Public Hearings on Hampton-LaCrosse

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on May 30, 2011 @ 10:42 am

The Public Hearing Notice is out for the CapX 2020 Hampton-LaCrosse line, starting two weeks from now, June 14, 2011, and the following week, starting Monday the 20, it’s the evidentiary hearing:

hearingnotice

Note that they have the evening session planned to shut down at 9:30 — keep your eyes open because if there are people waiting to make their comments, the statutory shutdown time isn’t until 11:00 p.m.

This series of meetings is different than the meetings held for comments on the DEIS, this is the opportunity for you to tell Judge Sheehy directly anything and everything about the routing of this project, and it’s particularly the time for you to tell her the particular things about your land and your community that you know best.

The Public Comment period is open until June 30, 2011, either postmarked that date, or if email, fax or hand delivered, in by 4:30 p.k.  WRITE THE DOCKET NUMBER ON IT: CapX Hampton-LaCrosse Docket3-2500-21181-2. Send them to her at:

routecomments.oah@state.mn.us

or fax: 651-361-7936

or by mail:

Kathleen Sheehy, ALJ
OAH
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN  55164-0620

I strongly recommend that in addition to your comments now, you send a copy of whatever you sent regarding the DEIS, because those comments more often than not have a LOT to do with routing of a transmission line.

More Intervenors and Testimony on Hampton-LaX

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on @ 10:03 am

Good coverage of the NRG (North Route Group) Zumbro River Petition yesterday on KAAL, linked HERE!

The ALJ issued an order that granted intervention status to North Route Group (NRG), Oronoco Township, and American Transmission Company (ATC).  I had to ask about it Friday morning, and though we were told it was coming, it was not filed until after the deadline for Intervenors first Testimony filing, the PUC’s received date is Monday, May 23, 2011:

Second Prehearing Order

Check out this part of the Order:

Finally, it contends that it did not falsely characterize the Badger Coulee transmission line as not being an “extension” of this HVTL.  Although the Badger Coulee line will interconnect with this HVTL in the vicinity of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, the Badger Coulee line is a separately owned and distinct line that is not a part of this project.

ATC has shown that its interests are different and distinct from those of Xcel Energy.  The Commission’s decision in this case will determine whether and where ATC’s facilities will be interconnected with this project in Wisconsin.  ATC’s Petition to intervene is accordingly granted.

ATC hasn’t filed a thing…

Here’s the testimony:

XCEL Testimony:

Hillstrom – Direct Testimony Part I

Hillstrom – Direct Testimony Part 2

Hillstrom – Direct Testimony – Revised Sched 3 and 8

King – Direct Testimony

Stevenson – Direct Testimony

——

Hilstrom Rebuttal – it’s TOO big… and I spent a lot of time trying to reduce it.  Go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search eDockets” and search for 09–1448.  Scroll down to the Rebuttal testimony, just filed.-Stevenson – Rebuttal Testimony

North Route Group:

Cover, Direct Testimony of Rohlfing and Hackman, and Exhibits A, B and C

Exhibit List

Rohlfing and Hackman – Exhibits D-G

Oronoco Township:

Broberg – Direct Testimony

Smith – Direct Testimony

American Transmission Company:

… nada…

The Oronoco Township testimony is focused on value of land, local zoning, even raises income and educational levels, essentially saying that our land has a higher market value, we’ve zoned for FUTURE development, therefore not here, stick it there, not only that, but it’s got little relationship to the criteria of routing a transmission line, but it’s the classist notions that jump out, and even Xcel noted:

While the effect on land-based economies is one of the 14 factors listed in Minnesota Rule 7850.4100 that must be evaluated when selecting a route, this factor has, to my knowledge, never been interpreted to require a comparison of the taxable value of properties within each route alternative. Mr. Broberg’s interpretation would also result in favoring affluent counties and neighborhoods at the expense of less affluent counties and neighborhoods.

One thing I’m sure Xcel does not want is an environmental justice fight!!!



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace