CapX 2020 Responds to NoCapX Motion to Suspend

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on May 24, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

Here’s their Response:

CapX Response to NoCapX & U-CAN Motion to Suspend

Where they actually say:

Intervenors’ assertion that uncertainty about Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) cost allocation methodologies somehow warrants delay of the Brookings Project routing proceeding is unfounded.  MISO’s cost allocation issues relate to how the Brookings Project will be funded and
have nothing to do with route determination. There is no question that the project should be built, as determined and ordered in the CapX2020 345 kV Certificate Need order.

NoCapX/UCAN’s contention that the La Crosse Project should be put on hold is unfounded as well. There are no cost allocation or cost recovery issues regarding the La Crosse Project. Simply because the two projects interconnect at the Hampton Substation does not mean that a change in timing in one project affects review of the appropriate route for the other.  As fully considered in the Certificate of Need proceeding, the two projects serve distinct needs in distinct geographic areas and neither is dependent on construction of the other to meet these needs.

Now do tell, what happens if the Hampton substation is not built, or delayed, delayed, delayed…?  The substation is in the Brookings routing docket — what would the Hampton to Alma line connect to???  Just the Prairie Island-Blue Lake?  And where?  Neither is dependent on the construction of the other to meet these needs?  Uh-huh… right….

To steal a line from NSP’s Jones, “It’s all connected!”

zero comments so far »

Please leave a comment below!

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace