Legalectric

The Maple River-Cuyuna 345kV transmission line, that’s the orange one on this map above.

First the Initial Comments:

And then Reply Comments:

Applicants’ filed their Reply Comments:

And we filed the Andersen Comments:

And that’s it!

So on to tomorrow’s Reply Comments on the Gopher-Badger 765kV transmission line!

Underground transmission is the topic of the week, month, well, maybe year. Underground transmission has been approved in Iowa – the Soo Green transmission project was approved back in 2023. It’s a DC line to be routed along railroad tracks! An underground DC project was “approved” by PJM from the Heritage substation to the Mosby substation, both in Virginia, though it’ll need state approval, PJM, like MISO, is NOT the decider, they are NOT the regulators.

Rather an opposite situation in Maryland, where there’s an underground transmission project proposed, and it turns out that in Maryland, the Public Service Commission doesn’t have regulatory authority over underground projects, only above ground!

Support grows to stiffen state oversight of underground power lines

This jurisdictional issue is slogging its way through the Maryland legislature.

Locally, there are objections to that project, mapped out above, and below, because it’s going through a historical district. What would be their take on an above ground transmission line on that route?

Here’s the PJM report of the Sub Regional RTEP Committee – Mid-Atlantic from way back in 2016, they’re still trying to figure this out:

And this:

I’d filed these on Monday… “Power on Minnesota” filed theirs too (scroll down for theirs).

Time flies when you’re having fun…

Why? Well, look at this, supporting “the Commission’s informal process” which DOES NOT EXIST!!

Unlikely to be contested issues of fact, informal process would allow them and the public to more fully and effectively participate? What are they smoking? Whose brilliant idea was it to put such bizarre thoughts in writing? Hmmmm, maybe look at their funding and see how much they were paid to quash public participation in a non-existent “informal process.”

But wait, MISO said the same thing (no surprise, this decades long transmission build-out is “MISO’s” idea, their members, and they’re the entity out front promoting it):

“For the reasons stated…” ??? What reasons. All that’s in the comments is what MISO has done, MISO this, MISO that, and MISO IS NOT THE REGULATOR! There’s zero about contested issues — but of course — how would they know if there are contested issues when this is the INITIAL comment period!

And then there’s Commerce saying the same thing. Good grief, I recognize that Commerce is the name of the agency, that Commerce does not represent ratepayers or the public, but…

It’s time to haul out that comment grinder again:

“Power on Minnesota” had a more realistic approach, though dismissing issues I’d raised in Comments, acknowledging the possibility of contested case and intervenors:

… the Commission itself may determine that a contested case would be beneficial. To allow for full development of the record—whether under the informal or contested case process— and also avoid potential schedule delays in the future, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission decline to order a contested case proceeding at this time and request that further contested case requests be submitted with a petition to intervene and before the close of the scoping comment period in this matter to allow the Commission to resolve such requests when it considers the scope of the Environmental Report.

Reply Comment, p. 2, Power on Midwest (emphasis added), see Comment, below..

Yup, that’s the plan, that’s how the rules say it’s done, request Contested Case before the end of the comment period! And as we know, in these proceedings, we’ve got to bring up everything early and often.

Here’s the Reply Comment of the Applicants:

At long last, after warning and warning and warning, and continued violations of law, 25 habeus corpus Petitioners who were unlawfully detained and released will have their day in court for enforcement of Judge’s Order to return their personal possessions after their release. They had until 11:00 a.m. on February 25, 2026, or face contempt proceedings, and, well, they did not comply.

Respondents in this consolidated case are Todd Lyons, in his capacity as Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S.Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Daren K. Margolin, Director for Executive Office for Immigration Review; David Easterwood, Field Office Director of St.Paul Field Office for U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Enforcement and Removal Operations; Eric Tollefson; Sheriff Joel Brott, Sheriff, Warden of Sherburne County Jail, Elk River MN; Warden, ERO Otero Detention Facility, Chapparal, New Mexico; John Doe, Local Detention Authority; Rose Thompson, Warden, Karnes County Immigration Processing Center.

Here’s the Court Order for hearing, it’s March 3rd at the at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3B of the Warren E.Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 N. Robert Street, St. Paul. This should be a live broadcast, even pay per view:

In another recent case, the extent of federal willful disregard is clear:

Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted.

This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. The Court warns ICE that future noncompliance with court orders may result in future show‐cause orders requiring the personal appearances of Lyons or other government officials. ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.

Here’s that Order — these are just two, there are many more:

I figured there was some reason I was tracking this for the last TWENTY-FIVE years!

You can find Xcel’s 10-K on the Investor page:

Xcel Energy’s 2025 SEC 10-K filing

This flat peak demand is something that must be acknowledged by the Public Utilities Commission, Dept. of Commerce, MISO, and anyone else who continues to deny this reality: