Motion to Extend Public Comment Period

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on May 12, 2014 @ 6:17 pm

Public Hearings on the ITC Midwest MN/IA transmission project begin tomorrow:

Untitled

Moments ago, I filed a Motion to Extend the Public Comment Period to allow public comment on the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

CETF NoCapX_Motion FEIS

The FEIS is not due to be released until July 11, 2014.  That FEIS release is about two months after the public hearings and evidentiary hearing, and about a month and a half after the public comment period closes (May 30, 2014.  NOT OK!

How on earth would the Commission have any idea whether the FEIS is adequate if the people affected by this project and who know the lay of the land are not allowed to comment on it?  How will they know if Commerce has addressed all the things that need to be addressed?  DOH!

So here is what I sent a couple days ago:

Judge La Fave and Parties –

Attached please find eFiled correspondence regarding the release of the FEIS and Public Comment period regarding adequacy of the FEIS, and briefing schedule with FEIS release in mind.  If the record closes on May 30, the July 11 FEIS won’t be in the record!  Environmental review is not addressed in the scheduling order, and we request time for the public and parties to address the adequacy of the FEIS.

Carol A. Overland

for CETF and No CapX 2020

And the correspondence:

FEIS Comment Period

Today, Asst. A.G. Linda Jensen, for Commerce, sent the following:

Dear Judge LaFave,

The Department of Commerce, Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (EERA) is in receipt of the below email and attached “FEIS Comment Period” letter of Ms. Overland regarding Citizen Energy Task Forces’ and No CapX 2020’s May 8, 2014, request that the Prehearing Order be amended and the comment period for the public hearing be extended to July 18, 2014, a date that is one week after the scheduled release of the final EIS.  The  EERA provides the following information to assist Your Honor in addressing this request.

Typically, prehearing orders do not include milestones in the environmental review process as order points, as the environmental review process falls under the purview of the Department of Commerce and the Department sets the dates for these review milestones.   Orders generally do include environmental review milestones as targets, for informational and planning purposes only.   Examples of prehearing orders from five recent transmission line projects are attached.

With respect to comments on the FEIS, Minnesota Rule 1405.1400 requires that “record of the hearing shall be closed at a date to be set by the administrative law judge….  Written comment will be accepted if postmarked no later than the date set by the administrative law judge.  However, the record shall remain open beyond that date for the sole purpose of receiving board responses to relevant comments received on the environmental impact assessment.”

Although this language is somewhat outdated in that it refers to the “board” (EQB) and an environmental impact assessment (instead of an environmental impact statemen, (EIS)), the rule requires that the record shall close on a date set by the ALJ, except remaining open to receive the responses to the draft EIS, i.e., the final EIS.

Of the five attached prehearing orders, four of them keep the record open solely for receipt of the FEIS, i.e., there is no public comment period on the FEIS.   In these instances, comment on the FEIS was allowed during briefing.   Other projects have also used this approach, e.g., Hiawatha transmission line project, Pleasant Valley to Byron transmission line project.  The fifth prehearing order– for the Brookings County to Hampton project — does include a public comment period on the FEIS.

The requirements of MEPA are incorporated into the Power Plant Siting Act (216E) and its associated routing (7850) and hearing (1405) rules. The hearing rules specify how the environmental review accompanies the project through the hearing process and precedes a final decision on the project.

I hope this is of assistance.  Please let Ms. Olson or I know if further information may be helpful.

Linda

Linda S. Jensen
Assistant Minnesota Attorney General
445 Minnesota Street Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: 651-757-1472

And the attachments:

Brookings County to Hampton Second Prehearing Order, 9.11.09

Fargo to St. Cloud Prehearing Order, 5.25.10

Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse Prehearing Order, 9.1.10

Hollydale Second Prehearing Order, 7.5.12

Monticello to St. Cloud Prehearing Order, 9.29.09

After receiving this, I fired off an email, and then filed the Motion:

All –

Typically, the environmental review milestones are incorporated into the schedule in scheduling orders.  Further, adequacy of the EIS is at issue.  Minn. R. 7850.2500, Subp. 10.

In the Brookings case, No CapX and U-CAN requested that the deadline that had been established for public comments be extended to incorporate filing of the FEIS and a one week comment period, and the ALJ did order that extension.

No CapX 2020 and U-CAN made that same request in the CapX Hampton-La Crosse docket.  Attached please find copy of the Order Denying Motion in the CapX Hampton to La Crosse routing docket, where the ALJ stated that the 4100 chapter requirement of a Comment period on the FEIS “is simply not applicable here.”

This lack of FEIS comment opportunity was problematic in this case.  Because we did not have the opportunity to comment on it, the FEIS was not closely scrutinized.  However, as we learned the hard way, that EIS contained information that was not correct, and both areas where there was incorrect were very contentious areas (the two dam crossings).  At the Zumbro Dam, where there was no transmission line and instead a forest, it was stated that there WAS a transmission line, and the ALJ recommended that route based on corridor sharing.  Only a last minute oral clarification during PUC discussion prevented that error from resulting in a transmission route through a forest rather than in a pre-existing corridor.  At the Byllesby Dam, there was no mention of the existing three transmission line corridor, the error was not acknowledged by the Commission, and the route chosen was instead on a greenfield route through that area.  This is the transmission corridor that was not presented in the EIS:

harryavexmsn
In requesting that the Public Comment period be extended until after the FEIS is filed, CETF and U-CAN are hoping to avoid problems such as these.

While the 4400 Chapter of Minn. Rules does not apply, the statute and rules do require that the Commission make a determination regarding the adequacy of the EIS.  Under Minn. R. 7850.2500, the Commission must make several findings regarding adequacy of the EIS:

7859.2500, Subp. 10.

Adequacy determination.

The Public Utilities Commission shall determine the adequacy of the final environmental impact statement. The commission shall not decide the adequacy for at least ten days after the availability of the final environmental impact statement is announced in the EQB Monitor. The final environmental impact statement is adequate if it:

A.  addresses the issues and alternatives raised in scoping to a reasonable extent considering the availability of information and the time limitations for considering the permit application;

B.  provides responses to the timely substantive comments received during the draft environmental impact statement review process; and

C. was prepared in compliance with the procedures in parts 7850.1000 to 7850.5600.

If the commission finds that the environmental impact statement is not adequate, the commission shall direct the staff to respond to the deficiencies and resubmit the revised environmental impact statement to the commission as soon as possible.

 The Commission was in a rather difficult spot because of the FEIS problems in the CapX 2020 Hampton – La Crosse case, and almost made a routing decision on demonstrably incorrect information.
Extension of the public comment period also furthers public participation:

216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

Subd. 2.Other public participation.

The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.

Based on the premise of the Power Plant Siting Act of encouraging and furthering public participation and the Commission’s “principal of operation,” CETF and No CapX 2020 request a short comment period after the filing of the FEIS to address adequacy.  The people are the ones on the ground who know if important issues are not adequately addressed or are being given short shrift, and the public participation can prevent material errors.

Carol A. Overland
for CETF and No CapX2020

CETF and No CapX DEIS Comments

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV,Nuts & Bolts — posted by admin on May 9, 2014 @ 7:25 am

pilesofiles

DEIS Comments FILED on the ITC Midwest MN/IA Transmission Project!!!  Please feel free to use for ideas for your comments — license to steal, borrow, copy.  Remember Comments are due by 4:30 TODAY!

raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us

fax: 651.539.0109

Ray Kirsch, Environmental Review Manager
Minnesota Department of Commerce
85 – 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN  55101-2198
 

Here are our comments, hot off the press and just eFiled,  plus exhibits:

DEIS Comments No CapX and CETF

ICF-IndependentAssessmentMISOBenefits (see p. 15 of pdf & p. 84/85 — doc pages are obscured)

RTO operational benefits are largely associated with the improved ability to displace gas generation with coal generation, more efficient use of coal generation, and better use of import potential.

Ex 35 ConductorSpecs

Corona and UV

Copy of CALCULATED MAGNETIC FIELD CHARTS

 

ITC’s MN/IA line — DEIS Comments and FEIS release

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV,Nuts & Bolts — posted by admin on May 8, 2014 @ 11:10 am

Comments are due on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on May 9 — that’s TOMORROW!  More on this below on this post.

raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us

fax: 651.539.0109

Ray Kirsch, Environmental Review Manager
Minnesota Department of Commerce
85 – 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN  55101-2198

Now, about the Environmental Review and scheduling…

Here’s a part of the Scheduling Order for the ITC Midwest MN/IA 345 kV line docket:snippet

As I work on the DEIS comments due tomorrow on the ITC Midwest MN/IA 345 kV Transmission Project, I realized that environmental review is not incorporated into the scheduling order:

SchedOrder3_20144-98187-01

That’s most unusual… I had to call Ray Kirsch to find out when the Final EIS is going to be released.  That’s July 11, 2014.  It’s not on the Scheduling Order.  So what?  Well, think about it… what that means is that the public hearings are May 13 & 14th, the Evidentiary Hearings is May 19 – 23rd, the record closes on May 30, and so all the hearings are over and the record is closed when the FEIS is released!  It also means that the Public Comment period, which closes also on May 30, 2014, doesn’t give the public any way to comment on adequacy of the FEIS.  And parties’ Initial Briefs are due on July 11, 2014, so we can’t comment on it in the Initial Briefs either.  No, this is not OK.

So I fired off a letter, and am ready to file a Motion if need be:

CETF & No CapX 2020 Request for Extension of Schedule for Public Comments and Briefing on FEIS Adequacy

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

Again, send DEIS comments to:

raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us

fax: 651.539.0109

Ray Kirsch, Environmental Review Manager
Minnesota Department of Commerce
85 – 7th Place East, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN  55101-2198

Some issues that come to mind:

  • The DEIS should define “need.”
  • The DEIS should specify what capacity are they wanting, and what they want it for.  ITC claims that a lower voltage line “would be unable to provide enough capacity to improve reliability or support additional generation.” p. 49.  OK, so what capacity is that?
  • Every time the DEIS says “need,” it should change that to “want” or “desire.”  That would make it a lot easier to understand.
  • To the extent that it is claimed that this project is “to enable new wind” and “deliver existing and future wind generation” it must document how it is assured that wind is enabled/delivered, mindful that FERC specifies that transmission cannot discriminate and must serve all types of generation, and there’s a lot of coal coming in from the west.
  • The DEIS “Alternatives” section says “ITCM notes that the need for its project has been substantiated by its own studies and by those of MISO.”  Ummmm, the only option considered by ITCM and MISO is transmission, it’s a transmission-only company and a transmission operation, DUH!  “Additionally, MISO conducts studies to determine those projects that best meet identified transmisison needs.”  Oh, and those “identified transmission needs” are… ????
  • PROMOD modeling is ECONOMIC modeling.  Economic want, desire for profits, is not “need.”
  • There is a lot of surplus generation west of this project (see p. 48 of DEIS referencing “even more surplus generation that must be exported to regional load centers…”
  • “Different size” is not limited to “different voltage” and “different endpoints.”  For transmission, size = capacity.
  • The DEIS correctly states that “ITCM is an electric transmission company; it does not operate electrical generation plants or provide retail electric service.”  GOOD, that’s TRUE!  Now, what does that mean when considering how ITCM frames this project?
  • “In conclusion, while the 161 kV rebuild alternative may have potential for reduced human and environmental impacts, ITCM’s analysis indicates that it is less effective than a 345 kV line at meeting the need for the project.”  Ummm., SO?  What’s the state’s independent analysis?  Isn’t this what an EIS should be?

In the meantime, here’s the DEIS for review:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Text

Appendices

 

ITC Midwest admits “it’s all connected!”

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Cost Recovery,ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on May 6, 2014 @ 4:49 pm

MVP portfolio map

I love it when this happens.  It’s just a few words, “correcting” Berry’s testimony, but oh, those words:

Correction_Berry_Rebuttal

Here’s the first “correction” in the testimony:

Correction1

And “correction” number 2:

Correction2

I love it when this happens… yes, folks, it IS all connected.  ALL of it must be evaluated.  DOH!

 

ITC Rebuttal Testimony

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on April 30, 2014 @ 4:52 am

Map_2345

Above, that’s the “it’s all connected” map showing how some of the MVP projects fit in with existing and permitted/under construction 345 kV projects.

The rebuttal testimony has been filed:

ITC:

Ashbacker_Rebuttal_20144-98750-04

Berry_Rebuttal_20144-98750-06

Collins_Rebuttal_20144-98750-08

Grover_Rebuttal_20144-98750-10

Schatzki_Rebuttal_20144-98750-14

Middleton_Rebuttal_20144-98750-12

MISO:

Chatterjee_Rebuttal_20144-98704-01

MCEA, et al., supporters of the project:

Rebuttal_Porter_20144-98753-02

Rebuttal_Porter_CV_20144-98753-03

Commerce:

Rakow Rebuttal_20144-98707-02

Heinen Direct_Trade Secret removed_20144-98866-02

 

ITC Midwest’s MN/IA line – MVP project

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV,Nuts & Bolts,Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 27, 2014 @ 4:46 am

As we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.”  This post is about the connections between what’s been proposed by ITC Midwest as the MN/IA 345 kV project, and its relation to other projects in the area and its place in the “package deal” Multi Value Project (MVP) Portfolio.  Remember in looking at these maps that in the Midwest, power flows roughly from the NW to the SE.

Once more with feeling, here’s the project map in Minnesota:

Map from 20132-83982-01-1This project above, is the Minnesota part of MISO’s “MVP 3” which is in Minnesota and Iowa, and which connects directly to MISO’s “MVP 4” in Iowa, heading east:

ITC MVP Study 3

So now, let’s look at the bigger picture, of which there are several.  First, the full MVP portfolio, 17 transmission projects in the Midwest:

MVP portfolio map

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

MVP Portfolio Costs

Now let’s take a look at how this all fits together, MVP 2, 3, 4, 5 and other recent 345 kV additions to the system, remember, “It’s all connected” in transmission:

Map_2345

MVP 1 in the NW corner of this map runs from the Big Stone coal plant to the Brookings substation.

MVP 2 is the CapX 2020 Brookings-Hampton transmission project.  No CapX 2020 and CETF intervened in the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need docket (06-1115) and No CapX 2020 and U-CAN intervened in the Routing docket (08-1474).

MVP 3 is in part, this ITC Midwest MN/IA line, in pink on the map, divided roughly 50/50 between Minnesota and Iowa, and 50/50 between ITC Midwest and Mid American.  MVP 3 surrounds the “3” in the map, above, like a tuning fork, with two forks running west to east, and then a connecting line running north/south.

MVP 4 runs eastward from MVP 3, and connects into existing 345 kV transmission, the blue dots.

MVP 5 is in part the Badger Coulee line, in blue on the map.  Note the connecting blue dots between MVP 2’s Hampton substation through SE Minnesota to La Crosse, WI.  As above, CapX 2020 and CETF intervened in the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need docket (06-1115), and No CapX was an intervenor in that routing docket, jointly with U-CAN and North Route Group.  The other part of MVP 5 is the part connecting MVP 3 and MVP 4, via existing transmission, into MVP 5 and running towards Madison.

Here’s a map from the MVP report, where you can graphically (in the “WOW” “DUH!” sense) see that the point of all these projects, the package, is to move power from the cheaper areas to the higher priced areas, from where electricity sells for $30-50 to $70-200:

LMPThe “benefit” of being able to sell power for so much more than is currently possible is one hell of a benefit!

It’s connected by benefits — the “benefits” claimed are the benefits achieved if, and only if, all 17 MVP projects are operating.  All the modeling was done with that assumption, that ALL of the 17 projects are operating.

Here’s the full MISO Business Case document, check it out:

20110919 MVP Proposed Portfolio Business Case

And even more, the full MVP Report:

MVP Portfolio Analysis Full Report

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

ICF – MISO Benefits Analysis Study

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

 

Off to a great start in Fairmont

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on April 22, 2014 @ 3:10 pm

DSC02365

Today is the start of a three day series of transmission meetings, and we started with a good crowd here in Fairmont for this afternoon’s meeting.

Fairmont Area Residents Voice Opinions Over Proposed High Voltage Transmission Lines

It’s the ITC Midwest MN/IA line, from Lakefield Jct. to Huntley, then south to IA, and ultimately off to Madison…

I’ve got a handout, with a few things for people to consider, most importantly, WRITE UP SOME COMMENTS BY MAY 9!

DEIS Handout

The most important part of this whole proceeding is that this is NOT needed.  It’s wanted, it’s desired, but that’s not need.  Just because they want to build it and make money is not sufficient reason for them to take people’s land and charge Minnesotans even one dollar for this project!  The DEIS quotes ITC’s need statements, and accepts them, using the ITC framing.

ITC is a transmission-only company.  ITC wants to build transmission so it can profit from building it and from providing transmission service.

This afternoon, I’m mostly concerned about Section 4 of the DEIS, “Alternatives to the Proposed Project.”  And as I commented, in looking at “Alternatives to the Proposed Project,” there’s really no alternative to their transmission for profit project, other than putting money directly in their pockets!!!

Some problems with the DEIS, omissions, clarifications, additions needed:

  • The DEIS should define “need.”
  • The DEIS should specify what capacity are they wanting, and what they want it for.  ITC claims that a lower voltage line “would be unable to provide enough capacity to improve reliability or support additional generation.” p. 49.  OK, so what capacity is that?
  • Every time the DEIS says “need,” it should change that to “want” or “desire.”  That would make it a lot easier to understand.
  • To the extent that it is claimed that this project is “to enable new wind” and “deliver existing and future wind generation” it must document how it is assured that wind is enabled/delivered, mindful that FERC specifies that transmission cannot discriminate and must serve all types of generation, and there’s a lot of coal coming in from the west.
  • The DEIS “Alternatives” section says “ITCM notes that the need for its project has been substantiated by its own studies and by those of MISO.”  Ummmm, the only option considered by ITCM and MISO is transmission, it’s a transmission-only company and a transmission operation, DUH!  “Additionally, MISO conducts studies to determine those projects that best meet identified transmisison needs.”  Oh, and those “identified transmission needs” are… ????
  • PROMOD modeling is ECONOMIC modeling.
  • There is a lot of surplus generation west of this project (see p. 48 of DEIS referencing “even more surplus generation that must be exported to regional load centers…”
  • “Different size” is not limited to “different voltage” and “different endpoints.”  For transmission, size = capacity.
  • The DEIS correctly states that “ITCM is an electric transmission company; it does not operate electrical generation plants or provide retail electric service.”  GOOD, that’s TRUE!  Now, what does that mean when considering how ITCM frames this project?
  • “In conclusion, while the 161 kV rebuild alternative may have potential for reduced human and environmental impacts, ITCM’s analysis indicates that it is less effective than a 345 kV line at meeting the need for the project.”  Ummm., SO?  What’s the state’s independent analysis?  Isn’t this what an EIS should be?

There were a lot of great comments, my favorite was Helen Lee (Lea?) Murphy who has a way with words, and noted we need an MLK or Nelson Mandela to challenge this line!  She also had a reasonable request, asking for another week to send in comments.

Many people were concerned about the EMF, and recognize the dangers of transmission.  It seems that the perception is that transmission lines are dangerous!  GOOD!  This is a pretty basic fact that has been hidden for way too long.

 
KEYC – Mankato News, Weather, Sports –

Speaking of which, here are the three documents I put into the record, pertaining to ultra violet related to transmission, associated with corona, and a byproduct of transmission, two patent applications and a study:

US5986276 – APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ELIMINATING X-RAY HAZARDS FROM ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION

EP1691461A1 – ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM SUPPRESSING CORONA DISCHARGE FROM VIEWPOINT OF
ENVIRONMENT

EPE_2013111816011292 The Ultraviolet Detection of Corona Discharge in Power Transmission Lines

There were a lot of people from Sherburn promoting the Modified Route A, particularly concerned about the church, and about the impact of the line if ot goes on the south side if I-90:

DSC02366

In the Fairmont Sentinal:

Power line generates comments

April 23, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health concerns also were expressed by others in attendance.

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

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

There also were concerns about property values.

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

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

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

Fax: (651) 539-0109

E-mail:

raymond.kirsch@sate.mn.us

 

On to the next meeting…

DEIS Meetings for ITC Midwest’s MN/IA line

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on April 21, 2014 @ 1:16 pm

ITC MVP Study 3

This week we have three days of DEIS meetings, that’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the uninitiated.  The schedule:

Fairmont
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Knights of Columbus Hall
920 East 10th Street
Fairmont, MN 56031
 
Jackson
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
National Guard Armory
108 County Road 51
Jackson, MN 56143
 
Blue Earth
Thursday, April 24, 2014
1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Hamilton Hall
209 South Main Street
Blue Earth, MN 56013

This project is important because, well, look at the red line in the map above that represents this project.  It connects on the west to the Split Rock-Lakefield Jct. line from a decade ago, and then goes east, and drops down into Iowa, to become part of a web headed toward Chicago.  The red and green on that map constitute MISO designated MVP3, and to the east, the orange and blue are MVP 4, and further to the east, 1/2 of which is Badger Coulee, is MVP 5.  Important to note that there are 17 MVP projects, and all 17 must be built to offer the benefits touted, the modeling included all 17.  Not only that, but cost apportionment also included costs to states beyond just the percentage of the one project under review, i.e., there are claims of benefits of MVP 3, but those benefits require MVP 4 and MVP 5, and in fact, ALL the 17 MVP projects.  Costs to Minnesota ratepayers are “just” a portion of MVP 3, but there are also costs to Minnesota of MVP 4, MVP 5, and I think ALL of the 17 MVP projects.  So the benefits that are reliant on all the 17 projects being built must be balanced against the costs attributable to Minnesota for all 17 projects!  See, that wasn’t so hard, was it!

Here’s the DEIS from the Commerce ITC MN/IA DEIS page, it’s easier to cut and paste, though it’s a good idea to download because you never know when links will be changed or disappear:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Text

Appendices

 

CETF & No CapX Motion Denied!

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on April 1, 2014 @ 11:10 am

Here’s the Order, hot off the press:

Order Denying Motions

Onward…

Testimony in ITC MN/IA docket filed

Filed under:ITC MN & IA 345 kV — posted by admin on @ 9:16 am

pilesofiles

Piles and piles of papers…

Applicant Testimony

Ashbacker Direct

Berry Direct

Coeur Direct

Grover Direct

Middleton Direct – Schedules 1-14

Schatzki Direct

MISO Testimony

Chatterjee Direct

Commerce Testimony

Heinen Direct

Heinen Direct_Attachments

Johnson Direct– THIS IS A MUST READ!!!

Rakow Direct

MCEA et al. Testimony

Goggins Direct

CETF – No CapX2020

(no testimony, no funding = no witnesses)


previous page · next page


image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace