CapX 2020 Responds to NoCapX Motion to Suspend

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on May 24, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

Here’s their Response:

CapX Response to NoCapX & U-CAN Motion to Suspend

Where they actually say:

Intervenors’ assertion that uncertainty about Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) cost allocation methodologies somehow warrants delay of the Brookings Project routing proceeding is unfounded.  MISO’s cost allocation issues relate to how the Brookings Project will be funded and
have nothing to do with route determination. There is no question that the project should be built, as determined and ordered in the CapX2020 345 kV Certificate Need order.

NoCapX/UCAN’s contention that the La Crosse Project should be put on hold is unfounded as well. There are no cost allocation or cost recovery issues regarding the La Crosse Project. Simply because the two projects interconnect at the Hampton Substation does not mean that a change in timing in one project affects review of the appropriate route for the other.  As fully considered in the Certificate of Need proceeding, the two projects serve distinct needs in distinct geographic areas and neither is dependent on construction of the other to meet these needs.

Now do tell, what happens if the Hampton substation is not built, or delayed, delayed, delayed…?  The substation is in the Brookings routing docket — what would the Hampton to Alma line connect to???  Just the Prairie Island-Blue Lake?  And where?  Neither is dependent on the construction of the other to meet these needs?  Uh-huh… right….

To steal a line from NSP’s Jones, “It’s all connected!”

CapX 2020 – OAH Recommendation for St. Cloud-Monticello

Filed under:Fargo-St Cloud — posted by admin on @ 1:17 pm

heydingerJudge Heydinger has released her Recommendation for the route of CapX 2020’s St. Cloud-Monticello transmission line:

ALJ’s Recommendation for St. Cloud to Monticello

Those of you who are affected by this Recommendation and/or the coming PUC decision regarding the route may submit “Exceptions” to the Recommendation.  That means “correct” it to say what you want it to say, include facts that support the result you want; change “facts” that you think are off and cite to source in the record, like testimony, exhibits; and build the case that leads to the conclusions you want to see.  Does that make sense?

The easiest way to do it is to convert the pdf’d Recommendation to WORD and then use track changes so it’s in the right format, easy to work with.

Mn DOT’s & MRPC Comments on Hampton-Alma/LaCrosse

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on @ 11:26 am


The Minnesota DOT’s comments on the scope of the EIS for the CapX 2020 transmission line from Hampton to Alma/LaCrosse are posted.

Mn DOT Scoping Comments May 20, 2010

And the Mississippi River Parkway Commission comments are posted too:

Mississippi River Parkway Commission – Comment Letter

It’s good to see these Comments and the concerns raised out there now, and not at the last minute as in Brookings!  This is good stuff!!!

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace