Just got Notice of Prehearing Conference, Notice at 3:55 p.m., Order signed today, August 24, 2026. Guess when this Prehearing Conference will happen?

AUGUST 26, 2026 @ 10 a.m.

Microsoft Teams

Meeting  ID: 240 300 318 194 320

Passcode: Mq7ce2Aq

Yeah, really… two days notice.

If you can, join to witness and show that people are concerned, people are watching. What happens at the first Prehearing Conference is that a schedule is determined, procedural issues worked out. It’ll probably be short, and mostly “Greek to me” for those who haven’t done this before, but it’s the only way to learn how this works, and how it doesn’t work.

The PUC’s Order said:

Expeditiously? Here’s what arrived:

So I just filed this missive — the Prehearing Conference needs to be rescheduled:

Here’s what I received in response:

So I fired this off.

Head is exploding. I’m getting aerobic exercise reading these missives, and one good thing is that it may help me endure long enough to do a Meyer Shark!

Yet another issue that I’d spaced out — this one nuclear, the gift that keeps on giving. There’s a “study” managed by Great Plains (how much $$$$ are they getting for this? Thinking of coal gasification and stomach turns.) that’s ongoing.

COMMENTS DUE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

“Information submitted through the Request for Information will help guide GPI’s research and analysis and may be incorporated into the final study.” (emphasis added)

From Great Plains:

Provide information for Minnesota’s Nuclear Energy Study

Their “Request for Information” link to respond

Just do it!!

COMMENTS DUE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

Legislators, what were you thinking?

Yes, this is “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines,” from way back in 2009, and it also addresses the rules governing compliance with Minnesota’s noise standards, found at Minn. R. 7030.0040.

YEAAA Minnesota Dept. of Public Health, BUT they lost funding for Health Impact Assessments in 2017, so that avenue is closed.

Look what the PowerOn Midwest application says on page 190 in the about potential noise from the 765 kV transmission line:

Here’s how the noise rule, Minn. R. 7030.0050, categorizes RESIDENTIAL farm and rural “land use activities,” which INCLUDES FARM HOUSES:

They claim the PowerOn Midwest project is “Classification 3?” Do they really think we’ll buy that?

The application also states, on page 189, “A noise level change of 3 dB is barely perceptible to a person with healthy
hearing organs in an ideal listening environment…” Earth to Mars, 3dB is a doubling of sound pressure level (SPL).

I’m not seeing any noise modeling. ??? And FYI, when you do noise modeling, don’t you dare use a ground/attenuation factor of other than ZERO! A transmission line is an elevated noise source.

When testifying about the Badger Hollow solar project (Wisconsin PSC Docket 9697-CE-100) and the noise modeling (the solar project motors DO make noise, that was news to me then!), he explained appropriate ground factor for modeling noise from

:

Here’s how I categorize their statements about noise:

Time for a rewrite.

Note that in the Gopher to Badger application they’re not quite so “bold” in their categorization of project noise:

Noise is noise — is the state sufficiently digging into the noise, and noise impacts, of 765 kV transmission lines?

For your reading enjoyment, the CN-25-117 Application, there are also appendices, you can find them at the PUC’s eDocket:

CN-25-117 -Application_20262-227787-02

As noted, the Public Utilities Commission’s job is in ST. PAUL! There are training videos on-line. Doing this together makes it way to easy to conspire — these Commissions are supposed to be independent.

Junkets are nothing new. Note that this one above is for Commissioners paid by the ratepayer. Who paid for this one for a PUC Commissioner to check out an operating coal gasification plant, ignoring the one in Indiana (operating, but they couldn’t get it running, and it took 22 engineers to get it going). From an old Legalectric post about regulatory capture:

Campaign signs on vacant lots?

Campaign signs on business property?

Have owners given permission?

Is it an in-kind corporate donation?

There’s a pattern here in Red Wing of putting campaign signs on land owned by folks far away, well, not in Red Wing, where owners do not know of campaign signs on their property. The above at Withers Harbor Dr. and Old West Main is very small spuds, but it’s a start, and it’s very doubtful the owner in Minneapolis knows about it. There were two of these smaller signs when I first saw it, now there’s one.

Hopefully in this election cycle candidate campaigns know better than to try this again, here’s one on property owned by company in Ramsey, MN, a ginormous sign that they knew nothing about… so they said and also that it was bad for business! I believe them. This wasn’t the first huge campaign sign on this roof, but it better be the last:

Or this, owned by company in Hudson, WI, who had no idea this was going on — said no knowledge — also said that it was bad for business! I believe them too!

Campaigns, just don’t. I saw a guy responsible for much of signs out in Red Wing, the Republican signs and also the Recall signs, scouting out the lot where the trailer was. There are no signs there yet, and I do hope he got the message. Just don’t!