Cannon Falls Beacon – CapX in the news!

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on May 31, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

Oh, great, look at this, “THE MEETINGS HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE AT THE TIME THE EMAIL WAS SENT.” (EMPHASIS ADDED).  It’s in the Cannon Falls Beacon:

Township Concerns about CapX2020

Debbie Stark, township clerk, received an email about a task force that is being formed to study the routes of the CapX2020 powerline. The email was outdated and the meetings had already taken place at the time the email was sent. Because the power line runs through the township, Keith Smiley had asked the clerk to respond and ask that the township be allowed to send a representative. One township resident had called concerned that the route might run along the service road on Highway 52. The route of the power line would affect property values and limit what can be built under the power lines. The board will continue to follow the CapX2020 project as it continues.

… and on the Editorial page:

Filed to suspend CapX

To the editor:

There’s big news on the CapX2020 transmission project. NoCapX2020 and U-CAN have filed Motions to Suspend the Proceedings in both Brookings-Hampton and Hampton-Alma/LaCrosse transmission routing dockets. Why? Because last week, CapX 2020 and Xcel gave notice that the Brookings-Hampton line will be delayed by at least one year. It’s already delayed and the lights haven’t gone out! This proves CapX 2020 is not about electricity or reliability – it’s economically driven – there is no local load need, and without Big Stone II interconnecting, there’s no big generator to pay for it. We filed to suspend because if Brookings is delayed, the Hampton-Alma line should be too, they’re connected physically and electrically at Hampton.

CapX and Xcel’s admission of delay was timed carefully. In the next month, the Appellate Court is expected to rule on NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN’s challenge that the PUC should look at the evidence of sharply decreased peak demand, down over 15% since 2006. Also pending is the PUC’s decision whether to issue a route permit for Brookings.

Why did CapX file notice of delay? Supposedly because it will take time to establish methodology to recover costs of building the line, in limbo at the federal level. Plus last month at the state, the PUC denied Xcel’s cost recovery for construction work in progress on Brookings, $1.9 million of a $2 billion project. That’s chump change for Xcel. Xcel has asked the PUC for “clarification” and whether they should continue already slowed work, delay or cease work! Cease work? Yes, we’d appreciate that “clarification.”

If Xcel is delaying Brookings over just $1.9 million, 1% of CapX Phase I cost, why? What’s the real story? We’ll have updates at It’s not over yet!

Carol A. Overland
Attorney for NoCapX 2020 and
United Citizen Action Network

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