Here’s another reminder of the Prehearing Conference coming up for the CapX 2020 Hampton-LaCrosse (Alma) transmission line. Here are their proposed route maps.
NoCapX 2020 and United Citizens Action Network have been admitted as intervenors already — we put in our Petition for Intervention the second this was filed… well, almost! No one objected and we’re in as intervenors.
Notice of Prehearing Conference
The Prehearing Conference is the start of festivities before the Administrative Law Judge, and we’ll have input on the schedule and then the judge will decide how it will go forward. Things like the intervention deadline, the hearing schedule and locations, that will be determined so that’s why it matters. SHOW UP!!!
Monday August 9, 2010 @ 1:30 p.m.
Public Utilities Commission
3rd Floor Small Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place East
St. Paul
It had first been announced for the 10th, but was moved because that’s the primary (like we can’t vote and be there on the same day? Whatever…).
Once more with feeling, here’s what we’ve filed as our suggestions for the schedule — it took a year for Brookings to go from Scoping Decision to PUC decision, well 12.5 months, so this is similar:
NoCapx & U-CAN Proposed Schedule
Note also that I’m trying to correct for, avoid, some of the problems we’ve experienced in the CapX Brookings docket and other PUC dockets too. Things like having the hearing at a time when the FEIS is out, of requiring agency comments be entered into the evidentiary record PROMPTLY, so we can avoid the DOT & USFWS problems this time around. I also want notice to be provided PROMPTLY to those pulled under the lines in the scoping decision, because it took two and a half months for those people to get notice last time. Landowners were receiving notice AFTER the public hearings and evidentiary hearings had closed because routes were “discovered” not feasible and alternatives were proposed. That is NOT acceptable, period. There is no excuse for that.
As we’ve heard, the Rural Utilities Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement is due out “at the end of summer.” So December? This reminds me of waiting for the DOE’s EIS for Mesaba, and I sure hope it won’t be that bad, delayed to absurdity! Why should we care about the RUS EIS? Well, for one, it’s considering THREE locations for river crossings, at Alma, Winona, and LaCrosse. For the state application, the applicants put in only one river crossing, and the state’s PUC said that’s OK. Nevermind the state’s laws and rules say that they must submit TWO routes… the PUC says that’s fine… sigh…
For the Bemidji-Brainerd part of CapX, I see that’s also RUS, and the CapX site says there’s a link to the “Proposed Routes under consideration by the OES and RUS for the Bemidji-GrandRapids 230kV project” but it’s one big 404!
And for this Bemidji-Grand Rapids route, here’s their position:
Why is the CapX 2020 Hampton-LaCrosse line any different??? But nooooo, they’re not working together.
Here’s the RUS site for the CapX EIS:
CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse 345kV Transmission Line Proposal
Look at how detailed that is, and that’s just the preliminary info! You won’t see the likes of that in any Minnesota “Environmental Review” done by the Dept. of Commerce. We already know they’ve left out the Cannon, Zumbro and Belle Creek watersheds.
To see the full PUC docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “Search eDockets” and search for 09-1448.
Show up, folks, so you won’t end up in a fix like Belle Plaine!
