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

At New Prague, three people brought up how hard it was to find things, or not knowing where to find things, so here’s an update on that — I’ve posted it often, but it realy is hard for people, particularly if they don’t know the docket number.

To look at PUC eFiling info — all the stuff that’s been filed in the various dockets go to:

CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH PAGE

Scroll down until you see the “search” button and right below that is the space to plug in the docket numbers.  The first docket number represents the year it was filed, and the second is the docket number.

For the Certificate of Need Docket for Phase I – plug in 06-1115.

For Brookings Routing Docket, plug in 08-1474.

For the Monticello to St. Cloud, plug in 09-246.

For the Fargo to Monticello, plug in 09-1056.

MOES has a site, but it’s not the official record, that’s only on the PUC site.  The thing is, info that is on PUC site does not always, USUALLY does not, appear on the MOES site.  And things that are on the MOES site, also don’t necessarily get onto the official docket posting.  That’s been a problem in the Mesaba docket, the Brookings docket, and it’s important to go through the Comments and other things and make sure that they get posted in the PUC official docket so it becomes part of the record.  Who cares?  Why is it important?  Well, the purpose of the EIS is to “inform the record” but that’s been regarded as a separate process.  Meanwhile, important information that relates to siting or routing is often submitted as comments to the DEIS or in scoping that do not make their way into the record and we only find out very late in the process, like the DOT’s comments and US Fish & Wildlife comments on the Brookings DEIS.  Thanks to an alert citizen, and the DOT’s David Seykora, info is finally in the record that should have been there much earlier.  Seykora is DOING HIS JOB!!! (like wow, very impressive that an agency employee shows up and pays attention and submits documents and ultimately testimony about important stuff, one would expect, but no, this is not typical of agencies, and there are a lot of people oh-so-grateful that the DOT showed up.  I wish we could say the same for other agencies… sigh…).

People were wondering where to find the big maps, the most updated oens, that are being used at the front of the room to ID routes.  If you go to the PUC site, look in docket 08-1474 for Exhibits 123-136.  It starts with the river crossings as 123 and 124, and then from west to east, 125-136.  NEVERMIND, I just went and looked and I don’t see them.  Will post a link after I find out where they are.

The notice for the Myrick route is now filed, it went out this week, THIS WEEK, after all the hearings were over, and this is their preferred route.

Dec 30 Notice – Myrick Route

Yeah,  I know, it’s  hard to see.  Myrick is the lighter blue alignment, south of the darker blue along 169 there.  For a closer look, go to the Notice link above and scroll down to bottom, there’s the pdf map!

We had a scheduling conference yesterday, and here’s the upshot:

Counsel and Parties –

This email summarizes the dates agreed to at the Scheduling Conference in this case on Dec. 30, 2009. On the assumption that the Transcripts of all the hearings will be distributed approximately January 8, 2010, and that the Final EIS will be completed on January 22, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge set the following deadlines :

– February 3, 2010, for Public Comments

– February 15, 2010, for Initial Briefs (all Parties), OES’s Initial Comments, and Applicants’ Proposed Findings of Fact

– March 4, 2010, for Intervenors’ Proposed Findings of Fact

– March 12, 2010, for Reply Briefs (all Parties), and OES’s Final Comments

A more detailed document will be issued next week.

Richard C. Luis,   Administrative Law Judge

Now promise you’ll not hold me to correct spelling, coherent thoughts, and zoning out during the hearing… the Susquehanna-Roseland brief was due Monday, so up way late and up again way early before dawn, and then after firing off the brief to New Jersey, I hammered down to New Prague and got there just before the 7 pm hearing started and it went until .. what… 5 after midnight???  Didn’t get home until pushing 2 am., thought I was gonna die, I’m just too old for this (next year I qualify for the “senior” discount, and I find that every time I go to the store here on a Wednesday, damned if they don’t ask… AAAAAGH!).  And I completely missed the PPSA hearing Tuesday, no way could I get up in time, didn’t get there until a little after 11, it was all done, everyone gone, almost… Oh, and I heard that the attorney representing City of Red Wing on the Prairie Island uprate and dry cask did a great job, Tom Hanlon, he told it like it is.   I’d guess that it was a pretty radicalizing experience for him, seeing how the system works and doesn’t.    So anyway, sorry I don’t have anything to report on the Power Plant Siting Act annual hearing.

Here are the really sketchy notes from the New Prague hearing:

Notes – December 28 – New Prague

The rest of the Brookings CapX 2020 schedule is coming up next…

The last Brookings CapX 2020 transmission line public hearing is tomorrow, December 28, 2009, in New Prague.  This is it folks, the last chance to let the judge know in person what you think of CapX 2020, the last chance to show the judge in person your photos of your land that CapX could cross, to let him know in technicolor what this means to you.

New Prague Public Hearing

December 28, 1 p.m. & 7 p.m.

Knights of Columbus

411 – 4th Ave. S.W.

New Prague, MN

And you can send in Public Comments until at least the end of January — the deadline will be one week after publication of the final EIS, which is now delayed, at least two weeks BECAUSE THEY GOT SO MANY COMMENTS!!!  Send your comments to:

Judge Richard C. Luis

Office of Administrative Hearings

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, MN
55164-0620

fax 651-361-7936

e-mail capx.oah.state.mn.us

I’ve been busy writing the Susquehanna-Roseland brief, it’s due tomorrow.  AAAAAAAAAAGH!

But this came over the wire, from The Land.  If you have comments, you can SEND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR!
I did!!!

I realize, we all realize, that Tim Carlsgaard is “just a shill,” but he might as well have written this piece, it’s an example of taking in CapX information, unfiltered, unquestioned, unchallenged, and regurgitating it  — why… this looks like something from MOES!!!

If you’re a farmer who gets The Land, let them know they need to start REPORTING on CapX 2020, not regurgitating!

Tomorrow’s power grid being planned today

By Dick Hagen
The Land Staff Writer

December 23, 2009 03:19 am

—

Be it new livestock facilities, wind turbines or electric transmission lines, the NIMBY syndrome (“not in my backyard”) continues to surface from land 0wners, home owners and project detractors who aren’t always excited about new economic development projects. An ever-increasing appetite for energy, however, suggests changing attitudes are necessary for a growing segment of Minnesotans, regardless of what area of the state they live. A prime example is the largest transmission expansion project ever proposed in the United States. Known as CapX2020, this effort involves four projects totaling about 700 miles of new and upgraded power lines in Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

“All four projects are moving forward in the regulatory process. By next January (2010), we will have Minnesota route permits submitted with the same process also under way in the three other states. So between 2011 and 2015 we hope to have ‘in service’ lines in place in all four states,” said Tim Carlsgaard,
Communications and Public Affairs manager for CapX2020, Xcel Energy Co.

Interviewed at the recent Minnesota Farm Bureau annual meeting, Carlsgaard indicated this massive project was initially projected at a cost of about $1.7 billion.

“But at the urging of the state and various wind development projects, we have proposed to double-circuit the project meaning double the transmission capacity on this new power grid on three of the four projects, which adds $200 million additional costs,” said Carlsgaard, who noted that increasing the capacity now rather than coming back later seemed a wiser option. The Midwest power grid involves 15 states and the Canadian province of Manitoba, so
improvements generated by the CapX2020 project will improve the efficiency of this entire grid.

Reliable service

Carlsgaard praised the various Minnesota utilities that have now been in business more than 100 years and continue to deliver dependable service virtually without a hitch, whereas “rolling brown outs” are a reality of some older systems in parts of eastern seaboard states. He told of a power line originating in South Dakota and running parallel to Highway 212 into Shakopee that has been operating for over 60 years.

“It’s a good example of an efficient and remarkably dependable system,” he said. “It’s a 230-kilovolt line today but potentially can be upgraded with a 345 KV line utilizing single pole structures which would have less impact on the land than the existing four-pole/lattice framework structures.”

With ever more wind projects being proposed for rural Minnesota, the million-dollar question is what is the most expedient way to transfer that wind energy into the metropolitan areas where it is needed. “Striking the right balance with the least amount of impact on land owners is the challenge,” Carlsgaard said.

Working with landowners

He acknowledged that Xcel strives to properly work with landowners and rural communities where these new transmission routes are proposed. Once the Public Utilities Commission accepts the proposed new routes from point A to point B, then Xcel starts talking with land owners along that route including getting current appraisals on land values. Under Minnesota law, once agreements are reached with affected land owners, a one-time easement is agreed to which includes payments for two to three years of potential crop damages incurred by the equipment utilized in the process of building the new line.

Also by state statute, the PUC authority exceeds that of the county, the township and the landowners once the route determination has been finalized. However
before construction on a project starts, Xcel officials do meet with all parties of the project location including township officers, community officials and, of course, individual landowners. “And that even involves replacing damaged drain tile, fencing, township roads, community roads and sewer lines, plus MnDOT where state roads/bridges get involved,” Carlsgaard said. Planning even involves mitigation plans with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture outlining how Xcel will work with farmers should there be legal issues.

Going nuclear

If and when Minnesota lifts its current ban on additional nuclear-powered electricity, CapX2020 will likely be impacted, but not in a definable manner at this stage. Carlsgaard said Xcel’s two nuclear-powered plants in Minnesota — at Monticello and Prairie Island — have a current proposal to increase their output by 10 percent and getting an extension on their current permits for another 20 to 30 years.

This decision is expected to be acted upon during the upcoming 2010 session of the Minnesota State Legislature. Also likely to be on the agenda is a lifting of the current state-imposed ban on additional nuclear power. Wisconsin also bans expansion of nuclear power at this stage.

About 20 percent of Xcel’s energy is currently generated from its two nuclear facilities. Even though it is identified as the cleanest source of energy, questions persist as to storage of spent fuel rods. Carlsgaard indicated none of Xcel’s 11 utilities serviced by the CapX program are proposing any new nuclear plants. Xcel Energy is also considering hydropower coming out of Manitoba, Canada, for additional electrical production in an ongoing effort to meet the constantly increasing demand for electrical power. This would be a 500 KV (high voltage) line with four Minnesota utilities interested in purchasing that power source.

Upgrading the grid

Looking at the total transmission grid serving America, Carlsgaard said upgrades are needed virtually everywhere, especially in the heavily populated and
more-industrialized eastern seaboard area where they need a better system just to provide reliability.

“Their limited space creates huge challenges. In the Midwest we face a different issue,” he said. “We need to upgrade because of our state-imposed renewable energy legislation, which mandates 25 percent renewable by 2020, and Xcel needs to be 30 percent from renewables by 2025. Our grids haven’t been updated in 30 to 40 years so the pressure on Xcel is how do we create more capacity for renewable energy.”

What’s obvious in this growing challenge of upgrading the American power grid is that more transmission will be required and more wind farms will be needed to meet these new deadlines. The bottom line is that the landscape of rural Minnesota, and all of rural America, will continue to be redefined with the construction of huge new power lines, and a growing number of wind farms and wind turbines.

Currently Minnesota trails Texas, California and Iowa in wind capacity. Texas now claims nearly 7,300 megawatts of wind capacity. Minnesota is ramping up to nearly 2,000 megawatts of capacity.

“With these rapidly developing new energy projects plus the ever-growing demand for more electrical power, it’s a matter of finding the right balance,” Carlsgaard said. “And that includes the acceptance of more wind farms and 400-foot turbines, new transmission corridors for moving electricity from point A to point B, and a growing awareness of both the challenges and opportunities that the energy industry presents.”

The Dept. of Commerce Office of Energy Security filed its responsive submission after the charges of malfeasance and or misfeasance raised at the Marshall Public Hearing regarding its failure to establish a Citizen Advisory Task Force and the manner in which that failure was accomplished and the manner in which they declined the opportunity to make it right after similar charges at the 3/30/09 Scoping meeting also held in Marshall.  Here it is:

Ex 43 – MOES Memo re: CATF Process

MOES Memo – Attachment A – MOES Briefing Papers 1/27/09 PUC Mtg

MOES Memo – Attachment B – Affidavit of Scott Ek

MOES Memo – Exhibit 1 – Petitions prior to PUC meeting

MOES Memo – Exhibit 2 – List & letters

MOES Memo – Exhibit 2 – List only

MOES Memo – Exhibit 3 – Replies to letter

MOES Memo – Exhibit 4 – Specific Requests for CATF

MOES Memo – Exhibit 5 – Marshall EIS Scoping Transcript 3-30-09

MOES Memo – Exhibit 6 – Twp route proposals

MOES Memo – Attachment C – Draft Public Participation Plan

MOES Memo – Attachment D – PUC Meeting Transcript 1-27-09

MOES Memo – Attachment E – PUC Order – SHORT

Attachment D is the PUC transcript that I ordered, and which MOES did not and instead appropriated.  That 1/27/09 meeting was pretty intense, and reveals how hard it was to get a Task Force beyond one for Dakota County, or to get a Task Force at all, because Commerce was advocating for “Focus Groups.”  Read that transcript and see for yourself.  I’d argued for multiple Task Forces, knowing that the River Crossings needed review, that between the river and I-35 there were many people wanting input, and I knew there were people further west.  This line is so long that it’s important to make the effort to let people be heard… but nooooooooooooooooooo…

Again, read that transcript.  Look at all the dancing that’s going on.

Then read the March 30, 2009 transcript from the afternoon Marshall meeting and ask yourself why, when confronted with affected landowners wanting input, when confronted with township government officials who had requested a Task Force and been denied, why wouldn’t they make the effort between 3/30/09 and 6/30/09 (when the Scoping decision was issued) to make it happen?  To make something happen?  But nooooooooooo… and so here we are.  It’s not like they didn’t have warning and a way to fix it.

Subpoena Denial

I have considered Ms. Overland’s subpoena request. After review of the oral argument on this issue at the end of the proceedings on December 18, and the filings (public comments) on record to date from the USFWS, I conclude that compelling the personal testimony of either potential witness would be unduly burdensome and is unnecessary to the development of a complete record in this case.

… sigh…

I’ve been ranting at these meetings for over a decade now…

Once more with feeling, here we go…

Deja vu all over again…

For those of you who have experienced how the Power Plant (transmission too) Siting Act works and doesn’t work, here is your opportunity to tell them in technicolor.  Does it do any good?  Well, not that I can see, other than a way to keep your blood pressure odown.  There’s supposed to be a report to the PUC, but typically minutes and comments aren’t posted until just before the next one, a year late.  Unfortunately, I feel pretty strongly that it’s one way open to register my disgust at how the system is worked by the utilities and by the Dept. of Commerce, how the people in the footprint of these projects are being trampled, the concept of notice goes out the window, environmental review is a farce, it’s so bad that if I wasn’t hypotensive I’d blow a gasket, as it is, it’s just aerobic exercise, but anyway, I feel a compulsion to weigh in.  Gotta exhaust all administrative options — color me exhausted, but not completely — not yet!

The comments I made last year reflect my exhaustion and exasperation:

2008 PPSA Annual Hearing Notes

Here’s Bob’s notice that arrived in the inbox:

Public Hearing

Annual Review of Power Plant Siting Act Programs

Tuesday, December 29, 2009    10:00 AM
3rd Floor Large Hearing Room
121 7th Place East
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Notice of Annual Hearing

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will convene the annual public hearing on the Power Plant Siting and Transmission Line Routing Program from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 29, 2009, in the Large Hearing Room at the Commission’s offices on the third floor of the Metro Square Building, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101.

The annual hearing is required by Minnesota Statute 216E.07, which provides that:

The commission shall hold an annual public hearing at a time and place prescribed by rule in order to afford interested persons an opportunity to be heard regarding any matters relating to the siting of large electric generating power plants and routing of high-voltage transmission lines. At the meeting, the commission shall advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year.

While the Commission has multiple statutory authorities for the permitting of several types of energy infrastructure, the scope of the annual hearing is limited to the above cited statute and associated administrative rules in Minn. Rule 7850. The purpose of the hearing is not to take testimony regarding open dockets before the Commission.

The Commission has prepared an Agenda for the meeting, which is available on its webpage at www.puc.state.mn.us (click on December 29 under Upcoming Events). Docket number E999/M-09-1351 has been opened for creation of a record in this matter.

AGENDA

I.          Introductions
II.        Overview of Programs
A. Public Utilities Commission – Facility Permitting Unit
B. Office of Energy Security – Energy Facility Permitting Unit
C. Role of Other State Agencies

III.       Projects Reviewed
A. Projects completed in 2009
B. Pending and anticipated projects

Electric Facilities Subject to Power Plant Siting Act
1. Generating Plants
2. Transmission Lines
IV.       Public Questions and Testimony
V.        Adjourn

At the hearing the public will be afforded an opportunity to be heard through presentation of oral or written statements. Written statements and relevant exhibits may also be submitted for inclusion in the annual hearing record by eFiling (see PUC website link above) or by delivery to the Commission’s offices at the address above by the close of business on February 1, 2010.

The staff recognizes that the time and location may make it difficult for all interested persons to attend, and emphasizes that written comments are encouraged and will be given equal consideration.

The report of the 2008 Annual Hearing is available at in edockets for Docket 08-1426. Direct all inquiries and written comments regarding the annual hearing to: Bret Eknes, Phone 651-201-2236, email: bret.eknes@state.mn.us.

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

Here are some comments that have come over the wire in the last couple of days:

(more…)

The evidentiary hearing is essentially over, but there’s one public hearing left to get your testimony in, voice your concerns, enter in all your exhibits and charts with circles and arrows.

New Prague Public Hearing

December 28, 1 p.m. & 7 p.m.

Knights of Columbus

411 – 4th Ave. S.W.

New Prague, MN

And you can send in Public Comments until at least the end of January — the deadline will be one week after publication of the final EIS, which is now delayed, at least two weeks BECAUSE THEY GOT SO MANY COMMENTS!!!  Send your comments to:

Judge Richard C. Luis

Office of Administrative Hearings

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, MN
55164-0620

fax 651-361-7936

e-mail capx.oah.state.mn.us

Here’s a report on the Henderson hearing from the LeSueur News Herald, from the Hog Wild Saloon:

CapX hearing is marathon event locally

By: Paul M. Malchow
Posted: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:17 pm

Judge Richard Luis heard roughly eight hours of testimony in Henderson on Dec. 7 concerning the proposed routes for the CapX power line.
Normally a site for wedding dances and community events, the hall of the Hog Wild Saloon and Eatery in Henderson became a quasi courtroom on Dec. 7 for a public hearing concerning the proposed routes for the CapX 2020 power line.

CapX will be constructing a 345kV power line from Brookings, So.Dak. to Hampton, Minn. The group has submitted to the Public Utilities Commission a preferred route for the power line and an alternative route. The public hearing in Henderson was part of a two-week-long series designed to take testimony pertaining to the two routes.

The preferred route directs the line east across southern Sibley County, across the region known as Sand Prairie, and down into the valley. The line would cut across the southeastern edge of Buck’s Lake and continue through the land now occupied by Le Sueur’s water treatment ponds. Continuing north on the west side of U.S. Highway 169 the line would cross the highway somewhere on the top of the hill and continue east across the north edge of Le Sueur County.

The alternate route runs east-west through northern Sibley County. It crosses the river just northwest of Belle Plaine and continues south. After a short jaunt east just south of the Belle Plaine city limits, the alternate route continues south where it intersects with the preferred route. After entering Le Sueur County, the alternate route travels east.

Over the past month the Minnesota Office of Energy Security has taken comments and suggestions for other alternate routes. These suggestions had been included for discussion at the public hearings.

Presiding over the hearings was Administrative Law Judge Richard Luis. Anyone providing testimony during the hearing was sworn to tell the truth. Any written documentation and photos accompanying the testimonies were presented to attorneys present at the hearing. If approved they were then labeled and catalogued as evidence.

Representing the Minnesota Department of Commerce Office of Energy Security was attorney Karen Hammel and Project Manager Scott Ek. Lead counsel for Xcel Energy and Great River Energy Lisa Argimonti was present at the hearing along with attorney Carol Overland who represents two citizen groups: No CapX 2020 and U-CAN.

Also available to answer questions were Mike Kaluzniak from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Craig Poorker who is the manager of land rights for Great River Energy, and Dr. Peter Valberg who is serving as a consultant for Great River and Xcel.

The Henderson hearing took place in two segments. The first round of testimony was received from 1 p.m. to about 6 p.m.; and the second round was conducted from 7 p.m. to about 11:30 p.m.

Testimony given throughout the day covered a wide range of topics. James Mayer of Winthrop noted a proposed segment of the power line could run near an existing pipeline in Sibley County. Mayer asked if static electricity from the power line would have an adverse effect on the pipeline – mainly possible corrosion on the inside lining of the pipe.
(more…)

Conductor on loan from New England

Judge Luis has taken my subpoena request under advisement — I’m wanting to have Fish & Wildlife come in and explain their position on the impacts of CapX crossings over the Minnesota River.  Now that the letters are public, at least a few of them (are there more?!?!) and there are serious concerns voiced, and since we’ve had some important testimony from the DOT’s Dave Seykora, I don’t think it’d be right to go forward without hearing from US Fish & Wildlife in person.  We’ll see…

Here are the “Fish & Wildlife” letters that I have thus far – note the statements about “non-aerial” crossings, particularly in the April 30, 2009 letter:

USFWS – December 3, 2008

USFWS – March 5, 2009

USFWS – April 30, 2009

USFWS – October 6, 2009

USFWS – November 30, 2009

And as for notes, well, they’re sketchy because I’ve got a cold and was hacking wheezing and snotting through the day:

ROUGH & spacy notes from December 18

And here’s something choice from the EMF Department, let’s walk through this.  In the application, in the EMF part of Section 3, on p. 3-19, they say that the EMF modeling is based on 2010 levels.  In a response to Johnsons’ IR Request 7, they said, in paragraph C, that the corrected year is 2011, not 2010.  OK, right… and so I asked Lennon when the inservice date was, and he said parts in 2013, parts in 2014 — OK, right… modeling for 2011, two to three years BEFORE the line is inservice?!?!  What kind of results would that give?

But wait, it gets weirder.  They said the line loading would increase over time (DUH!).  But where’s the modeling for that?  NOWHERE!!!

In that same part, p. 3-19, they also note the line is spec’d at bundled 954 kcmil ACSS, and here’s chart from Certificate of Need proceeding showing the Summer amp and MVA rating:

CoN-Exhibit 76 – MCEA’s Info Request 3

And the snippet of the IR3 chart with the relevant amp & MVA levels:

And the Applicants provide this chart on EMF levels (this will just be a snippet of that chart, which begins on p. 3-20 through 3-22 — LOOK AT THE AMPS:

You can find the narrative and charts in their Application, Section 3, p. 3-19 through 3-22 to see for yourself:

Engineering Design, Construction and Right of Way Acquisition

Now let’s go over this once more with feeling…

• Applicants use 2010 or 2011 and say that magnetic fields were calculated for “current flow at the conductor’s thermal capacity and average flow.”
• Line isn’t scheduled to be inservice until 2014 or 2014.
• Applicants admit loading will increase as load growth occurs.
• Thermal limits for line is 3700 amps and 2211 MVA (testimony in the Con said it should be 2050MVA — let’s use that, it doesn’t make htat much difference.
• Their EMF chart says, for example, that for the Brookings to Lyon County, the current level is 826.7.   EH?  Oh, think that’s just a low level… OK, let’s look at the highest:
• The highest I can find is for the Lake Marion to Hampton section, at 1005.9.
• 1005.9 is about 3.7 times less than the thermal limit for the line.
• Lennon testified that at any given Magnetic Field level, if it’s double the current, it’s double the magnetic frequency (rough, remember), if amps are three times, it’s roughly three times the magnetic field.
• So for the peak, the thermal limit, the magnetic frequency at the edge of the RoW,for EMF at amps of 3,700,  at 3.7 times the level they claim, it would be around 24 x 3.7, or 88.8.
• MOES/Department of Commerce accepted Applicant info and did no independent verification.

Given that, what are the magnetic field levels 75 feet off the RoW?

Given that, how stupid do the applicants think we are?

Given that, why is MOES putting anything into the EIS that’s so patently absurd?