Wisconsin – Reply to Motions for Reconsideration

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on June 30, 2012 @ 5:11 am


In all the paper flurry yesterday, their reply to all the Motions for Reconsideration in Wisconsin got tossed into the “later” bin, so now it’s later:

Xcel, WPPI and Dairyland Response to Motions for Reconsideration

More coffee please!

Replies to Motions for Reconsideration

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on June 29, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

As if the zombie Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project isn’t enough…


Today was a busy day!  Today was the deadline for Replies to Motions for Reconsideration.  Xcel filed theirs fairly early.

Xcel Response to St. Paul’s School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners; and Response to Oronoco Township

And, in addition to that Mesaba Project Comment filed today, today I also filed, WITH TIME TO SPARE,  on behalf of the Normans’ Laymen for Christ:

Laymen for Christ, Inc., o/o Woodland Camp Response to Oronoco Motion for Reconsideration

Motion to Strike Oronoco Testimony and Exhibits

Ex Parte Complaint against Oronoco Township, Oronoco Planning Advisory Commission and Javon Bea, OPAC

CapX 2020 news dominates Oronoco Planning Advisory Commission Meeting

Well, that’ll give ’em somethin’ to think about!


How’s URS doing on CapX EIS?

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,RUS EIS — posted by admin on June 23, 2012 @ 8:11 am

How is URS doing on the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse environmental review?  Who knows… it STILL isn’t out.

USDA’s web page for CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse transmission

From the Star Tribune, an article about the Sabo bridge collapse — a bridge designed by URS:


A set of cables on the bridge broke loose in February because of wind-induced vibrations, a consultant said Friday, noting that the stresses generated by winds as light as 5 to 10 miles per hour might have been overlooked by the engineers who designed it. The designer, California-based URS Corp., also did work on the Interstate 35W bridge over the Mississippi River before it collapsed in 2007.

URS was hired by the state of Minnesota for bridge inspections — here’s the 35W bridge gussets from MPR:

urs-gussetsAnd then this…


From a P.I. firm involved with the bridge collapse:

The state alleges that the URS contract specifically required the company to develop tension and compression failure criteria for the bridge’s many components — including the steel gusset plates — using data from how they were supposed to be designed.

URS Corp. is a San Francisco based firm, that had assured the state of its expertise in assessing the need for repairs and the best way to go about doing the repairs. Furthermore, in 2005, URS reported to the state that if “gusset plate buckling occurs, it will not be catastrophic.” In a communication from the corporation in 2006, they told MN-DOT that they would not calculate actual capacities of all of the connections even though that would provide the most accurate results. They said it would be too much work. They proposed to do some approximate but conservative adjustments to the member capacities per design specifications.

And, as above, URS has the contract the Federal Environmental Review for the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse transmission line.

USDA’s web page for CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse transmission

They’ve done other work for RUS:

Oglethorpe Power Corporations 100 MW biomass project

Turning Point Solar

and on and on and on…

Should RUS be doing this sort of work?  Who would award them with a contract?  The State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, are wondering… the STrib is looking at other instances:

URS faulted in projects elsewhere

Check the examples in the STrib article — how many of these do we need?


Motions for Reconsideration filed in MN

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Wisconsin — posted by admin on June 19, 2012 @ 4:29 pm


Once more with feeling — WHEW!  What a day… And now for Minnesota (for Wisconsin see previous posting)…

In Minnesota, two Motions for Reconsideration were filed, one regarding the Segment 1 route near Cannon Falls, and another regarding the Segment 3 route through Oronoco Township.

I’m representing St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church, joined by nearby affected Cannon Falls Landowners, and this was filed moments ago:

Motion for Reconsideration – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners

Attachment A – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church

Attachment B – Gina Schlueter

Attachment C – Jen Langdon

Attachment D – Tim Langdon

Attachment E – Michelle Sandstrom

Attachment F – Christopher and Kristy Strickland

Attachment G – Dennnis Doffing

Attachment H – Richard Peterson

Attachment I – Diane Logue

Attachment J – Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan (selected)

And on the Segment 3 side of things, Oronoco Township has filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to route the line on the White Bridge Road route:

Oronoco Township – Motion for Reconsideration

Oronoco Township – Testimony of Broberg and Exhibits

Now here’s something that I find utterly hilarious — remember that boat landing at the White Bridge?  One look will tell you, PLUS there’s evidence in the record, that the boat landing has been closed and will be closed for some time, yet here’s the portrayal in Exhibit 7 of Broberg’s testimony, looking like they’re heading in to use it, OH PUH-LEEZE!  See for yourself, Broberg’s Exhibit 7:


Boat landing?  Oh please… we know better…

Petition for Rehearing in WI

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Wisconsin — posted by admin on @ 10:06 am


Just filed, the CETF and NoCapX 2020 Petition for Reconsideration of the Wisconsin PSC Order granting the CPCN for CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse transmission line:

NoCapX & CETF Petition for Rehearing