Brookings Remand – Motion for Reconsideration & Reply

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,Upcoming Events — posted by admin on March 31, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

Brookings Motion for Reconsideration has been filed.

I just was eServed the CapX Applicants’ Reply to Motion for Reconsideration, but was there a Motion for Reconsideration? So I went to the docket, and sure enough, one was filed.  It didn’t come through eDockets eService notifications that I can see, and it didn’t come via email or mail… hmmmmmmm.

Well, anyway, here are the filings – it’s large:

Wolter – Motion for Reconsideration – Part 1

Wolter – Motion for Reconsideration – Part 2

What notified me of the Motion for Reconsideration was that this Response was filed, just in!

CapX Applicants – Response to Motion for Reconsideration

It looks like the Motion for Reconsideration was mailed to the PUC and stamped “received” on March 18, 2011, and then filed by the PUC on the 21st.  I’ve checked my Inbox and have a few things for 08-1474 going way, way back, but nothing.  Was it served?

I wish they’d have intervened in the Remand… I’d pushed for a reopening of the window for intervention, knowing there were people concerned who had sat out the initial Brookings proceeding, and the deadline for intervention was extended to September 2, 2010:

Prehearing Order 1 – Intervention Deadline September 2, 2010

…oh well… ya can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make ’em intervene.

So is there an appeal in the offing?  Perhaps.  MinnCan Redux?  Perhaps…

MinnCan Pipeline – Unpublished Appellate Case

Hampton Substation & Prairie Island-Blue Lake Xmsn

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on March 26, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

This is a test…  Notice anything odd here?


Or more correctly, notice anything missing here?  Hint… see that green line???

You can find the full map at this CapX 2020 link!

All right, here’s the answer:

The northwestern terminus of the La Crosse Project wlll be the new Hampton Substation, which will connect the new 345 kV transmission line to the existing Prairie Island – Blue Lake 345 1cV transmission line in the vicinity of Hampton, Minnesota. From the new Hampton Substation, the new 345 kV transmission line will be routed to a new substation (North Rochester Substation). This segment of the La Crosse Project will be approximately 40 to 50 miles long and will be constructed using a double circuit compatible configuration.

Taken from this Rate filing from South Dakota:

SD Rate Filing – see p. 4-5

This same document was filed somewhere in MN, there have been so many that I can’t remember… perhaps the CoN docket?

MOES DEIS out for Hampton-LaX!

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on March 21, 2011 @ 1:20 pm


The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is out for the CapX 2020 Hampton – LaCrosse line!  I’m shocked, expected that with the workload lately, it would be at least another month.  The big issue for me is that they’re not working with the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service on a joint EIS.  And why on earth wouldn’t they rather work together?  Why duplicate so much?  Wouldn’t that mean you’d have better environmental review?  Oh… right… can’t have that now, can we?

MOES’ Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Don’t bother clicking on the link in the Notice yet, it’s not posted either on their site or the PUC’s official docket.

To check the PUC’s docket later, go to and “Search eDockets” and search for 09-1448 and look for the DEIS.  It should be posted later today.

And just for yucks, here’s the USDA’s RUS page for EIS regarding Dairyland’s $$ Request for CapX Financing.

When you’re going over this DEIS, quick check out Section 7, look for the magnetic field levels anticipated for a line with potential MVA of 2050 – their max is 600MVA, 600!!!:



CapX 2020 update

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on @ 7:49 am

I’ve heard a few comments questioning whether I’ve dropped off the face of the earth, but nooooo, just dealing with a hearing on another project…

So as for CapX Phase I, project by project(to review dockets, for MN projects GO HERE and search for docket number in parens below), here’s where we’re at with those projects where NoCapX has intervened:

Brookings-Hampton (08-1474): PUC order is out, and today would be deadline for a Motion for Reconsideration

Order Granting Route Permit

The eagle study requested by USFWS is ongoing… informal reports are that there are very high numbers of eagles in the LeSueur to Belle Plaine area.

Fargo-St. Cloud (09-1056): Briefs went in a month ago, and ALJ’s Recommendation is due any time now.

Hampton-LaX (MN) (09-1448): DEIS is supposed to be released today… $50 says it’ll be late, again…

Hampton-LaX (WI) (05-ce-136): PSC staff tossed it back to applicants, said that their application wasn’t complete.  They can refile at any time.

Brookings PUC Final Order is filed

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on March 1, 2011 @ 12:34 pm



The Public Utilities Commission has issued its Order Granting Route Permit in the Brookings case.  This is the middle segment that crosses the Minnesota River, tossed back to the Administrative Law Judge for additional hearings, Recommendation issued, PUC oral arguments and deliberation last month, and here we are, a Final Order:

Order Granting Route Permit

For the full docket, go to and then “Search eDockets” and search for 08-1474.

Several people have asked about the appeal process, so here’s a heads up, now that the “Final Order” is issued, the clock starts ticking for a Motion for Reconsideration and then an Appeal.

Appeal – How does that work? (well, usually it doesn’t…)  There are two necessary steps at this point to begin an appeal.

FIRST: A Motion for Reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of TODAY, the date the Order is issued.  The PUC would then accept responses to a Motion and would take it up or not take it up.  Typically, they do not act.  Under the rules, it will be on an agenda, and when that item comes up, they can take up the Motion or not, and they can do so with or without comment from parties or the public.  Then they make a decision, typically not to Reconsider.

SECOND: After the Motion is decided by the PUC, if it is denied or not taken up, then there is a THIRTY DAY window to file an appeal at the Appellate Court.

For the record, NoCapX and U-CAN will not be appealing this.  Although there were serious problems with this case procedurally, none of it provides a solid basis for appeal, because in making their decision, the landowners hit with the procedural violations were not hit with the line ultimately.  The Environmental Review was awful, but after the challenge to environmental review on the Certificate of Need, I can’t see a challenge that they’d care about.

Here are two examples of appeals, relevant recent appeals, where we/they raised NOTICE and Environmental Review issues, and were tossed out:

CapX Certificate of Need Appellate Decision (NoCapX & U-CAN appealed and it was dismissed)

MinnCan Pipeline – Unpublished Appellate Case (members of U0CAN appealed pipeline CoN & Routing and it was dismissed)

NoCapX and U-CAN were the only parties participating in this remand, and oh how I struggled and urged others to join in, but nooooooo, so there aren’t parties to appeal.  Directly affected landowners, but non-parties, would have a very rough time.  Which is not to say that a lawyer couldn’t be found to take the $$$$ and run with it, but I don’t see anything with a possibility at a win.