Menahga Transmission Project hearing
October 21st, 2015
Tonight was the public hearing for the Menahga Transmission Project. This is A transmission project with a pipeline driver.
This is a weird project. They’re admittedly having problems with the old 34.5 kV distribution system, that was established ages ago in the GRE_Long Range Xmsn Plan_October 2008, and in the last four Biennial Transmission Plans (their application claimed that “this project” had been under discussion since 2007 as project “2007-NE-N3”):
2007-NE-N3_2007 Biennial Transmission Plan
2007-NE-N3_2009 Biennial Transmission Plan
2007-NE-N3_2011 Biennial Transmission Plan
2007-NE-N3_2013 Biennial Transmission Plan where it morphed into “2014-NE-N21”
Check the 2007 map for project 2007-NE-N3:
Does that bear any resemblance to the project they applied for:
Nope, there’s no resemblance, I didn’t think so either.
But I did find this interesting map of the “project area” that shows the 2007 area in question and more easily shows the logic behind their claim that:
There’s that green line right down the middle that’s the focus of the “problems” claimed. And from that 2007 report:
The Hubbard-Menahga 115 kV line would be the start of a Hubbard-Menahga-Wadena/Compton-Wing River 115 kV line.
Walk through that list of cities, and you don’t get anything that looks like what they proposed. It does indeed look a lot like fixing that green line that connects all the cities would answer their problems!
In the hearing, I clarified the capacity of the line, which at 140 is 7 times that needed for their 20 MW load (click for larger chart). Go to the 477 on left side (kcmil) and then scoot over to the “115” column in the MVA rating columns on the right, scroll down to the “140.” As the engineer confirmed, the 140 MVA is essentially MW…
And here’s the peak demand for the entire area, 16.48 MW, for which they’re wanting a 140 MVA capacity line:
Why?
Oh, well, there is that pipeline driver, the MinnCan pipeline over to the Koch refinery, and they want more pumping stations to increase the capacity from 165,000 barrels a day to 350,000 barrels a day. And they want to double circuit the part on the northern end, from Hubbard substation to somewhere west of that for a “future GRE project” that they will not identify further, but they did not deny that it was Sandpiper (and $50 says it is).
The good news is that there’s tofu in the neighborhood for fortification, should get three meals out of this!
LTE: Thanks, City Council, for Reconsideration
October 19th, 2015
And the Republican-bEagle here in Red Wing published my Letter to the Editor, here it is online:
Letter: Thanks, City Council, for reconsideration
Menahga Xmsn Project public hearing TOMORROW!
October 18th, 2015
Yes, it’s TOMORROW! Great River Energy and Minnesota Power want to build a transmission line to solve a distribution problem (age and overloads) and power up pipeline pumping stations for the MinnCan MPL Line 4 and for another “potential” project, oh, maybe, perhaps, the Sandpiper pipeline?
6:00 p.m.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Menahga Senior Center
19 Cedar Avenue
Menahga, MN 56464
For more information, check this Legalectric post:
A transmission project with a pipeline driver
You can see everything in the Public Utilities Commission docket, just go to DOCUMENT SEARCH HERE and search for either Certificate of Need docket 14-787 or Route Permit docket 14-797.
TOMORROW!
A transmission project with a pipeline driver
October 16th, 2015
It never ends, does it. Here’s the Great River Energy and Minnesota Power Menahga Project, a 115 kV transmission line doing the do-si-do around Menahga! Pipeline driver? Yup. The new pumping stations will increase capacity of the MinnCan Pipeline (MPL Line 4) from 165,000 barrels a day to 350,000 barrels a day, or something like that. It’ll double the capacity. Great, just great. And remember, the MinnCan pipeline was the one where no one cared about it, no one weighed in against it, and now, everyone everywhere is fighting pipelines. This one quietly goes through, fueling the refinery in Rosemount, the Koch refinery. Hmmmmm…
App_Part 1_CoverSrvList_20151-106198-01
App_Part 2_Summary_20151-106198-02
App_Part 3_Text_20151-106198-03
App_Part 4_Appendices A-f_20151-106198-04
App_Part 5_DetailedRouteMaps_20151-106198-05
App_Part 6_App H-J_20151-106198-06
App_Part 6_CORRECTED App J_20151-106872-01
App_Part 7_App K_20151-106198-07
And here’s what we filed last week and the judge’s response (DENIAL!!) and our response to that, and also today’s filing.
First, to get things moving:
Andersen_CoN and Route Permit – Request for Contested Case_FINAL
And the judge’s response:
Suffice it to say, we weren’t pleased with that, so:
And today, to get this in before the Public Hearing on Monday:
Red Wing’s vote to Reconsider support of NFOP’s resolution
October 13th, 2015
Red Wing City Council meeting last night voted to reconsider the most recent passage of Resolution 6873, which is supporting the National Fraternal Order of Police to request “[t]o expand the Federal hate crimes law to protect police…” GOOD! It will go to the Human Rights Commission for discussion.
It was passed that the meeting prior with almost zero discussion (except for a procedural sidebar about Resolution v. Proclamation!):
Listen to the Council’s discussion of 9/28/2015 HERE — video at 1:05 – 1:11
FYI, assault of a police officer is a FELONY in Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. 609.2231.
My concern was first raised listening to the Police Chief introducing it, when he spoke of the State Fair Black Lives Matter protest and hostile statements there, and statements in the cover sheet for resolution, that “The United States has seen an increase of hostility toward law enforcement over the past two years.” and “at a time when law enforcement is the target of criticism and violent attacks…” … sigh… and it was a clear diversion from very pressing issues regarding police behavior and accountability. What’s the need for this? If a Black Lives Matter demonstration is used as basis for a resolution of this sort, if claims of “hostility” and “criticism” are the basis… no, this is a defensive maneuver, a step in the wrong direction, and shifting the focus from dealing with police abuse of power.
Phony basis? Yup. It’s about attacks on police officers? Fact check! Check out the details of officers who died on duty, search by year on the Officer Down web page.
And though 98 or 99 officers have died on duty, and 29 were indeed killed by gunfire, there is no indication of the number that would have the targeted premeditation required of a hate crime. Those are very few, and all are front page news triggering manhunts and fast arrests. The next highest category is “Automobile Accident” at 23 (not including 3 motorcycle accident and 1 aircraft accident), arguably 27 vehicular accidents. Next highest category, 16 died of heart attack on the job. Next is a tie with 5 each for 9/11 related illness and 5 struck by vehicle. This is not an unusual uptic. The only thing unusual is that there’s a wave of public sentiment that police need to be held accountable.
In the first meeting where this came up, on the 28th, the intro part referring to the “Black Lives Matter” protest at the State Fair (also referred to by Peggy Rehder yesterday), and the written background cover sheet refers to “an increase of hostility toward law enforcement over the past two years” and “At a time when law enforcement is the target of criticism and violent attacks…” which are red warning flags that the NFOP agenda here is to uprate the hype when in fact police deaths are at lower levels, and where targeted killings are very few, and conversely, police being murdered are far fewer than the systemic pattern of police murders “over the past two years” that generates the demands for accountability and “an increase in hostility.” I’m glad they’re revisiting, since I’ve done the research and now will be able to put my thoughts together (this last week was a busy week) for the next meeting. This NFOP agenda is disturbing. Police are trained in response, de-escalation, and use of deadly force (how, if, and when). They’re held to a high standard, yet uncalled for and unlawful killings are rampant. Accountability is necessary, not a dodge and weave ducking of responsibility, liability, and resistance to change.
Listen to the Council’s discussion of 10/12/2015 HERE! Video from 54 – ~115
And a few snippets (NOT a transcript!):
Lisa Bayley eloquently explained her concerns, and that the Council was to discuss specifically whether it was appropriate to take it up, and there was no discussion about it, and that must be done. She said it should be referred to the Human Rights Commission. And she noted that we already have laws in place, and thinks it paints a broad brush over something that’s very complicated. It was given to us, was written for us, by an outside group, and she’d like to see us come up with something specific to our situation. And so makes a Motion for Reconsideration.
Dean Hove seconded the Motion, with the same concerns, and thinks it should go to the Human Rights Commission.
Peggy Rehder would be opposed to having any discussion at Human Rights Commission without the Chief present at that meeting (that was resolved, would go on agenda at following meeting). She’s looked at the Police Department facebook page, and she looked at who was commenting and “some of them were pretty interesting felons that don’t like what we’re proposing to do.” (She knew they were felons how? Someone with access looking them up for her?) “The comments that I picked up, all of this stuff about piggies, and all of those kinds of things, I don’t think it was a huge deal for the National Order of Police to ask our police to do this, and for the FOP to ask the Chief to bring it forward, because I’m certainly not seeing… the people that I can identify just obviously don’t like the police, this isn’t going to change that one way or another.
Dean Hove – Supports Motion to Reconsider. Would like to slow down and look at the last sentence at the bottom. I don’t think anyone here doesn’t support the police… the wording on that last sentence is something that we really need to reconsider.
Peggy Rehder wants to know what sentence, Lisa Bayley wants to revisit that last sentence, the part about the hate crimes statute what it means.
Dan Munson wants to review that as well…
Peggy Rehder wants to know if it’s just that part, or if we’re going to rewrite the entire document. I won’t support it if we’re going to go beyond that. Wants to table that next resolution then, don’t want to not have any real positive thing, if we’re in agreement on that, then I can support it. I’ve been amazed to see how many people are proud that we’re doing this, not bashing the police.
Dean Hove — I’ve reread it several times, we need to talk about that last sentence.
Ralph Rauterkraus – wants Human Rights Commission, and not just send it bac, but to encourage them to engage public dialog and public forums, these are issues that people feel emotional about, and I want to encourage them to speak out on that.
Roger Pohlman, Police Chief – “misperceptions” – some comments he’s seen on Facebook, wants to clarify some things. Thought about how litigated and how much law enforcement has so much more than any other… all dictate rulings and trainings. So many things that our department implement, that are not being considered. Law enforcement believes that all life is valuable, and we look forward to working with all groups to help end the needless loss of life… But I believe the end result must be that the needless killing on all groups comes to an end.
Dean Hove: That last statement is your best statement, that all killing needs to come to an end. That is the biggest issue we have in this country as far as I’m concerned…
(Jason Sebion didn’t say a word, not unusual, but he seconded the Motion to approve it on the 28th!).
Voted unanimously to reconsider. And at that time, they tabled a Motion (9B) to encourage our state Senator and Representatives to also lobby for “hate crime” status.
Here’s the full report in the Red Wing Republican bEagle:
Council pushes rewind button on resolution
Council member Lisa Bayley requested the reconsideration Monday.
Mayor Dan Bender said many of the comments he has received have had an “us-versus-them flavor.”
He said any changes would be made after careful consideration and consulting with citizens.
It will come up again when the original resolution of support is discussed.