Legalectric

So I was on a couple days’ road trip up north and then south, back home, frazzled, running errands and catching up, and now I have a few minutes to put my feet up and deep breathe, and I’m looking for the books I’m reading, found two, “Mississippi River: Historic Sites and Interesting Places” and Rolvaag’s “Peder Victorious,” but where’s the other one?

I’m pretty anal about book storage, well, not literally, but I keep them in certain spots where I’m sure my ADHD self can find them.  Nope, it’s not around.  Upstairs, downstairs, in my spinner, briefbag, not buried because I spent the day organizing and cleaning my desk, and once over again.  WHERE IS IT!  Looked under every pile in the house, under tables, under the covers, in the dog’s mouth… nowhere.

But then after half an hour of frantic looking, I had a flash… 21st century problem…

Found it…

Yes, up in Clearbrook last night for the DoC EERA’s Public Meeting for Scoping of environmental review (lite) for the Minnkota Clearbrook – West Clearbrook 115 kV Transmission Project.

For the full scoop on this project go to PUC’s Docket SEARCH HERE, and search for docket 14-665, and for the backstory, dig up the Sandpiper dockets, 13-473 and 13-474, a very large undertaking.

Caesar Panit of the PUC and David Birkholz of Commerce hosted last night’s meeting:

Last night’s meeting was quite well attended for such a short transmission line, just 5+ miles, but that’s likely because of its connection to the Sandpiper pipeline project.  It’s an important project to Enbridge, and one that should be closely scrutinized because as of this point, it’s timed exactly backwards, and shouldn’t even be proposed until Sandpiper is permitted and we know where it’s going to go, and whether there will even be a “Clearbrook West” terminal.

Timed backwards?  Yes… This project is way premature, because it’s transmission to power the Sandpiper new “Clearbrook West” terminal and pumping station, one which is just starting back into the intense environmental review of a court ordered EIS (yes, finally Minnesota appellate court agrees that an EIS must be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Need), and it is not safe to presume that the new “Clearbrook West” terminal is going to be there given the MPCA Comments and proposal of Crookston as a logical alternative:

20148-102081-01_MPCA Comment- Crookston Terminal Location

But that’s not all that’s interesting… in the Application, Minnkota had a brief mention of RUS, the USDA’s Rural Utility Service.  And I had one of those flashes, having dealt with RUS on CapX 2020, and now the Dairyland Q-1 “upgrade” project through Onalaska.  So I asked them about it, on the record, and learned that yes, RUS is financing this project, that yes, there will be environmental review, likely an “environmental report,” and that there might be a public comment period on it if USDA’s RUS chooses, and when I asked whether Dennis Rankin is handling it at RUS, he said, “Yes, that’s the guy!”  It is a very small world, and as we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.”

Minnkota is kind of dodgy about what this project is for, saying repeatedly it’s for “one customer” but given the terminal at the proposed Clearbrook West area where Sandpiper’s new Clearbrook West terminal would go, it’s a DOH!

Here’s the site from Sandpiper’s Application, Appx G.3 Facility Drawings_01.30.13, showing it next to Klongerbo Lake (keeping in mind MPCA’s recommendation of the Crookston alternative):

Other things to note:

Enbridge pushes back timeline for pipeline projects

2015 Biennial Transmission Projects Report-selected

They say they want to avoid wetlands… but in the “cross country” area near the “Clearbrook West” terminal location, it’s all wetlands, and in the terminal area itself, it’s wetlands, not suitable for a pipeline terminal.  What are they thinking?

There’s lots of info to inform the scoping decision, and for sure Commerce and the PUC will get this info!

A few weeks ago, nope, time flies when you’re having fun, it was two months ago, that I went down on behalf of No CapX 2020 to ask that the City address transmission lines in their Comprehensive Plan update in progress.  The Plan Commission thought that would be worthwhile, and sent it back to committee.  Here’s the result:

Pages from Plan Commission _2-23-16 _Packet

It’s pretty specific about taking transmission into account:

And check this out, a MAP of transmission infrastructure that they did not have before… YES!

Remember Xcel’s CapX 2020 peak demand projections of 2.49% annual increase?  How wrong can they be?  And how unjustified was their basis for a Certificate of Need for CapX 2020?  And how are they held accountable for those gross misrepresentations?  This is why the rate case in progress, PUC Docket 15-826, is so important.

I love it when this happens… Xcel Peak Demand is again DOWN!  There’s a trend, and it’s called decreased demand.  Demand has yet to exceed the 2007 peak, and now it’s 8 years…

Here’s the Xcel Energy SEC 10-K filed a couple days ago:

2015 – Xcel Energy 10-K

Is it any wonder they want to get away from a cost based rate a la their “e21 Initiative” scheme?  Particularly now that the bill for CapX 2020 is coming due and their newest rate case (PUC Docket GR-15-826) is now underway?

And the specifics, and note how they inexplicably forecast a 2016 peak of 9,327:

More interesting filings today, these from the Black Oak Getty wind project, the construction plans, and a new noise report.  There are also “Environmental Supplements” and other new filings.  You can find them all at the PUC’s site — go to SEARCH and search for eDockets 10-1240 or 11-831.

Here are the filings of the Construction Plans:

20162-118362-01_Part 1

20162-118362-03_Part 2

20162-118362-05_Part 3

20162-118362-07_Part 4

20162-118362-09_Part 5

20162-118362-11_Part 6

20162-118362-13_Part 7

I’ve separated out the noise report to make it easier to send around:

Noise Technical Report_ Black Oak Getty Wind Project

And for reference, here are the Minnesota Noise Rules, found in Minn. R. Ch. 7030 — we’re long overdue for a rulemaking for Noise Rules specifically regulating wind noise: