Legalectric

So there I was, having a meeting at my local Caribou “office,” and got back to an email that THREE of my projects are up at the Public Utilities Commission at the April 9, 2026 Agenda Meeting. THREE!

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO WATCH ONLINE ARE HERE ON PAGE 2:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

#4 on the agenda:

Big Bend Wind, PUC Docket WS-19-619. Good thing it was Brad Hutchison (NOT HutchiNson!) I was meeting with, eh? Suddenly representing him at the Public Utilities Commission on April 9th!

Big Bend Wind is in Cottonwood County – the permit was granted ages ago, was amended, and amended again, and it’s this 2nd permit amendment that is at issue:

The permit was granted, then the first permit amendment was granted, and now it’s the second permit amendment that’s been granted, and it’s Reconsideration of that Commission amendment decision that’s at issue on the 9th – Briefing Papers aren’t out yet. For the filings in the docket over the YEARS, go HERE TO eDockets and search for 19-619.

• Hutchison Reconsideration: 20262-228769-01
• Big Bend Response to Reconsideration: 20263-229230-01

Typically the Commission says “PFFFBFFFFFFFFTP!” and tosses it in the circular file. GRRRRRRRRRRR!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

#5 on the agenda:

Maple River to Cuyuna, or “MR-C Transmission Project – A Minnesota Power Project,” a 345kV line in northern Minnesota:

For the filings in the docket, go HERE TO eDockets and search for 25-109. For some history, Menagha transmission, search for 14-787 and 14-797.

What’s at issue before the Commission now and later as this moves forward?

My clients are the Andersens, whose property is in Hubbard County, at the intersection of Wadena and Becker Counties, and a decade ago, they were faced with the prospect of the Menagha transmission line mowing down their forest:

Menahga Hearing — Exhibits? Naaaah, who needs ’em!

What a mess that was, BUT, they did route the line on the other side of Hubbard County Line Road.

Now, it’s transmission redux, and this Maple River to Cuyuna, or “MR-C Transmission Project – A Minnesota Power Project,” it’s a 345kV line in northern Minnesota, and has a corridor right over the Andersen property. It’s a pinch point in the map, just south of Park Rapids, west of Hwy 71, with transmission directly to the north, the dotted white line at the south end of a WMA; a transmission to the south just across the dirt road, Hubbard County Line Road, the red dotted line… and where it goes north on the right, that’s parallel to a pipeline!

Here it is crossing the road (see red line below crossing road before Abolone Drive), and then you can see it’s running right at the edge of the road right-of-way across from Andersens’ forest:

Where the greyish corridor on the left, where it says “County,” well that’s their house and big garage, the line is right over the garage and just to the north of the house. All that green covering the property is their forest, planted and maintained under a DNR Woodland Stewardship Plan.

Questions for the Commission? What they view as questions:

This is one of those transmission projects where “informal process” was promoted, the idea to use just comments and reply for a 345kV transmission line!! WHAT?!?! Whose brilliant idea was that, and what are they getting for it??

• System alternatives need to be seriously considered. Underbuild the 115kV on the 345kV? Underground in sensitive locations, like through the Lowe State WMA? Direct Current possible where the only substations are at either end, Maple River and Cuyuna?

• We know demand is DOWN, demand is FLAT, and Xcel’s demand for 2025 was 377MW down from 2024, and 1,000MW down from the all time peak in 2006. MISO’s graph forecasting demand looks like a trek up Mount Everest!

• Needed for the “energy transition?” This line starts, for Minnesota, at Maple River, at the North Dakota Border. Coal Creek was to shut down, but instead, it was SOLD, and is still running. Shut down the coal and there’s plenty of transmission capacity, right? Build wind and solar where there’s that capacity! Oh, but do tell, how many coal plants have shut down in North Dakota?

• What does this cost? To the east, this projects connects at Cuyuna, a “series compensation” station for the Northland Reliability Project (CN-25-416 and TL-25-415). That project is the one where costs have come out 43% over the original MISO estimate, and a MISO Variance Analysis is in process. If costs are up that much for What does this cost? To the east, this projects connects at Cuyuna, a “series compensation” station for the Northland Reliability Project (CN-25-416 and TL-25-415). That project is the one where costs have come out 43% over the original MISO estimate, and a MISO Variance Analysis is in process. If costs are up that much for Northland Reliability Project, how much for this one? It’s a MISO Tranche 2.1 project, from the MTEP2024, and for the MTEP 2024, it’s 2023 data! How much cost increase for this one? It’s a MISO Tranche 2.1 project, from the MTEP2024, and for the MTEP 2024, it’s 2023 data!

• And an important factoid, as they’re always saying that the MISO queue is so piled up, it takes forever to get interconnection approved and there are just SO MANY PROJECTS LINED UP! But wait… there’s this:

Approximately 130 GW of projects — nearly half of the queue — have been withdrawn, in part due to changes to tax credits under One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

2026 RELIABILITY IMPERATIVE REPORT, p. 11.

So we need these projects through Minnesota why??? Demand flat, MISO admits that half of the MISO interconnection queue has been withdrawn? Please explain!!

Keep in mind that this meeting is NOT about substantive issues, it’s about process to review the application, which is why we’re asking for real process, not the “informal process” lite.

The MR-C Transmission Project, like every MISO Tranche 2.1 project, needs to demonstrate it is needed, and not a one can demonstrate a Minnesota need. Each project is dependent on MISO‘s plan, cutting and pasting from MTEP 24, using MISO’s cost estimate, and most importantly, relying on MISO’s OUTDATED cost/benefit analysis where MISO claims the benefits outweigh the costs. Per the MISO Tranche 2.1 project list, the estimated cost is $908 million, they say in 2024 dollars, but the MTEP 2024 used 2023 numbers. $908 million in 2023 dollars is $973,805,940 in 2026 dollars.

On the flip side, not only are the “benefits” ranging from sketchy to absurd, but with material cost increases, do they pan out as having any net benefit?

That’s the main reason we need a contested case — to get at the numbers.

We also need a contested case to address system alternatives, in this case, whether a 345kV with a 115kV underbuild through a potato field is workable. Methinks it is, and it needs to be explored.

Thursday, April 9th, we’ll be there when the Commission addresses the process for the MR-C Transmission Project.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

#6 on the agenda:

Gopher to Badger Link, PUC docket CN25-121. This is a 765kV line that’s the eastern half of the 765kV steamroller across southern Minnesota, it’s the green map on the right, “North Rochester” (north of Pine Island!) down to Marion, MN, then back down to Pleasant Valley (see lower R of the blue map) and east through the Driftless Region, across the Mississippi River, and all the way to the Columbia substation by Portage, WI. The blue map on the left is “PowerOn Midwest,” now docket CN-25-117, which was at the Commission last Thursday (so comments below are mindful of what went down then).

To catch up on the filings in the docket, go HERE TO eDockets and search for 25-121. For your edification, grab a bowl of popcorn and also search for 25-117!! You’ll see how it’s all connected.

The blue map on the left is “PowerOn Midwest.” Electricity flows from west to east across southern Minnesota. PowerOn Midwest is now PUC Docket CN-25-117, and CN-25-118, CN-25-119, and CN-25-120 have been consolidated into that one docket. The green map on the right is Gopher to Badger Link, now PUC Docket CN-25-121, and CN-25-122 has been consolidated into that one CN-25-121 docket. Six dockets established and then consolidated into two.

This stretch across southern Minnesota, with a frolic and detour to “North Rochester” substation located north of Pine Island, and back again, is a compilation of MISO‘s Tranche 2.1 projects 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. MISO 22, 23, 24, and 25 are in the CN-25-117 consolidated dockets, and MISO 26 is in the consolidated CN-25-121 docket. MISO 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are $6,175 BILLION dollars — the dollar amount alone should trigger extensive review:

Once more with feeling: $6.175 BILLION dollars. $6.175 BILLION in 2023 is $7,201,659,571 today.

These are THE proposed 765kV transmission lines, the first 765kV in Minnesota, the first 765kV in the Midwest, at least 300 miles from the west up to North Rochester, back down and to the Mississippi. This is a Certificate of Need docket where they must prove up need. The magnitude of this project requires serious review, not an “informal process.” Good grief, this is HUGE, no excuse for review lite.

These two dockets, CN-25-117 and CN-25-121, need to be combined. At the very least, the Certificate of Need dockets should be reviewed jointly. That would make it a lot less complicated, and from the Commission’s perspective, consolidating the Certificate of Need proceedings would be a lot less work, no duplication (as the applications are THE SAME), and save resources of doing the same thing in two dockets.

The Applicants, and some Commissioners, claim that it would be confusing, but this was done for CapX 2020 for these lines, all in one docket, CN-06-1115. Been there, done that, let’s do it again.

It wasn’t confusing then, wouldn’t be confusing now. As with these two dockets, the Certificate of Need included two lines across southern Minnesota, very similar to this proposal, then joined at Hampton, this time joined at “North Rochester.” As with this 765kV buildout, there was a Big Stone to Brookings in South Dakota, and Minnesota CapX 2020 was Brookings to Hampton, and Hampton to the Mississippi River with frolic and detours to Hampton and “North Rochester” along the way. And speaking of transmission in southern Minnesota, don’t forget the recently permitted Mankato to Mississippi transmission project:

Back to CapX 2020… again, Brookings to Hampton, Hampton through North Rochester to the Mississippi, sound familiar? Look familiar? Yes, LOOK:

In addition to the two lines across southern Minnesota, CapX 2020‘s Certificate of Need included the Fargo to St. Cloud route too! I was there, as was Xcel’s attorney Lisa Agrimonti, and we both would agree that it wasn’t complicated. It was a Certificate of Need umbrella proceeding for three of the dockets. Oh, and MISO was there too, MISO would have to agree with that as well!

Don’t forget, as above: 

Approximately 130 GW of projects — nearly half of the queue — have been withdrawn, in part due to changes to tax credits under One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

2026 RELIABILITY IMPERATIVE REPORT, p. 11.

This is also North Route Group’s second time around. the “North Route” was rejected in CapX 2020, and for the same reasons should be rejected again. Having been there before, we’re READY!

These “two” projects, CN-25-117 and CN-25-121, are geographically and electrically tied, and here’s the kicker:

FOR THEIR NEED CLAIM, APPLICANTS DO CONSOLIDATE THEM ALL. THEY USE MISO PROJECTS 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, ALL OF THEM, TO CLAIM THERE IS A NEED. HOWEVER, THESE ARE NOT “DIFFERENT” LINES, NOT “DIFFERENT” APPLICANTS, AND THERE IS NOT A DIFFERENT “NEED” FOR THESE LINES. IT’S ALL ONE AND THE SAME, ALL 765kV LINES, CONNECTED ELECTRICALLY AND GEOGRAPHICALLY. DON’T BELIEVE IT? LOOK AT THE MAPS ABOVE. QUESTIONS ABOUT “NEED?” READ AND COMPARE THE APPLICATIONS, SECTION 1.4 AND SECTION 6 IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT’S CUT AND PASTE, WITH ONE EXCEPTION — WHEN LISTING MISO 22-26, ONE FOLLOWS NUMERICALLY, THE OTHER STARTS AT 26 AND WORKS DOWN TO 22. IT’S ALL CONNECTED!

What’s up for the Commission to consider? This one is the “same” issues as with the one above:

We’ve asked for a bit more than that! Now is the time to weigh in and get reasonable process for a project of this magnitude, and so we did:

In short, North Route Group and NO765MN request:

• Consolidation of CN-25-117 and CN-25-121, bringing together MISO 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 because they’re connected, interdependent, and one can’t make a need case without the other.
• Referral to Court of Administrative Hearings for a contested case — necessary for a thorough review of the applications and a robust record that can support a Commission decision! At the very least, joint contested case for Certificates of Need – CN-25-117 and CN-25-121. Contested issues are cost, cost increase, cost/benefit analysis (whether the project provides more benefit than cost), and system alternatives.
• Intervention of North Route Group and NO765MN as parties in Certificate of Need dockets (this will likely be referred with the application for contested case at Court of Administrative Hearings.
• Stay of Certificate of Need until Route applications are in, and then joint proceedings as directed by statute. This is not a hill to die on, as for CN-25-117, applications aren’t expected until way into 2027.
• Information Requests beginning NOW! If referred for Contested Case, we’ll set a schedule and abide by that. Idea is to avoid delay and to have a way to get at the necessary information.

Is the Commission paying attention to what these utilities are doing?? Are they paying attention to what we’ve presented? We shall see…

Monday’s/Yesterday’s meeting in Dilworth is over, Tuesday’s meetings in Detroit Lakes, and now we’re on to Wednesday:

Be there or be square!

My clients, the Andersens, have land in this narrow pinch point between two transmission lines just west of Hwy. 71:

Here’s the smaller of the line, a “new” 115kV line on the opposite side of the road from their forest:

At the corner, the western edge of Andersens’ property, on the northwest corner of this intersection, where the 115kV line turns from Hubbard Line Road and heads south:

And here’s the 230kV line along the north edge of their property that’s going through the southern end of a wildlife management area:

And to the east, their property on the right side of photo:

Oh, don’t forget the pipeline right to the east!!

For more info, go HERE to the PUC’s eDockets and search for 25-109 and/or 25-110, just plug in the docket number here and you’ll get the list of documents:

And on Legalectric:

• Supplemental Comments – Maple River to Cuyuna 345kV
• Reply Comments – Maple River-Cuyuna 345kV
• Maple River – Cuyuna 345kV line
• More Xmsn open houses up north

Tomorrow is the first Public Utilities Commission meeting on the swath of 765kV lines that utilities want to run across Minnesota:

You can watch it live HERE (it’ll start when the meeting does).

The blue part on the left, from Big Stone-Brookings, through Lakefield Junction, to Pleasant Valley, and up to “North Rochester” which is actually north of Pine Island is what’s at issue tomorrow:

The rest of it, the green part on the right, continues from “North Rochester” back down to Pleasant Valley (!) and east to the Mississippi, and then on through Wisconsin to Columbia. Shades of the CapX 2020 Brookings to “North Rochester” to Hampton, and then Hampton to La Crosse (Briggs Road, north end of Onalaska).

We need another one from South Dakota to Minnesota, why??

Here are Staff Briefing papers, briefly stating situation and positions of those weighing in, and what staff thinks the Commission should do:

What’s odd is that they split the SE to WI up, which they didn’t for CapX 2020. The Minnesota Certificate of Need for CapX was the southern 345kV from SD to WI and also from Fargo to St. Cloud. These “two” 765kV projects are one and the same, their need case is EXACTLY the same, Sections 1.4 and Section 6. How stupid do they think we are? Well… in Staff Briefing Papers, pages 12 and 16-17:

• Regarding the request by NRG/NO765MN to join the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, staff notes that the request for joint or consolidated review of two separate projects appears both unusual and poorly supported. These are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different schedules, and different project-specific need determinations, and combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.
• Staff does not recommend that the Commission combine the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, as requested by NRG/NO765MN. As indicated earlier in these briefing papers, these are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different procedural schedules, and different project-specific need determinations. Combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.

Nope, they are not, as far as the Certificate of Need goes. See either, BOTH, applications, Section 1.4:

Section 6 on Need is word for word the same, EXACTLY the same, except for descriptions of MISO 22-26, which is reversed.

Section 5 is the same too, though that’s the more general picture, through a fun house mirror:

Shades of CapX 2020’s “forecast” of 2.49% increase in peak demand!

That’s one example of why the loss of the Commission’s “institutional memory” matters. We won’t get fooled again? We’ll see.

As for the Contested Case, staff notes it’s a DUH and recommends that this application be referred for a Contested Case! GOOD! Let’s get those workable system alternatives into the discussion.

Onward! Let’s get it done!

It’s another round of utility applicant open houses for the Maple River to Cuyuna Transmission Line, PUC eDocket CN-25-109. I’m betting they also have the computer stations where you can get a print-out with the corridor and your property!

Note above, the route has been “refined.” They cut out the fat, no more “frolic & detour.” What it looked like before:

And now, it’s just one corridor, no options.

Here’s the notice they sent out, though not sure who might have received it. My client who’s for sure in the middle of a narrow part of that corridor has not yet received it:

Learned about this from a Public Utilities Commission ex parte filing, where the PUC asked about this, an “Inquiry regarding recently sent notice/meeting information and notice/postcard that was sent.”

Commission staff, thanks for checking this out!! Without this filing, we’d never have known!
See ya in Park Rapids!

I filed this just now:

Why? Well, we’d filed these Comments and Requests last week, and based on their Response, yesterday’s filing, it’s a hoot:

HERE’S THEIR RESPONSE:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• Consolidate? Wonder where that idea came from? See CN-25-117, where CN-25-118, 118, and 120 were CONSOLIDATED INTO THAT ONE DOCKET!! That was announced by the Applicants with their filing of November 10, 2026, 202511-224811-01, in CN-25-117, CN-25-118, CN-25-119 and CN-25-120. Oh, and DOH, on the other end, Xcel and Dairyland CONSOLIDATED their dockets into one, CN-25-122 has now been consolidated into CN-25-121!

• A stay? Wonder where that idea came from? See CN-25-121, where Applicants ask for a stay until the route application is filed. Reply Comment, p. 2 (“With respect to the process by which the Application should be considered, as discussed in Section I below, the Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.” And “With respect to the process by which the Application should be considered, as discussed in Section I below, the Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.” And “[a]s discussed previously, because this proceeding will be stayed until the Applicants submit a Route Permit Application in Fall 2026, the Applicants request that the Commission defer a decision on the procedural treatment of the Certificate of Need until that time.” And “Based on the Applicants’ agreement to stay the Certificate of Need Application until Fall 2026, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission defer a decision on the process for considering the Certificate of Need Application until after the Route Permit Application is filed to ensure consistent proceedings and reduce public confusion.” See Gopher to Badger Reply Comment, 20263-228942-01, March 3, 2026.

Oh, OK…

• Request a Contested Case and file a Petition for Intervention, where would that idea come from? Check Power on Minnesota Applicant’s (CN-25-117) MP-GRE-OTP_Reply Comments: “Based on the Applicants’ agreement to stay the Certificate of Need Application until Fall 2026, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission defer a decision on the process for considering the Certificate of Need Application until after the Route Permit Application is filed to ensure consistent proceedings and reduce public confusion.” DONE, that was done at your prompt!

They also questioning whether North Route Group and NO765MN have standing. Well, I’d guess that’s no different than the “Joint Intervenors” and “LIUNA” and MISO and whoever else might request intervention. And don’t forget the Commission’s public participation mandate in Minn. Stat. 216I.16.

• And then, about Discovery, where would that idea come from? See the Cover to the Application for the Certificate of Need in docket CN-25-109, page 2 — great idea:

Here’s a noteworthy point — both stress the “legislative intent” — these are quotes:

• Delaying the Gopher to Badger Link applications to wait for the PowerOn route proceedings is also directly contrary to the Legislature’s recent direction that sought to reduce the amount of time between MISO’s approval of projects and certificate of need applications. (fn. Specifically, in 2024, the Legislature reduce the time to file an application after giving notice of intent under Minn. Stat. 216B.246, subd. 3, from 18 months to 12 months. This new 12-month timeframe applies to the project.) See Gopher to Badger Response, p. 4, 20263-229454-01(emphasis added).
• Doing so would also be contrary to the intent of the Legislature which has sought to reduce the amount of time between MISO’s approval of projects and certificate of need applications. Specifically, in 2024, the Legislature reduce the time to file an application after giving notice of intent under Minn. Stat. 216B.246, subd. 3, from 18 months to 12 months. This new 12-month timeframe applies to the project. See PowerOn Midwest Response, p. 5, fn. 9 20263-229455-01 (emphasis added).

Legislative intent? Well, for sure that was the Commission’s legislative agenda, to carry their water, speed things up for the applicants, and the applicants got what they wanted.