There are some interesting public exceptions filed in the Fargo-St. Cloud routing docket, with the past coming back to haunt us, again:

Zimmer Letter

Zimmer Land Grant

Public Exceptions – posted today

Public Exceptions – filed May 10

Note that some of the comments raise the problem of siting the Quarry substation in the St. Cloud to Monticello docket (09-246), and I remember how hard it was to get the route out of the Quarry substation towards Monticello into the record, the judge claiming it wasn’t relevant (traversing some of the same terrain?  HUH?).  One end of this line was already established, a factor in routing of this line, and that shouldn’t be… the entire Fargo-Monticello project was granted the Certificate of Need, not parts of it, and it should have all proceeded as one, and not been split up.

Why was it split up?  I can’t help but think that pulling out the St. Cloud-Monticello piece had everything to do with the NAWO (George Crocker) and CETF agreement that this part of the larger line was “needed” in the Certificate of Need proceeding:

NAWO – Direct Testimony of Michaud p 27-29

NAWO – Initial Brief

CETF- Initial Brief p. 44-45

St. Cloud to Monticello is needed?  HUH?  This theory also provides the perfect avenue for additional Monticello uprate generation to get on the grid, perhaps it’s related to the Paynesville wind project?  But it makes no electrical sense with a NW to SE powerflow, no source to the St. Cloud beginning, so why argue that this isolated radial line is “needed” or is any solution to any need claim?  Reading these arguments, it makes no sense.  So why? Whatever reason, separating out the St. Cloud-Monticello was a path of least resistance (expected), a path which shouldn’t have been allowed.

Oh well… and here we are now…