There’s a Climate and Energy Finance and Policy committee meeting next Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:30 a.m.


Why? Because they’ll be talking about transmission. “Transmission: Challenges, Solutions and Legislative Options for the Grid”

And a bill labeled “Permitting Reform” has been proposed which is up for discussion, and read it, it is SO frustration in that it PRESUMES transmission is needed.


HF XXX (Stephenson) Permitting Reform – 1/27/2022

This has got to go:

Sections 7, 8, and 19 are just so off, and I let them know:

For that Subd. 8 Transmission planning in advance of generation retirement, here’s what I suggested:

Simple huh…


I also referenced and attached, from the 2021 Biennial Transmission Plan docket, Commerce-DER’s Information Request 1, which asked:

The response to A was NO, over and over and over for each of the transmission owning companies (and then the response to B was uniformly “N/A.”)

So tune in, and find out why on earth they think we need transmission. WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ TRANSMISSION. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR EVEN THINKING THAT THERE’S ANY REASON FOR CAPX 2050.

Oh, but the FERC approved 10.xx% return on investment… riiiiiiiiiight…

If you’re interested in letting them know how you feel about this proposal, fire off a missive by early Monday so it will get to them in time to digest before Tuesday’s meeting:

I sent mine to the author, Rep. Zach Stephenson, and the Committee administrator, and then copied all committee members, and you can cut and paste, easy-peasy:, Committee Administrator <>,,,,,,,, rep.,,,,,,,,,

p.s. MISO is getting ready to unleash the new MTEP, so I figure this is a good place to park this, from July, 2021:

20200414-PSC-Item-07-Transmission-Cost-Estimation-Guide-for-MTEP-2020_DRAFT_April_clean441565 Download

Leave a Reply