environment.”

Background information on GRE’s mortgage bond offering from Fitch stated that GRE is working to lessen its debt-load by paring its five-year capital spending plan by $350 million.

GRE serves more than 645,000 residential and small-commercial customers through 28 member cooperatives. The utility maintains 3,647 megawatts of generation capacity, of which 2,751 megawatts is owned by GRE.

Additional capacity is expected to come online in 2012 when Spiritwood Station, a coal-fired plant near Jamestown, N.D., begins operation.

The start-up of Spiritwood, which has a peaking capacity of 99 megawatts, was delayed until early 2012 earlier this year because plans for an ethanol plant to use steam from the nearby coal plant failed to materialize.

Therese LaCanne, GRE spokeswoman, said Spiritwood also will provide steam for a Cargill Malt plant in the industrial park.

Of GRE’s 2009 power generation, 78 percent was coal-fired, with the remaining 22 percent coming from 7 percent renewable energy, 1 percent natural gas and 14 percent other energy sources.

Combined with the planned firing up of Spiritwood and wind energy contracts, GRE projects it will have adequate capacity to meet its member needs beyond 2020.

The utility projects compounded average annual peak load growth of 1.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, according to Brooks.

Tomorrow – CapX Certificate of Need at PUC

Filed under:PUC Docket,Uncategorized — posted by admin on August 4, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

Don’t forget – tomorrow, August 5, 2010, is the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need at the PUC.  At issue is Xcel’s request for a delay in construction to 2015.

Come on down to the PUC, we’re 3rd on the agenda, meeting starts at 9:30 a.m.

Thursday, August 5, 2010 @ 9:30 a.m.

Public Utilities Commission

3rd Floor, Large Hearing Room

121 – 7th Place East

St. Paul, MN  55101

You can watch online by clicking THIS LINK and then  “Watch Webcast”

Here are some of the filings, the Staff Briefing Papers are… are… ummmmmm…

Staff Briefing Papers for August 5, 2010

CapX Notice of Delay for Brookings In-Service Date

NoCapX & U-CAN Comment and Request for Hearing

CETF – Comment Brookings CoN Delay & Request for Hearing

Dr. Therese Zink on CapX 2020

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,PUC Docket — posted by admin on June 10, 2010 @ 11:24 am

Today’s PUC meeting was about the narrow issue of whether the PUC should issue a variance from typical deadlines to give parties more time to address the “CapX 2020” applicants’ request for delay of the in-service date for the Brookings line Certificate of Need.  And I mean NARROW, they don’t even want to think about requiring that CapX applicants comply with the Certificate of Need Order Point 4 that they disclose the transmission capacity and ownership and ownership structure for each of the projects.

You can see the meeting here – it’ll be posted soon, I hope, watch how quickly Chair Boyd ducks the capacity and ownership issue:

PUC Agenda Meeting Webcast Archives

Here’s some good news — in the Cannon Falls Beacon, a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Therese Zink:

To the Editor:

Nobody wants the CAPX2020 in their backyard, especially in Goodhue County where many property owners have smaller plots of land, such as mine, which is 20 acres. The 345 kV transmission line with their single shaft steel poles demanding 150 feet right-of-way, spaced 700 to 1000 feet apart, will be an eye sore, magnified when compared to the size of my parcel. What will that do to property values, not to mention aesthetics? We’ve seen reports that the electricity moving through the wires  impacts a farmer’s GPS system and my neighbor’s pacemaker. There are reports of getting shocked if you touch your metal shed. What will it do to electric fences, computers, internet and cell phone service? Not to mention the horses next door, my friend’s organic farm, or her several decade-old sledding hill and reflecting spot that will have  electric wires singing overhead.

The bottom-line is that Xcel Energy has not made its case that the power line is needed. Instead, many factors point the other way. Things have changed since Xcel did its forecasting in 2004-05. There are claims of growing needs in Rochester, of demand for the Elk Run development. There is claim of the  need to expand to assure reliability, and the rural folks can take the headache for the more populated areas, but has Xcel made their case?

According to Rochester Public Utilities’ annual report, demand peaked in 2006 and has fallen since. The same is true of Xcel, our largest utility. As to the reality of Elk Run: “A lot of people outside that group [the Elk Run developers] are watching right now because the project has been in the planning phases for so long that many say they won’t believe the project is real until they see a building.” (Rochester Post Bulletin 4/27/10). Part of the land is in foreclosure. If there is not increasing need and use, then guess whose rates will go up? You got it -you and me.

So…if we aren’t in a big hurry, can we do a better job of planning. I attended the Pine Island information meeting May 5. An astute citizen suggested that we do a better job of planning for the future. Minnesota doesn’t have an energy plan. Xcel, those behind the train that will run between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and those developing wind energy should all get together and do some joint planning so that energy and development targets the area where it’s needed, and the locals don’t get bothered about right of way issues for the different many projects one at a time.  “Can’t we coordinate these developments for the future?”  I thought that was a great idea.

My advice is that CAPX2020 be put on hold until there is a better job of planning for the energy and transportation needs of the future. Last week, CapX 2020 asked for a delay of the Brookings line, which is connected to the Hampton-Alma line through our county. This delay is a signal to pause, to plan. Let’s not carve up Goodhue County yet.

Therese Zink

June 10 PUC meeting

Filed under:PUC Docket — posted by admin on June 7, 2010 @ 8:53 am

On June 10, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., FIRST ON THE AGENDA, CapX 2020’s Certificate of Need is on the agenda at the Public Utilities Commission.

Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

Public Utilities Commission

121 – 7th Place East

3rd Floor – Large Hearing Room

St. Paul, Minnesota

The PUC will meet to address whether there will be a variance to the 45 day rule which requires that a decision be made within 45 days of a Notice that the inservice date for a project is delayed.

If you can’t be there, but want to catch the show, go to PUC June 10th Agenda page and click the blue “Watch Webcast” button.

For the full Certificate of Need docket filings, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click “Search Documents” and search for 06-1115.

Staff Briefing Papers are now posted:

Staff Briefing Papers – June 10 PUC Meeting

Here’s the CapX 2020 Notice of Delay:

CapX Notice of Delay for Brookings In-Service Date

Here’s our response:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause

NoCapX & U-CAN Comment and Request for Hearing

And others:

MOES Comments

CETF – Comment Brookings CoN Delay & Request for Hearing

NAWO Comment

And NoCapX and U-CAN also filed these in various dockets in response to their announcement of delay:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Comments – Rate Recovery Docket

In response to: Xcel’s Request for Reconsideration or Clarification (!)

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause – Brookings & Hampton-Alma/LaX Routing Dockets

And because Xcel blames FERC: Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time – NoCapX & U-CAN

For NoCapX and U-CAN, the bottom line is, why should they get anything whatsoever out of the PUC, be it approval of a delayed in-service date, or cost recovery, when they have not complied with the PUC’s order to disclose the transmission capacity of each project, and the ownership of each and ownership structure?  EH?

Comment and Request for Hearing filed

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,PUC Docket — posted by admin on June 1, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

TOO CLOSE!!!  Slapped together a Comment and Request for Hearing just now, whew, in under the wire, and just barely, in the CapX 2020 transmission Certificate of Need docket:

NoCapX & U-CAN Comment and Request for Hearing

MOES had filed their Comment:

MOES Comments

And this morning in that same docket I filed this Motion:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause

And then came the CETF Comment:

CETF – Comment Brookings CoN Delay & Request for Hearing

Busy day, eh?  Now it’s Xcel’s turn… errrrr… CapX 2020!

To see the whole docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search Dockets” for 06-1115.

previous page · next page

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace