My rulemaking petition has been given a docket number and now a Comment Period has been announced — Initial Comments due April 30, and Reply Comments due May 7!
What does the Commission deem “Topic for Comment?” and background?
Note the “background,” for some reason it doesn’t mention that nearly all the rules were REPEALED!!
Why does this matter? Who cares? I would hope the Public Utilities Commission cares (though I won’t hold my breath). The legislature had something to say about rulemaking when they repealed almost all the rules:
Note the use of “may,” which is way too much wiggle room: “The commission, in order to give effect to the purposes of this chapter, may adopt rules consistent with this chapter…” Knowing how they avoided rulemaking and tossed the years of work in docket R-12-1246, “may” is just not adequate. I can’t find that any rulemaking has begun, and I’d nosed around about it and no return call… no surprise. It seems to be a “Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!” attitude. Think that’s wise when we’re looking at Need and Routing for the biggest transmission lines in Minnesota history? As Shawn would say, “Goes to show you don’t think!!!!!”
OK, fine… if you, the regulators, won’t get on it, no problem. Here’s a rulemaking petition:
Now, let’s file comments, and get you all on record about it, and better yet, let’s get moving on rules. I mean really, look at what all was repealed — there are virtually NO RULES for siting and routing of utility infrastructure!
CHAPTER 7850, SITE OR ROUTE PERMIT; POWER PLANT OR LINE
[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
What rules were there before? Check it out — which of these would have no use or purpose in routing and siting utility infrastructure? Which of these are crucial, necessary for reasonable process, necessary to consider important factors and factoids? Rules are how the Commission enacts the statutes!
It was a LONG day at the Public Utilities Commission last Thursday, and here it is, almost Thursday again! The “Gopher to Badger” transmission line, PUC Docket CN-25-121, was #6 on the agenda.
Technically, what was at issue was “completeness,” whether the application was complete, but more important was a decision on what process to use. There seemed to be a concerted effort to push this project through using an “informal process.” Ummm, nope, over my dead polar bear!
North Route Group and NO765MN had a few things to say about completeness, process, and raising contested material issues of fact:
We’re not the only ones — about 150 comments came in. Listen up, PUC! That’s a lot of comments.
To look at the docket, go HERE and search for docket 25-121:
And an even more important longer term issue, that the Dept. of Commerce DER recognized, put in writing, that there’s more info that they want, in technicolor:
This last minute one is to assure our Petition to Intervene isn’t lost, trashed, or forgotten:
Most of these were not hills to die on, but ideally, 1, 6, 9, 11, 13 & 14, and add last minute 16 so we’re still in the mix. The most important was to avoid this absurd notion of an “informal review,” an idea that seemed orchestrated:
In what world is an “informal process” reasonable for a 100+ mile long (~145 in MN?) 765kV transmission line Certificate of Need proceeding? Guess again.
Commissioner Tuma made the motion for 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 (with 60 days after written Order), 11a, and 16. Passed unanimously.
Little, but important, win – avoided “informal process” of #4, but maybe it’ll come up again, though #3 was clear on Thursday. CN-25-117 did move forward to contested case, and this is likely too, so it was said. Littler win — #3 Certificate of Need review is on hold until the route application is filed in the fall, and then we address process again (would have rather had the application referred for a contested case NOW, but oh well…) Another positive development is #11, that applicants will have to provide the info that Commerce DER wants within 60 days of the Commission’s written order. That’ll give us something to chew on.
During last of discussion, Commissioner Sullivan stressed the need to look at highway right-of-way, as provided by the 2024 legislative changes, Tuma too. Sullivan was also VERY clear that “this is all the same project,” that CN-25-117 PowerOn Midwest is directly linked to this CN-25-121 Gopher to Badger. Well, DOH!
But he was the only one adamant about it and not adamant enough. Historical, institutional, knowledge is missing, this is just like CapX 2020, a/k/a Grid North Partners. There’s no curiosity, and assumptions are made that it would be “confusing” to put the Certificate of Need dockets together. HUH? We’ve done it before, just look at the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need (CN-06-1115), not at all confusing. They’ve already consolidated into 117 is 118, 119, and 120, and consolidated into 121 is 122, so there are 6 MISO projects here, MISO 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. What’s one more consolidation to pull it all together?
Note: Need arguments in these applications are the same, see below, look up Application Section 1.4 and Chapter 6 on need. Really, COMPARE:
Here’s a representative response in this filing — you’d think it’s from the Epstein files:
The catch is that this information does not appear to be legit CEII classified, as it’s their info and not info filed with FERC and legitimately classified as CEII.
And if they want to say it is, no problem, FERC does provide an access point — 18 U.S.C. 388.113(g):
I already have an executed agreement in this docket, but I think I’ll wait until it gets more interesting, like MISO’s next round of questions, or the utilities’ answers, or… or… or…
We KNOW all transmission projects of based on OLD numbers have majorly increased costs! Two of them are under MISO review:
Did you know that thanks to the 2024 Energy Omnibus (Ominous) Bill, there are virtually NO rules for routing and siting of utility infrastructure? The good news is that the “Prime Farmland Exclusion” was preserved, but where’d everything else go???? Yeah, it’s really bad, so I filed this Petition for Rulemaking, on eDockets, via email, and as above, tomorrow, U.S. Mail:
Really, take a look for yourself and see how little is left after the 2024 legislative purge. Really, take a look for yourself and see how little is left after the 2024 legislative purge — all that remains of Minn. R. ch. 7850 is “Standards and Criteria” which says nothing, and Prohibited Routes and Prohibited Sites:
I’ve filed a few of these, and have been on 2, maybe 3, rulemaking advisory committees, the most important was R-12-1246, where we worked for almost a decade, and the PUC tossed it! That was SO frustrating and infuriating.
Adding to hearing about it, just yesterday, I was told, emphatically, several times, that “our” State Senator Steve Drazkowski is saying that the 2024 Energy Omnibus Bill took authority away from local governments. Nope, nope, nope, that didn’t happen!
DID YOU REALLY SAY THAT, STEVE?
IT’S NOT TRUE!!!!
If anyone tries to tell you that the 2024 Energy Omnibus (Ominous) Bill took away local control over energy projects, be sure to correct them — it’s a problem having false information flying around!
I was also told that Drazkowski had authored a bill to “return” jurisdiction to local governments, but I cannot find it, will continue looking.
So… once more with feeling… SINCE 1973 – PUC jurisdiction over energy project is NOT new:
