Death threats in the mail?!?!?

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on June 2, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

Death threats to an Advisory Task Force member?  Well, that’s different!

I’ve just come back from the Cannon Falls Citizen Advisory Task Force for the CapX 2020 Hampton-Alma/LaCrosse transmission line route.  Got there just a tad-bit late, and learned I missed an announcement that Karen Doll, of the Pine Island EDA, who had been representing Pine Island on the Task Force, has received two (?) death threat letters in the mail.  Oh my…   I had a short talk with the Mayor of Pine Island, who is taking her place, who said it was referred to the Sheriff and to the Department of Homeland Security.  Utility infrastructure is a big deal these days, we’re talking a major federal offense.  I’ll post more as I hear… IF I hear…

Here’s the Cannon Falls-“North Rochester” Task Force page

Here’s the “North Rochester”-River Crossing Task Force page


Another interesting tidbit — they were talking about the area NE of Kenyon, where an alternative route goes, and someone in the audience mentioned that Sogn Valley is a historical area.  Turns out that “someone” was none other than Craig Hanson, Holden Township Supervisor, who had been unable to attend the meetings.  He’s out in the audience!!!  And what does the “facilitator” do but try to shush him.  No one there knows this information, and you’d think “informing the record” would be the priority when someone respectfully and succinctly offers relevant information… but NOOOOOOOOO, “SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH” is the outcry.  Later, when I learned who he was, I made it a point to introduce him, he who should have invited to the table and not shussshed, to Charlie Facilitator and Matt Langan.  And Hanson is right, Sogn Valley is a historic area, and it’s also Steve Sviggum’s home, and there would be a certain amount of poetic justice if he got a big honkin’ transmission line in his yard rather than a wind-turbine and wind substation (as was planned in the Kenyon Wind Project).  However, it’s not called “Sogn Valley,” it’s “Nansen” for a smaller focus:

Documenting Minnesota’s Agricultural Heritage — The Nansen Historic District


And then there’s the little matter of the Stanton Airport — remember, the one where Bill Clinton landed when he spoke at Carleton College? Here they are in the limo at Stanton, helicopter in the background (from Hayes Scriven’s blog):


The problem is that they wanted to run an alternate route right down 56, well, folks there is an airport there, a pretty busy small little airport, one where people do gliding, take flying lessons, etc.  No way can the line go there, and yet, Xcel’s Tom Hillstrom said that it was a PRIVATE airport!!!!!  Again, NO WAY!

FYI, here’s a spreadsheet of the airports in Dakota, Goodhue, Olmstead, Wabasha and Winona Counties (none near by at the edge of Rice County) — one sheet has the Hampton-Alma counties’ airports, and the other has every one in Minnesota:

Minnesota Airport Database – Searchable

No route should go anywhere, it shouldn’t get close to the EIS and waste everyone’s time, without a check of interference with an airport.  This was a problem in Brookings, and it shouldn’t happen here — we need to LEARN from mistakes.  So, everybody, check the spreadsheet!!!  I heard there was a new airport listed in Goodhue, but don’t see it yet.

Tomorrow is the last meeting of the “North Rochester-River Crossing” Advisory Task Force.  Come on over to Plainview City Hall tomorrow at 1 p.m.

More Data Practices Act responses

Filed under:Nuts & Bolts — posted by admin on June 1, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

Hot off the press, more responses to my Data Practices Act request about Citizen Advisory Task Forces. So, starting from the beginning, here are the requests I’d sent:

Task Force Data Practices Act – 1

Task Force Data Practices Act – 2

Here is the response Friday:

Advisory Task Forces – Web-based information 2002-2010

And here’s what came in first thing this morning:

Advisory Task Forces I-drive Information 1995-2002

Citizen Advisory Committees – Table

Now, it’s time to take a look at this!


Comment and Request for Hearing filed

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

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

NoCapX & U-CAN Comment and Request for Hearing

MOES had filed their Comment:

MOES Comments

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

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

And then came the CETF Comment:

CETF – Comment Brookings CoN Delay & Request for Hearing

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

To see the whole docket, go to and then “Search Dockets” for 06-1115.

Motion for Order to Show Cause filed today!

Filed under:PUC Docket — posted by admin on @ 11:26 am

Today NoCapX 2020 and United Citizen Action Network filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, to push the PUC to require compliance with their Order way back when that the CapX 2020 Applicants disclose, which they have not done!

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

What haven’t they disclosed?  Here’s what the Order says:

4. Applicants shall make a compliance filing disclosing each project’s transmission capacity, owners, and ownership structure.

See for yourself in the Certificate of Need, at the very end, Order Point 4:

Order Granting Certificate of Need with Conditions

The PUC is considering CapX 2020’s Notice and Delay:

CapX Notice of Delay for Brookings In-Service Date

Here is is, more than a year later, and the CapX 2020 applicants have not responded to the PUC’s Order.  They have not disclosed the capacity of the various lines in the project and have not disclosed the owners and ownership structure.


They’re applying for routing permits, they’re requesting AND GETTING rate recovery (with one important exception, the Brookings line), and they haven’t disclosed who will own this thing…  So NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN have asked that, whether or not this variance is issued, that the CapX 2020 Applicants be required to ‘fess up!

previous page

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace