It’s the most wonderful time of the year!

The Power Plant Siting Act annual hearing, a la Minn. Stat. 216I.15, is the time to let the Public Utilities Commission know what works and what does not work in the Commission’s siting of power plants, transmission, wind, solar, and even pipelines!

Here’s the problem — all they have to do per the statute is “advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year.” What happens after that, well, it goes to the PUC but that’s about it. It is a good time to vent, and get on the record all the horrible things that have happened over the year, and the historical trends, such as elimination of the Advisory Task Force.

Here’s the decades old law providing for Advisory Task Forces:

And this session, after the Public Utilities Commission and their OAH ALJs were denying, denying, denying after so many Advisory Task Force Petitions over so many years — simply repealed, eliminated:

It’s GONE! And eliminating the reference of Task Forces as an aspect of public participation:

Ja, we “Public Participants” get the PUC’s message loud and clear:

Public participation via the Public Utilities Commission? Remember the Report of the Office of the Legislative Auditor?

Public Utilities Commission’s Public Participation Processes – OLA-Report

Fat lot of good that did. Instead of improving public participation, we hear the Commission Chair saying, “What can we do to make this faster for you?” and “What can we do to speed this permitting up?” and that whole “streamlining” effort, which is really STEAMROLLING. Fast tracking permitting, denial of interventions, failure to have project proponents witnesses at hearings for questioning…

PUC Strategic Plan

Here are the reports from the last 20 years — often they hold it on my birthday, but not this year. You can see that year after year, it’s the same issues:

2000 Summary of Proceedings

2000 Report EQB

2001 Summary of Proceedings

2001 Report EQB

2002 Summary of Proceedings

2002 Report to EQB

2003 Summary of Proceedings

2003 Report to EQB

2004 Summary of Proceedings

2004 Report to EQB

2005 Report to PUC

2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733

2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579

2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426

2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351

2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222

2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324

2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360

2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965

2014 Summary Report– Docket 14-887

2015 Summary Report – Docket 15-785

2016 Summary Report – Docket 16-18

2017 Summary Report – Docket 17-18

2018 Summary Report – Docket 18-18

2019 Summary Report_Docket 19-18

Summary Report – Docket 20-18

2021 Summary Report – Docket 21-18

2022-Summary-Report_Docket 22-18

And last year’s Report from the 2023 hearing, held on December 20, 2023:

UPDATE: 2024 PPSA Report:

There’s a trend… And here we go, on Tuesday, another year of banging heads against the wall.

It’s no work of art, but in the scenario this proceeding is in, with Prairie Island Indian Community and City of Red Wing deep in it with or working on agreements with Xcel Energy, there’s not much we can do, little impact, as they’re the players, and also, AAAAACK, I just didn’t have time.

The DEIS did grossly misrepresent the history and status of Xcel’s Utility Personal Property Tax payments to local governments, so I did include the City of Red Wing comment in the IRP (below page 13, Attachment A).

The main purpose of this is to push for reworking of the “low-dose” radiation exposure modeling using Aaron Datesman’s cutting edge Three Mile Island “shot noise” work to correct for the GIGO current modeling and more accurately characterize the risk.

Sooooooo, anyway, here’s what I filed:

Today, the STrib reports another high-speed option between Metro and Rochester:

A 700-mph tunnel between Twin Cities and Rochester? Group wants $2M from Met Council for ‘hyperloop’ study.

Haven’t they learned anything from Zip Rail?

Zip Rail’s dying gasp…

Apparently not here. And the federal Department of Transportation has issued guidance!

HYPERLOOP STANDARDS DESK REVIEW
Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT) Council

Back in 2020:

San Francisco To L.A. In 35 Minutes? Elon Musk’s Hyperloop Moves Closer To Reality

Closer to reality? Not quite… Though Musk’s hyperloop did not go far, it just so happened to go belly up at the end of 2023!

The hyperloop is dead for real this time

So now, those workers are looking to move on???

A couple of sentences here caught my attention, and I’m wondering…

Hyperloop One to Shut Down After Failing to Reinvent Transit

DP World, the Dubai-based conglomerate, has backed Hyperloop One since 2016 and owns a majority stake. The startup’s remaining intellectual property will be transferred to DP World, a person familiar with the situation said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-21/hyperloop-one-to-shut-down-after-raising-millions-to-reinvent-transit

Is DP World involved in this reincarnation of the failed Musk Hyperloop?

Just NO! Do we need to go through this again?

FYI: MN PUC – How To eDockets

The last two weeks have been scoping meetings for the Environmental Impact Statement for the “MN Energy CONnection.” Per Xcel’s site, “You can read the Certificate of Need filing here and the Route Permit application here.” I don’t see the word “REVISED” on this…

Here’s the REVISED Certificate of Need application:

And here’s the Route Application:

Route-Application App C are the maps — TOO LARGE — see eDockets

So many people getting notice of the “MN Energy CONnection” transmission line have CapX 2020 in their yard, and they are PISSED! It was standing room only last night in Litchfield, 100 of my flyers gone and folks were still filing in. Again this morning in Monticello, over 100 again:

Several this morning brought up EMF and the magnetic fields. The magnetic fields from the “REVISED” application are cause for concern — look at their modeling levels shown for the edge of the Right of Way:

Anyway, there’s a lot tocomment about, things that should be included in the EIS. But now’s not the time to write. More later.

Here we go for another round — a Motion for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission:

Minn. R. 1400.7600 CERTIFICATION OF MOTIONS TO AGENCY.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/… Any party may request that a pending motion or a motion decided adversely to that party by the judge before or during the course of the hearing, other than rulings on the admissibility of evidence or interpretations of parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400, be certified by the judge to the agency…

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/

We’re asking that the Public Utilities Commission take up the matter of World Organization for Landowner Freedom’s Intervention:

Included after the Motion, but here separately:

It’s just so offensive. This matter matters (!), and W.O.L.F. is the only one in there objecting and requesting Intervention. Why this Motion? Why ask for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission to consider and decide? Well, in a nutshell:

Why?? Because of the ALJ’s denial of W.O.L.F.’s intervention based on a false statement regarding W.O.L.F.’s “only” contribution, and conflation of two different conditions in the original Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Line Exemption Order, that of the noise condition and the necessity of noise reduction measures to comply with Minnesota’s noise standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) with an 800 MVA transformer limitation of capacity to assure the line isn’t for bulk power transfer! I have an urge to do a Data Practices Act Request and have the EQB’s Arrowhead Transmission Project record sent to his office!

This same Administrative Law Judge threatened the “Union Intervenors” with unauthorized practice of law… veiled threat? No, it’s overt. He had to take the action of looking beyond the OAH Rules to find Minn. Stat. § 481.02 and Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 3(5) (2022), and to say:

In short, while the Judge does not intend to manage the practice of law in this matter, parties should be aware that potential issues could arise for non-lawyers who are not statutorily exempted from the general prohibition of non-lawyer practice of law in Minn. Stat. § 481.02. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board may be a resource for more information on this topic.

Really, that’s a quote — and no, it’s not a “helpful cautionary warning” — check this footnote:

OH. MY. DOG! That’s just too bizarre.

• Looking up a name on MARS attorney registration site takes a matter of seconds — “does not know” when it’s that easy to find out? Give me a break…
• But that’s not an issue. Runke and Kolodzieski have not held themselves out as attorneys, to my knowledge.
• But more importantly, non-attorneys are welcome to practice in hearings before Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). See the Power Plant Siting Act rules, Minn. R. 1405.0600, and also Minn. R. 1400.5800. This is something a Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings frequently presiding over utility dockets should know. There’s no excuse for threats like that, bandying about “unauthorized practice law.” This is not “court” and the OAH rules expressly provide for non-attorney representation.

I’ve run short of printable words, though I did quick hammer out this objection, and copied the Chief Judge:

This is all so contrary to the Public Utilities Commission’s charge to encourage public participation:

216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

Subd. 2. Other public participation.

The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.