Comments sent on Q-1D South rebuild!

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Laws & Rules,News coverage,Nuts & Bolts,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 25, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

mailbox

SENT!  On behalf of No CapX 2020 I sent the following Comments:

No CapX 2020_Q-1D South_Comment_9-25-2015

I’ve asked how many times for more information, nada, still nothing.  N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

Of particular note is this handy-dandy chart that Bruce McKay had put together for the Brookings docket, and I plugged in the voltage, amps, MVA and here’s what we get for magnetic fields for various options of this 795 ACSS 161 kV transmission line — CLICK FOR A BIGGER VERSION, this is all that will fit in this format:

Q-1 161 kV 795 ACSS_ Calculated Magnetic Field

OK, Dairyland, USDA RUS — let’s see your calculations, let’s have disclosure of the peak and normal amps, the MVA, everything.  Show me this is wrong!  Note at what point mG levels drop to a 2-4 mG “safe” range.

For those of you who haven’t yet asked for an extension of time to comment, or who haven’t yet sent in comments, there’s still time, until 11:59 p.m. Sunday!

Send Comments, via email to BOTH:

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com  (608) 787-1432.
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov    (202) 720-1953

And who knows — with all the requests coming in, maybe they’ll extend the Comment period!!

Let us know, Chuck!

Book_Borchwriting

PR shill hits it out of the park!

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,News coverage — posted by admin on September 24, 2015 @ 4:43 pm

PB_ForumRochester Post Bulletin’s CapX 2020 Forum — 11/7/2010

Oh, Tim Carlsbad really did it today!  SNORT!!!  He’s doing a great job, though I do think he’s really needed back in sex trafficking at the UN.

This was a long, long, day, and here it is, I’ve arrived… I’ve reached the pinnacle of my illustrious legal career, well, second to the Senator Steve Murphy letter to a certain Minnesota Mayor… and… well… it’s certainly up there with the infamous Michael Murphy complaint to the Goodhue County Sheriff!

What the heck am I snorting about?

It’s the Carol Overland question!  But it’s not a question.  We all know it’s a statement,because CapX 2020 is transmission they don’t need and we don’t want!

Here ’tis, but be sure to swallow your coffee, tea, or even beer, first [with some comments, like this!] — wonder why they blocked me from making comments — guess I’ll have to do it here with No CapX 2020:

Answer Man: When power usage is generally flat, why build a power line?

Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:25 am

Dear Answer Man, you’ve been just about the only consistent source of local information on the CapX2020 power line. Can you remind me, why was this power line needed in the first place? Has power consumption been going up so much that a $2 billion power line was needed?

That’s a very good question, and tough to answer because the information is always a little dated, the project spans a huge area and involves many power utilities with different needs, and infrastructure of this kind is built in anticipation of future demand. The CapX people would tell you that it’s the largest power transmission system built in the state in 35 to 40 years, and that it was needed because the demand for electricity in the region has grown about 2 percent a year for the past decade.

It’s about 800 miles long and will cost more than $2 billion when the final checks are written.

When I asked Tim Carlsgaard, communications and public affairs manager for Xcel Energy, to recap the rationale for CapX2020, he called this “the Carol Overland question,” a reference to the activist attorney from Red Wing who was a leader in trying to stop the project.

I’m sure Carol will enjoy seeing her name attached to this question.

“Each CapX2020 utility will have a different answer to this question,” Carlsgaard said by email. “Concerning demand, you need to look at the Resource Plans that each utility must file with the respective public utilities commissions. Nevertheless, there are many factors as to why you build transmission, including meeting peak demand, regional reliability and providing capacity to support renewable energy development.

He also said the CapX lines “are helping the individual utility partners meet the Minnesota renewable energy mandate of 25 percent by 2025 (30 percent by 2020 for Xcel). As you know, there are not a lot of wind turbines within 20 miles of Rochester. I’m sure you are aware of the wind developers who have attempted to build wind farms in the vicinity of the Rochester metro area and were denied. … most of the wind farms in the Upper Midwest are located in far western and southern Minnesota and eastern Dakotas.”

Actually, I’m not aware of a gold rush in the immediate Rochester metro area for wind farms, though there are plenty in Dodge and Mower counties. But in any case, renewable energy is one reason the lines were needed.

Regarding power usage, project opponents have said from the beginning that electricity use has been flat for several years and will actually decline in the near term, thanks to conservation measures and greater efficiency. According to a filing last year by Xcel, which is a lead partner in the project, the utility said its “current forecast indicates a slight downward correction, projecting average growth over the 2017-2022 period to be less than 0.60 percent compared to the September 2013 update, which indicated average growth of 0.90 percent.  [CapX 2020 was predicated on their 2.49% annual increase, which we knew then, and their SEC filings now demonstrate, is utter bull-poo-poo.  The “Answer Man” still can’t admit that major “miscalculation.”]

“This lower expected growth rate in customer demand represents a 22 MW reduction in the forecasted median Peak Demand in 2017, growing to a 190 MW reduction by 2021, and a 388 MW reduction in 2024.”

The U.S. Department of Energy says that residential energy consumption in Minnesota was more or less flat from 2004 to 2011, which is the most current report I could find on that score. [somebody didn’t look very hard, they disclose this in their quarterly SEC filings, here’s the June 30, 2015:  Xcel Energy admits “growth” is down]Rochester Public Utilities and SMMPA are also partners in the project. According to a report in 2012, [note he’s citing an Xcel Resource Acquisition Compliance that I posted!  Yup, he sure has the answers…] the CapX upgrades to the 161kV lines around Rochester were expected to relieve transmission “constraints,” which will “benefit RPU in that it can rely more on imported power to meet its electric supply obligations.” Conversely, RPU can “reduce its reliance on internal generation to meet its reliability goals,” which is important with the closing of its smoke-belching, coal-fired generators at Silver Lake.

To my reader’s point about me being the best source of information on CapX2020 over the years, especially during the permitting process: I defy you to find a reporter who has followed this more closely, and I’ve posed more questions than I’ve answered.

Tomorrow — Q-1D South Comments due!

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Wisconsin — posted by admin on @ 8:57 am

Sheet Map 3

Tomorrow is the deadline for Comments on Dairyland’s “Q-1D South” upgrade — technically it’s Sunday — but don’t wait until the last minute.

Send Comments to (I recommend via email):

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com  (608) 787-1432.
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov    (202) 720-1953

Prior Posts:

What’s the story on the Q-1D South rebuild?

Dairyland’s N LaX-LaX 161 kV Tap maps

Plan for Q-1D South near LaX?

UPDATE: Dairyland’s Q-1 “upgrades” through La Crosse

We still don’t know what the plans are.  I’ve made several requests, nada…  Is this any way to run a transmission project?

Kimberly St

 

What’s the story on the Q-1D South rebuild?

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 21, 2015 @ 3:34 pm

Who knows?  The public sure has no idea, and Dairyland isn’t telling!

The Comment deadline is FRIDAY (deadline is really Sunday, but Friday on the conservative side), and we still have only Dairyland Q-1D South Sheetmaps, no other information.

Please take 90 seconds and email Chuck Thompson and Dennis and let them know that we need more time!  I did!

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

OK, fine, don’t give us what we need to know, no problem, that’s what the Freedom of Information Act is for:

USDA RUS FOIA Request

USDA RUS – Acknowledgement of FOIA_Dairyland Q-1D

I’ve sent Dairyland and USDA-RUS a request to extend the comment period to 30 days after information on this project has been made available to the public.  Until we know what’s going on, it’s pretty tough to comment.

No CapX Letter to USDA & DPC_September 18 2015

We need more time to be able to meaningfully comment on this stealth project!

Sheet Map 6

Dairyland’s N LaX-LaX 161 kV Tap maps

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 8, 2015 @ 3:39 pm

There’s a lot to learn about this 9 mile short little project, and it’s been hard to find information.  VERY difficult to find anything on it.  Yet some progress!

birdie-eveninggrosbeak

 

 

 

Here are a few tidbits, but there’s still a lot more to find.

Dairyland Q-1D South Sheetmaps

From our friends at MISO, from a July 2015 subcommittee meeting (same slide as was presented in several earlier meetings):

MISOslideFrom MISO – see p. 23: 20150727 WSPM Item 05b Review of Reliability Projects ATC DPC

But go figure — MISO testimony says that the Badger Coulee line will eliminate reliability problems with this and other 161 kV infrastructure in the area:

MISO Post Hearing Initial Brief 05-CE-142 p 72015-01-30 Docket 05-CE-142 Post-Hearing Brief by MISO__ p 7

So let me see if I understand this — they’re saying that there’s a “reliability” problem with a number of utility facilities, of which “North La Crosse — La Crosse Tap 161 kV line (Dairyland’s Q-1D South) is one, and that building the Badger Coulee line “solves” those problems.  So they use this to justify permitting the Badger Coulee line… DONE!  But now they want to rebuild this La Crosse — La Crosse Tap 161 kV line (Dairyland’s Q-1D South).

  • If Badger Coulee is permitted, then why rebuild?
  • Or conversely, if they’re going to rebuild, why do they need Badger Coulee?

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?  Or maybe both?

Anyway, here’s a start on the info I’ve been looking for — the MAPS!  Click the map for a larger version:

Sheet Map Index

Sheet Map 1

Sheet Map 2

Sheet Map 3

Sheet Map 4

Sheet Map 5

Sheet Map 6

Sheet Map 7

Sheet Map 8

Sheet Map 9

Sheet Map 10

Sheet Map 11

REMEMBER: The deadline for comments is Sunday, September 27, so technically I’d say it’s Monday, September 28, but to be safe, send your comments in by Friday, September 25.

I recommend you send to both:

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

Plan for Q-1D South near LaX?

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,News coverage,RUS EIS,Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 5, 2015 @ 5:43 am

QuestionMarks_crop

What’s the scoop??!!??

Deadline for comments is Sunday, September 27, so technically I’d say it’s Monday, September 28, but to be safe, send your comments in by Friday, September 25.

The notice says to send your comments to Dairyland’s Chuck Thompson, and that they’ll forward them to the USDA.  Ummmm, no, I’m not at all comfortable with that.  I recommend you send to both:

  • Chuck Thompson, Manager, Siting & Regulatory Affairs, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 3200 East Avenue South, La Crosse, WI  54602-0617, or via email at cat@dairynet.com  (608) 787-1432.
  • Dennis Rankin, Engineering and Environmental Analyst,  USDA RUS, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 1571, Washington D.C., 20250-1571, or via email at dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov    (202) 720-1953

What’s the plan for the 161 kV transmission line upgrade that Dairyland Power Cooperative plans for its “Q-1D South” transmission line that runs south of the Briggs Road substation in Holmen, WI, through Onalaska, and south across 90 to somewhere near or in La Crosse?

Who knows?  They’re sure not telling…  All we’ve got to go on is the notice, below.  From that notice, here’s a closeup of that map in the “Notice” published last week:

mAPNot OK.  Call and ask for more information, take 2 minutes and call, ask what it is that we’re supposed to be commenting on:

  • Chuck Thompson, Dairyland: (608) 787-1432
  • Dennis Rankin, RUS: (202) 720-1953

I’ve been on google earth and cannot figure out where this thing terminates.  Can you?  Please check it out and let me know.

DairylandNotice