Diesel tax relief? BFD!
October 8th, 2026
TWENTY-FOUR CENTS A GALLON?
$6.113 – $0.244 Federal Tax – $5.869
That’s no help.
STOP THE WAR!
Here’s E.O. 14435:
Xcel & Google Responses & Proposed FoF
October 2nd, 2026
Xcel Energy & Google have applied for a double circuit 345 kV transmission line to hop across Hwy. 52 at 500th from the “North Rochester” substation north of Pine Island to its proposed/planned data center, to the south of 500th with FOUR substations! Yes, that’s the map above.
Pine Island data center transmission
June 2nd, 2026
Today, Xcel Energy and Google (Allen Gleckner, formerly Fresh Energy) filed Responses to Comments in the hearing and docket and their proposed Findings of Fact:

Reconsideration of Scoping Decision DENIED
September 29th, 2026
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s Order in the PowerOn Midwest docket (CN-25-117) denying the North Route Group and NO765MN’s Motion for Reconsideration is official:
This significantly limits what System Alternatives are evaluated in the Environmental Report. The Order states:
1) Staff may screen alternatives and impacts based on legal availability, relevance to the certificate of need decision, feasibility, availability, sufficiency of information, and ability to meet the stated need. This is consistent with Minnesota Rules 7849.1400 and 7849.0110.
2) MISO determines the “need” and “purpose” of a project…and “the Commission may exclude from analysis any alternative that does not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project . . .”; Minn. R. 7849.1400; and
3) How can anyone provide “all supporting information” that the PUC deems “sufficient?” Minn. R. 7849.1400, subp. 6, requires an individual proposing an alternative route for study to submit all supporting information they would like the Commission to consider.”
Then again, methinks there are some specifications MISO is requiring that are not covered by these limitations. We shall see…
What’s so hard to understand about NOTICE!
September 25th, 2026

I represent North Route Group and NO765MN in this PowerOn Midwest docket. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANY OF THESE

What’s the problem? Some intervenors did not get notice that this extension was under consideration. When raised, no problem, apparently, just this acknowledgement: “Any party may, for good cause shown, request any specific scheduling relief they believe is warranted.” Guess no notice is not good cause?? Or that those who did not receive notice must request?






