Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on April 16, 2012 @ 10:35 am


There’s more that’s been filed at the FERC catfight.  To see it all, GO HERE TO FERC LIBRARY and search for docket EL12-28.

Let me see if I understand this — Xcel/NSP refuse to disclose ownership of the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse line, and any of the other lines, despite a Minnesota PUC order to do so in the Certificate of Need docket HOW MANY YEARS AGO???  And yet they’re fighting for ownership of the LaCrosse-Madison line?  Go figure…

The filing below from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission caught my attention, having just been at the PSC and trying to get info in on this docket which for some reason they did not want to get into — serious problem in my view as this LaCrosse-Madison transmission line,  a/k/a Badger-Coulee transmission line, is part of this CapX 2020/WIREs Twin Cities-Madison line… but hey, what do I know…

Anyway, the PSC wants to assert its jurisdiction and define “ownership” and how that is established, claiming the state makes that determination of who owns the CPCN and physical transmission, and also citing an instance where there were two applicants for the same project, EH?, and they decided one would own it.

Comments of Wisconsin PSC

ATC answered a while ago:

ATC’s Answer to Xcel’s Complaint 3-5-12

And Xcel/NSP had a Reply and requested leave to file it:

Xcel Motion and Reply to ATC’sAnswer

And of course ATC had a response to that!

ATC Motion to Toss Xcel/NSP Reply to ATC

Another one filed in support of Xcel/NSP’s position urging FERC to bless Xcel/NSP’s “responsibilities” to develop the line:

Intervention of MISO Transmission Owners

Dairyland intervened separately, ???, why not with MISO TOs?  Their filing is weird, no DPC generated pdf and the text and FERC pdf don’t work right, so check it out yourself by looking up docket, as above.

Xcel/NSP asked that this docket be fast tracked… right…


image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace