NO Grid North Partners – transmission f/k/a CapX 2020

It’s out, the report from U of M Humphrey School of Public Affairs about CapX 2020, headlining it as a “Model for addressing climate change.“

Transmission Planning and CapX 2020: Building Trust to Build Regional Transmission Systems

Oh, please, this is all about coal, and you know it.  This is all about enabling marketing of electricity.  In fact, Xcel’s Tim Carlsbad testified most honestly that CapX 2020 was not for wind!  That’s because electrical energy isn’t ID’d by generation source, as Jimbo Alders also testified, and under FERC, discrimination in generation sources is not allowed, transmission must serve whatever is there.  And the report early on, p. 4, notes:

Both North and South Dakota have strong wind resources and North Dakota also has low-BTU lignite
coal resources that it wants to continue to use. New high-voltage transmission lines are needed to
support the Dakotas’ ability to export electricity to neighboring states.

See also: ICF-Independent Assessment MISO Benefits

Anyway, here it is, and it’s much like Phyllis Reha’s puff piece promoting CapX 2020 years ago while she was on the Public Utilities Commission, that this is the model other states should use:

MN PUC Commissioner Reha’s Feb 15 2006 presentation promoting CapX 2020

So put on your waders and reading glasses and have at it. Here’s the word on the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell – Chapter 97 – Revisor of Statutes that gave Xcel and Co. just what they wanted, transmission as a revenue stream:

And note how opposition is addressed, countered by an organization that received how much to promote transmission.  This is SO condescending:

… and opposition discounted because it’s so technical, what with load flow studies, energy consumption trends, how could we possibly understand.  We couldn’t possibly understand… nevermind that the decreased demand we warned of, and which demonstrated lack of need, was the reality that we were entering in 2008.

And remember Steve Rakow’s chart of demand, entered at the very end of the Certificate of Need hearing when demand was at issue???  In addition to NO identification of axis values, the trend he promoted, and which was adopted by the ALJ and Commission, has NOT happened, and instead Xcel is adjusting to the “new normal” and whining that the grid is only 55% utilized in its e21 and rate case filings.  Here’s Steve Rakow’s chart:

Reality peak demand trajectory was lower than Rakow’s “slow growth” line, in fact, it’s the opposite from 2007 to present.  Suffice it to say:

American Transmission Company (ATC) is holding a “Construction Meeting” about the Badger Coulee transmission project on April 14, an open house from 3 to 6 p.m. at the Town of Springfield Town Hall, 6157 County Highway P, Dane County, Wisconsin.

ATC to host construction meeting in Springfield

ATC is also holding a round or two of planning meetings, and the next “Customer and Stakeholder” Meeting is planned for April 19, 2016, from 1-3 p.m. at ATC HQ in Pewaukee.

What’s important about this is that in addition to the annual “10 Year Assessment,” they’re also doing “Economic Planning.”

2015 10-Year Assessment Summary

2016 10-Year Assessment Study Design

What goes on at these ATC “stakeholder” meetings?

2-24-2016_Compiled Meeting Questions and Comments

Here are materials for that 2-24-2016 meeting:

Meeting Agenda

ATC 2015 Assessment Summary Presentation

2016 Assessment Preliminary Study Design

ATC MTEP Appendix Data

ATC 2015 Economic Planning Study Results

ATC 2016 Economic Planning Study Kickoff

Here’s ATC’s Annual Report:  ATC releases 2015 Annual Report

They have an entire page on “Economic Planning” and the entire notion of “Economic Planning” goes to the private purpose of transmission, moving bulk power for profit.  That’s very different than the regulated utilities’ need to supply their native (captive) load with electricity.  The wholesale market was deregulated, electricity is now on economic dispatch, and the basis of electric generation, transmission, distribution, and use, is fundamentally changed.  As a society, we’ve not yet grasped this concept, and what it means to us as ratepayers, landowners, and humans.

In light of this, Comments made at a recent Transmission Confab and captured by RTO Insider are enlightening (though note the questioning is from Allohina, a witness and proponent in the CapX 2020 buildout, it’s questionable, because they’ve already got their project!):

Economic benefits have been sketchy at best for some projects, and so grossly overstated as to be hilarious in others, where it’s clear that the benefits go to the generators as decreased production costs:

ICF-Independent Assessment MISO Benefits

As above, ATC is hosting another “Customer and Stakeholder” Meeting on April 19, 2016, from 1-3 p.m.  The ATC page says it’s at ATC HQ in Pewaukee, WI, but ATC HQ address is not listed on the ATC site, and there are two ATC offices on Ridgeview Parkway, close, but which?  Message sent, will report back.

A little birdie just sent this graphic photo.

How’s this for a scenic view overlooking the Mississippi, at the Onalaska scenic overlook, no less?!?!?!

Onalaska, what are you thinking?  Did you consider the impact of this transmission line on the City’s observation area?  Are you thinking of $$$$?  Was there a payment to the City to allow this?  Did the City review the plan?  Did anyone go out and walk the line?  Did the City know this was Xcel’s intent?  Did the City’s Planning Commission understand this was in the works as it approved its Comprehensive Plan update that addressed transmission impacts and planning?

La Crosse approved this move and issued a variance under their Airport Overlay Ordinance, and Xcel Energy told me after the meeting that there would not be clear cutting — but you know how Xcel Energy operates.

Worse, Onalaska Mayor Joe Chilsen testified IN FAVOR of La Crosse granting the variance for this project!  You might want to tell him what you think of Sunny’s new friend!

Joe Chilsen (2016)
500 10th Avenue North
Onalaska, WI 54650
City: (608) 781-9530
Home: (608) 783-2422
jchilsen@cityofonalaska.com

Before, Onalaska’s scenic overlook, gazebo, and “Sunny” the famous Onalaska fish:

After Xcel Energy’s chain saw workout to “relocate” its 69 kV line away from Hwy. 35:

What do you think of this clearcutting  for Xcel’s 69 kV line along Hwy. 35 as it goes through the heart of Onalaska, at the Mississippi overlook and “Sunny,” the Onalaska Fish?  Is that butt ugly, or what?

Xcel Energy’s Nancy Dotson and ___________, their engineer (where are my notes?) said the line would be moved to down below Sunny and the observation deck/gazebo, and that they would not clear cut the area.  I was skeptical because if they run the line through, trees come down, that’s the story of transmission.  When trees come down for transmission, it’s permanent impact, because you can’t grow trees under or near transmission lines.  Oh, but no, they said, it’s not going to be that bad.

Well, it is that bad.  It looks like shit.

And Joe Chilsen, the Mayor of Onalaska, knew this would be the result when he went before the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal to allow an exemption to the airport height restriction to get this project through.  He signed off on Xcel Energy’s application on January 21, 2016, a month before it went to the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal, and about two months before Xcel Energy took their chain saws to the trees.

Well, we all knew that… but in the LaX Tribune:

Former cabinet members: Top Walker aide [Mike Huebsch, now on PSC] ordered them to avoid state email, phones.

And this guy now sits as one of three Commissioners on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission?

Mike Huebsch was appointed on March 1, 2015, and disclosed a potential conflict on March 6, 2015:

Huebsch – Conflict Routes O & P

and…

… and of course…

He didn’t recuse himself.

SHAME!  Mike Huebsch should be ejected from the Public Service Commission immediately.

AS you scroll down, keep in mind the tremendous job that the City of Onalaska did presenting their case in the Badger Coulee transmission docket (go HERE and search for docket 05-CE-142, and look for Onalaska filings).

Grace – Direct Testimony

Tuesday night, the Onalaska Plan Commission took up the revised Comprehensive Plan.

Onalaska Comprehensive Plan Final Draft – 12-07-2015

Here’s where you can check out the new Comprehensive Plan (search for “transmission” and you’ll find not much):

City of Onalaska 2015 Comprehensive Plan Page

The current Zoning map (click for larger version):

Future:

Do you see any transmission lines on that map?  Any pipelines on that map?  The City doesn’t have a map of transmission lines, or pipelines, yet it’s a prominent feature of Onalaska, just drive up Hwy 35 or Hwy 53 and you’ll see what I mean.  The City Land Use & Development Director said in the meeting that they don’t have one, it would be very difficult to put together and that this info can be regarded as “proprietary.”  Not quite, it could be “CEII” information, but when you see it driving down the road, when you look at google and there it is, there’s no reason the City can’t draw a line on the map!

There’s a lot of transmission through Onalaska, lining both sides of the highways, in the middle of the city bottlenecked in-between the river and the bluffs (like Red Wing), and it runs right through the heart of the city.  Here’s ATC’s “map” of transmission:

Here’s WI-PSC’s map:

As you can see, it’s not rocket science to put a map together of transmission through Onalaska and its potential expansion areas.

Dairyland is wanting to tear down its old line on the west side of Highways 53 and 35 and virtually double the height of the towers and the capacity.  That’s not updating or maintenance, that’s “tear down the old line and build a new one” construction.

NOW is the time, because there’s not yet a Dairyland application, and because Xcel’s line on the east side of Highways 35 and 53 is also old, they’re going to want to “upgrade” soon too.  The routing of transmission through Onalaska in light of Wisconsin’s adoption of its Electrical Code which prohibits construction under a line, means that new construction should be carefully reviewed.  And right now, rebuilding, tearing down and new construction of something much bigger, shouldn’t be allowed over and next to homes and businesses.  What to do?  It’s a narrow area with a lot of transmission!  But this is what “planning” is all about.  Looking into the future and figuring out what they want the City to look like, how they can address the extreme impacts of transmission, and if they can minimize or mitigate these impacts.  Here’s an example of it running through people’s back yards, stars indicate pole placement in people’s back yards, and the white/red lines are access roads through people’s back yards!

On behalf of No CapX 2020, I sent the Planning Commission and City Council these comments:

NoCapX2020 Comment_OnalaskaCompPlan

At Tuesday’s meeting, there were few commenters, and they quickly wrestled with the issues raised, and sent it back to the Committee for consideration of transmission issues and impacts.

THANK YOU, ONALASKA PLAN COMMISSION!

Today’s big news in the La Crosse Tribune, hot on the heels of tapping Oktoberfest’s Golden Keg, is a pretty extensive piece on Dairyland’s upgrade of its Q-1D South transmission line through Onalaska to La Crosse.  Note the “amp up capacity” which is exactly what they’re doing:

Residents worried by plans to rebuild transmission line, amp up capacity

9 hours ago  •  By Chris Hubbuch

TOWN OF ONALASKA — Dairyland Power Cooperative’s plans to replace a 65-year-old power line have raised concerns of residents living near the high-voltage line.

Originally constructed in 1950 through farmland, the 161-kilovolt line now cuts through back yards and in some cases directly over homes that were built around it as development pushed north, first along the Hwy. 35 and later the Hwy. 53 corridor.

Some residents worry about the health effects of living so close to the line — especially if Dairyland is able to push more electricity through it.

Darlene Adams lives directly under the lines in a mobile home on Kimberly Street and says she can hear them crackle when it rains or snows.

“It sounds like water on a frying pan,” Adams said.

Adams said she didn’t think about the line when she bought the home but has since become concerned about health effects.

“What is it doing to my house?” she said. “I’ve wondered, but no one has contacted me.”

The La Crosse-based utility has been working for most of the past decade to replace the Q1 line, which connects power plants in Alma and Genoa to the electric grid and delivers power to customers in surrounding rural areas.

The segment from Genoa to La Crosse was replaced in 2013, and the majority of the northern section is being rebuilt as part of CapX2020, a new transmission line nearing completion. Work is set to begin this month on a segment north of Holmen.

That leaves a nine-mile stretch, known as Q1-D South, running from Briggs Road in Holmen south into the town of Medary.

Dairyland hopes to begin construction in late 2016, but Chuck Thompson, who is in charge of siting and regulation for Dairyland, said designs for the replacement line are not complete.

In general, plans call for 95- to 115-foot steel poles to replace the existing wooden H structures, which range in height from 55 to 85 feet, although the company will need special clearance for some poles in the flight path of the La Crosse Regional Airport.

The estimated cost is between $7 million and $8 million.

Dairyland also plans to use a larger wire that will be able to carry more than twice as much electricity at the same voltage.

Carol Overland, a Red Wing, Minn., attorney who has fought transmission projects on behalf of citizens and ratepayers, said that will result in about twice as much EMF, which Dairyland hopes to mitigate by raising the wires.

A form of radiation given off by electricity, EMF is present anywhere there are electric wires or appliances.

Studies have found possible links between EMF exposure and increased risk of childhood leukemia, but according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences studies have not found links to adult cancers.

There are no federal regulations on EMF levels in homes, though the NIEHS recommends reducing exposure.

“It’s regarded as tin hat stuff, but it’s real,” Overland said. “Very real.”

Michael Yeager said his daughters, now 33 and 37, grew up playing under the wires, which cut through his yard. he suffers from multiple sclerosis, and one of his daughters has a tumor in her knee.

“I really wonder if something’s going on here,” he said. “Now they’re planning on getting bigger yet.”

Dairyland provides EMF monitoring at the request of people living near its lines but the utility does not retain that data, nor has it modeled the likely emissions from the rebuilt line.

Thompson said such modeling is not required.

“The RUS does not require us to do that,” he said. “The (state) requires it in their analysis. The federal process does not.”

Ann Kathan recently moved her family into a cottage next the home where she grew up on County Road OT. She planned to raise her 6-year-old twins there while caring for her aging parents, Lois and Bob.

But since learning about Dairyland’s plans to rebuild the line about 70 feet from her kids’ bedroom, she’s become concerned about the potential health effects of EMF.

She opposes the rebuild and plans to move unless the line is removed.

“In good conscience we cannot live in that house,” she said. “This is devastating.”

Federal money, but no state permit

Kathan, who has been contacting residents along the line in an effort to rally opposition, said Dairyland has been less than transparent, giving little information about the plans or the process.

“It’s just a gigantic black hole of missing information,” she said.

Overland was frustrated that Dairyland ran a legal notice in the La Crosse Tribune on Aug. 28 — with two paragraphs describing the project and an illegible map — without publishing any additional information about the project.

“There’s no application on line, nothing for anyone to look at and figure out what’s going on and then comment on,” Overland said. “What’s the point of making comments if we don’t know the plan?”

Because Dairyland is replacing an existing line, the utility does not need permission from Wisconsin regulators. But in order to receive low-interest financing from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dairyland must submit an application to the Rural Utility Service, which will determine what level of environmental review is necessary.

Thompson said the RUS application process requires Dairyland to collect public comments before submitting the application, which is why it was not available.

Dairyland has since agreed to extend the public comment period until Oct. 13, is publishing a second legal notice and has posted maps and basic information about the project on the company’s website.

State Sen. Jennifer Shilling and Rep. Steve Doyle, whose district is crossed by the line, said they’ve heard from concerned constituents but are limited in what they can do, because the project is not subject to state authority.

Both lawmakers said they encouraged Dairyland to listen to residents’ concerns.

Some residents along the line would like Dairyland to consider an alternative route — along Hwy. 35 or Hwy. 53 — or running it along the same poles as Xcel Energy’s 161-kv line that also bisects the area.

Chuck Thompson, who is in charge of siting and regulation, said the other routes present problems — Hwy. 35 has scenic easements, right-of-ways that extend into front yards, and is in the airport flight path; combining routes is also a challenge.

“When you start combining transmission lines the height goes up,” he said “It gets more difficult to put these lines together.”

And to move the line Dairyland would need permission from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

Thompson said burying the line — another common suggestion — would cost about 10 times as much.

“It’s difficult any time you’re in a city to route transmission,” Thompson said.

Urban planning

Dairyland could not provide the number of home within 300 feet of the line, but a Tribune analysis found the line crosses 142 developed residential properties and at least another nine multi-family properties with 84 apartments.

It crosses another 31 developed commercial properties, according to the Tribune’s analysis.

Much of the development occurred in the 1960s and 70s, prior to state statute that prohibits utilities from running anything higher than a 35kv line over a residence — or the construction of a residence under an existing line.

Kurt Childs, Dairyland’s director of land and design services, notes that homes built within the 80-foot right-of-way were constructed in violation of the company’s easement.

Who — if anyone — signed off on such plans is not clear.

“It really is a perfect example of a lack of urban planning,” Doyle said. “To have a mobile home directly under an existing line seems to me ludicrous.”

Kathan objects to the rebuilding project and thinks Dairyland should relocate the line away from the homes that were built around it, arguing that they are responsible for acting on new information about EMF.

“There really was not a choice,” she said. “People did not choose to be bombarded with EMF, because they did not know.”

And in a sidebar:

Public comments sought

Dairyland Power Cooperative is planning to rebuild about nine miles of 161-kilovolt transmission line, which runs from Briggs Road in Holmen through the city and towns of Onalaska and into the town of Medary south of the La Crosse River.

A fact sheet and maps of the project are available on Dairyland’s website, at http://www.dairynet.com/power_delivery/project_updates.php.

Dairyland is accepting public comments until Oct. 13 to be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, which will oversee the environmental review of the project.

Comments can be emailed to Chuck Thompson at cat@dairynet.com or mailed to Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Ave. S., La Crosse, WI 54602.

Please contact Dairyland and ask them to provide information!

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.

Here’s what little they have told us about this project:

• Briggs Road to La Crosse Tap (Q-1D South) 161 kV Rebuild Project – Fact Sheet
• Briggs Road to La Crosse Tap (Q-1D South) 161 kV Rebuild Project – Corridor Map

And what I figure the magnetic field exposure would be if line is running at capacity it’s rated for (click chart for larger version):

SUCCESS!!!  But… but… but only extended by 10 days…  HUH?  We still don’t have much to go on here, and major details like the capacity of this project, well, they’re still leaving us in the dark.

Here’s the new info posted on the Dairyland Power Cooperative site:

• Briggs Road to La Crosse Tap (Q-1D South) 161 kV Rebuild Project – Fact Sheet
• Briggs Road to La Crosse Tap (Q-1D South) 161 kV Rebuild Project – Corridor Map

Compare the posted Corridor Map with the ones I’d received a couple weeks ago, note how much is M-I-S-S-I-N-G!

Appendix_A_Q1D_South_Sheetmap_150616_June 2015

The most obvious thing missing is the access roads, every single one of them.  What else?

And look what’s added.  I think the big difference is that this is “environmental” information, based on the subjects they listed in their first notice, like prime farmland, wetlands, etc.  It’s not the construction/technical layer.  So by looking at these new maps, we get the picture of what they think impacts are, and we can at least get a feel for that.

On the first map, there’s a brown area along the river/creek, but I can’t tell what color that would be on the legend… yellow?  On the third map, there’s a huge section with many different markings, covering the Wildlife Refuge.  H How would 95 – 115 foot tall towers this close to the ledge of the drop off into the Wildlife Refuge not have an impact on the protected (and unprotected!) migratory birds in this corridor?  What does the greatly increased tower height do to the viewshed from below on the Missisisppi?  They’re lowering towers and configuring horizontally for the La Crosse River Floodplain, so doesn’t this mean there are avian considerations?  And what about the Airport Overlay that limits structure height?

And check out this “Fact Sheet.”  Briggs Road to La Crosse Tap (Q-1D South) 161 kV Rebuild Project – Fact Sheet

Dairyland Power Cooperative says:

“Can you tell me about the Project?”  Well, not much, this is a two pager.  Focus is on using existing RoW.  Note they do point out existing and temporary access routes.  I would guess that this is something they’d have to have easements for… do they have easements?

“Why is the Project needed?”  They raise reliability problems, but these were addressed in the Badger Coulee, and the record there says Badger Coulee addresses these problems.  Oh, but it’s also impacting the fiber optic service on these structures.  Hmmmm, fiber optic.  Leased to who and for how much?  I don’t see any information on the fiber optic upgrade that would logically occur with upgrade of the electrical part of this line.  DISCLOSE PLEASE!

“What if the line is not rebuilt?”  This isn’t a rebuild, this is an upgrade.  Higher towers, from 45 – 85 feet now to 95-115 feet.  BIG DIFFERENCE!  Capacity?  Who knows, they’re not telling me, but folks, I have some ideas, based on the MISO disclosure of use of 795 ACSS conductor.  This is conjecture, because I’m still waiting for information from Dairyland, with the 437 MVA Peak taken from prior docket info, and the 84 MVA Average as a low-ball number (because they always understate capacity).  Click on table for a larger version that’s not cut up by the sidebar on the right:

“How are environmental impacts considered?”  As they state, this is a financial project, they’re doing this for financing.  Financing approval is a “major governmental action.”  Think not, Dairyland?  RUS?  Let’s discuss it in the alley!  Dairyland’s blurb states that “RUS has determined that the project would require the preparation of an Environmental Report (ER) to analyze potential impacts to the natural and human environments.”  ER?  How does this not require an EIS?  How is an ER compliant with NEPA?  How is it that Dairyland is allowed to segment these Q-1 projects out and that Marshland – Briggs Road required a full blown EIS and this doesn’t?  IT’S ALL ONE PROJECT, this upgrading the Q-1 line!

Read their new documents carefully, and take a good look at the new maps, comparing with the other ones.  What’s your take?

As always in this, take a few seconds and ask for more information, and when you’ve reviewed this stuff disclosed today, send comments to:

• 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

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s the full blurb from Dairyland’s Chuck Thompson, hot off the press this morning:

Dairyland Power Cooperative is hereby extending the 30-day comment period related to prime farmlands, farmland of statewide importance, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and other comments for the Q-1D South 161 kV rebuild.  Under this expanded period, comments should be submitted in writing to Dairyland Power Cooperative within 10 days of the publication of this notice.

Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI 54602-0817, is planning to rebuild approximately nine miles of 161 kilovolt transmission line in La Crosse County (Q-1D South Project).  The Q-1D South Project begins just south of the Briggs Road Substation near the Village of Holmen and ends at the La Crosse Tap south of the La Crosse River near Keil Coulee Road. Constructed in the 1950s, the line is now in poor condition and reaching the end of its service life.  The rebuild will occur along the existing 161 kV alignment within the existing right-of-way.  It has been determined that the Project, as proposed, will be located in a prime farmlands, 100-year floodplain, and wetlands. The Project will occupy 126 square feet of prime farmland, 12.6 square feet of farmland of statewide importance, 63 square feet of 100-year floodplain, and 50.4 square feet of wetlands.

Dairyland Power Cooperative believes that there is no practicable alternative that will avoid locating the Project in prime farmlands, farmland of statewide importance, 100-year floodplains, and wetlands.  Additional information on the project can be found at:  http://www.dairynet.com/power_delivery/project_updates.php for sheet maps and a fact sheet.

Copies of all comments received will be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service for consideration prior to approval of financing assistance or taking other Federal action related to the Project.

Send your comments to:  Chuck Thompson, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Ave South,
La Crosse WI 54602 or email your comments to cat@dairynet.com.  

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:

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!

Tomorrow is the deadline for Comments on Dairyland’s “Q-1D South” upgrade — technically it’s Sunday — but don’t wait until the last minute.

Send Comments to (I recommend via email):

• 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

Prior Posts:

What’s the story on the Q-1D South rebuild?

Dairyland’s N LaX-LaX 161 kV Tap maps

Plan for Q-1D South near LaX?

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

We still don’t know what the plans are.  I’ve made several requests, nada…  Is this any way to run a transmission project?