Legalectric

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.

A great presentation yesterday at the Goodhue County Historical Society by Kari Lie Dorer (yes, THAT Dorer, of Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest, she married into the family!) from St. Olaf, Professor of Norwegian; King Olav V Chair in Scandinavian-American Studies; Department Chair of Norwegian; Director of Nordic Studies. She has a really interesting and varied background, from years at Concordia language camp (which looks really interesting!), and even Sami studies.

The topic was Muus vs. Muus: The Scandal that Shook Norwegian America (available from Minnesota Historical Society), written by Bodil Stenseth and edited by Kari Lie Dorer and translated by Dorer and Torild Homstad.

This book was first published in Norway, in Norwegian, by Bodil Stenseth as Fru Muus’ klage : Ekteskapsskandalen som rystet det norske Amerika. Kari Lie Dorer did extensive research here on this side of the Atlantic in the heart of Norwegian Synod land, many first hand accounts in letters, and so many newspaper articles, she’s also spoken with some Muus relatives, and she added a lot of material to the book. It’s published only in Norwegian, and it’s available online:

I’d learned of this Muus vs. Muus book when it came out not that long ago, showed up on my feed (!) so I got a copy, and had read about the Muus mess decades ago in Orm Overland’s “The Western Home,” with millions of details of Norwegian immigrants to our region (Overland? I believe he’s no relation, but ??):

Oline Muus seemed a gutsy, patient, persistent, and driven woman who stood up for herself in a time when that just wasn’t done — in the preface, writer Bodil Stenseth characterizes it as “rebellion against her husband” which for me skews my view of her perception. She filed in court to gain access to an inheritance from her father, which BJ Muus had appropriated, after trying to resolve it through the church with zero success (that’s how traditionally things were done then). It took a long, long time, with many church meetings as the court case(s) were ongoing. In church meetings, women were typically not allowed, and for sure not allowed to speak. She prevailed, at significant cost to her reputation, BJ’s too, their standing in the community, both were outcasts in the community. Ultimately, she got a divorce, and custody of their children still at home was granted to BJ, although they went to live with another relative.

I cannot imagine living in that time and going through such abject social dismissal and fighting so hard for basic recognition of her rights, which in Norwegian and U.S. culture were not rights then. The tension between Norwegian synod “law” and U.S. law was a major factor in the rancor, and news of their literal trials and tribulations was covered not just in Norwegian papers in the U.S. but in Norway too.

This was well worth the price of admission — SNORT! Thanks, Goodhue County Historical Society!

What does it mean that the Power Plant Siting Act no longer exists???

Whatever… we had a hearing, and here’s the report, just filed (note the part that there are no rules for siting and routing, the rules of Minn. R. 7850 were repealed, all but THREE RULES!!!

PJM’s State of the Market report for 2025 is out. MISO’s didn’t come out until JUNE last year! The approach in MISO‘s MTEP2024 regarding data centers is markedly, MARKETedly, different!

MISO did put out a “2026 RELIABILITY IMPERATIVE REPORT” with at least one point worth noting:

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.

Anyway, back to PJM’s State of the Market report for 2025, starting with Volume 1:

PJM has some interesting statements on data centers. I hear a lot of folks saying the skyrocketing electric rates are due to data centers, but in the Midwest that’s not happening yet. We’re paying for the BILLIONS in transmission, but data centers are lurking. Here’s what PJM has to say:

Data center load growth is the primary reason for recent and expected capacity market conditions, including total forecast load growth, the tight supply and demand balance, and high prices. But for data center growth, both actual and forecast, the capacity market would not have seen the same tight supply demand conditions, the same high prices observed in the 2025/2026 BRA, the 2026/2027 BRA, and the 2027/2028 BRA, and the currently expected tight supply conditions and high prices for subsequent capacity auctions. (Intro, p. 1)

The decisions about the interconnection of large new data center loads when there is not enough capacity to maintain system reliability are public, regulatory decisions because they are about competitive outcomes that are in the interests of all market participants. PJM markets are not laissez faire markets.

It is clear that continuing to simply accept the interconnection of large data center loads that cannot be served reliably because there is not adequate dispatchable capacity, is not a reasonable path forward
and is not an efficient or competitive market solution and is not a solution of any kind. That path leads
to continued shortfalls, increased reliability issues, continued maximum prices, and continued calls to
abandon markets.

The current supply of capacity in PJM is not adequate to meet the demand from large data center loads and will not be adequate in the foreseeable future. This is a simple factual issue. There is not enough capacity currently to meet the data center load. The solution is not to create reliability issues and wealth transfer issues by clearing the capacity market at the maximum price and at a quantity less than the reliability requirement by allowing the ongoing interconnection of large data center loads without adequate generation to serve them and without a clear path to adding the required capacity or to defining full curtailability.

The market solution is to require data centers to bring their own new generation. This would include an
expedited fast track load and generation interconnection process for large new data center loads that bring their own new generation with locational and temporal characteristics reasonably matched to their load profile. The preferred solution would include creating a queue for the addition of large new data center loads, which would not be interconnected until there is adequate capacity to serve them. Another solution would require data centers that do not bring their own new generation to be curtailable prior to current demand side customers but without the pretense that the data centers are providing “demand response” for which they should be paid. Given the level of data center load growth, this curtailability solution would provide a strong incentive to bring new generation, if enforced on a specific data center basis. This broad bring your own new generation solution to the issues created by the addition of unprecedented amounts of large data center load does not require a continued massive wealth transfer. (Intro p. 2).

Here’s the PJM proposal: Monitoring Analytics, LLC, Reliability Backstop Auction Design Proposal – V2 . In short, “the data centers must bear their own costs and risks and not shift them to other customers, and that the data centers must bring their own new generation in any one of a number of forms or be fully curtailable.” Intro, p. 3.

Oh, and about those “benefit/cost” or “cost-benefit” analysis in MISO that I’ve been going on about because likely costs have risen sufficiently to throw the “benefit/cost” analysis completely out of whack and how many MISO transmission projects would no longer be economically sound… MISO isn’t the only one concerned about cost increases! All transmission projects should require a MISO Tariff FF Variance Analysis, which looking at Northland Reliability Project’s public releases thus far, the MISO Variance Analysis Information Letter – 2026 03 06 process isn’t stringent enough, well, anyway, here’s the PJM 2025 State of the Market released

March 12th, 2026 take, from page 94 of the State of the Market report for 2025:

Yet in response to Comments I’d submitted as an individual in the Tranche 2.1 Power on Midwest docket, CN-25-117, the applicants state:

Once more with feeling, “When actual costs exceed estimated costs, the benefit/cost analysis is effectively meaningless…” eh, PJM??? All the MISO Tranche 2.1 projects rely on the MISO benefit/cost analysis for MISO approval and Commission approval. They don’t do an independent analysis to determine whether the project makes any sense. This is not rocket science, but it is so very clear why they don’t want to look at those cost increases!

Here’s the rest of the PJM State of the Market report, and it’s a LOT:

Volume II
Volume II (22MB PDF) contains detailed analysis and results.
Preface (45KB PDF)
Table of Contents (84KB PDF)
Section 1 – Introduction (2MB PDF)
Section 2 – Recommendations (332KB PDF)
Section 3 – Energy Market (5MB PDF)
Section 4 – Energy Uplift (268KB PDF)
Section 5 – Capacity Market (3MB PDF)
Section 6 – Demand Response (1MB PDF)
Section 7 – Net Revenue (1MB PDF)
Section 8 – Environmental and Renewable Energy Regulations (1MB PDF)
Section 9 – Interchange Transactions (1MB PDF)
Section 10 – Ancillary Service Markets (3MB PDF)
Section 11 – Congestion and Marginal Losses (4MB PDF)
Section 12 – Generation and Transmission Planning (2MB PDF)
Section 13 – Financial Transmission and Auction Revenue Rights (1MB PDF)