Legalectric

Tomorrow is the first Public Utilities Commission meeting on the swath of 765kV lines that utilities want to run across Minnesota:

You can watch it live HERE (it’ll start when the meeting does).

The blue part on the left, from Big Stone-Brookings, through Lakefield Junction, to Pleasant Valley, and up to “North Rochester” which is actually north of Pine Island is what’s at issue tomorrow:

The rest of it, the green part on the right, continues from “North Rochester” back down to Pleasant Valley (!) and east to the Mississippi, and then on through Wisconsin to Columbia. Shades of the CapX 2020 Brookings to “North Rochester” to Hampton, and then Hampton to La Crosse (Briggs Road, north end of Onalaska).

We need another one from South Dakota to Minnesota, why??

Here are Staff Briefing papers, briefly stating situation and positions of those weighing in, and what staff thinks the Commission should do:

What’s odd is that they split the SE to WI up, which they didn’t for CapX 2020. The Minnesota Certificate of Need for CapX was the southern 345kV from SD to WI and also from Fargo to St. Cloud. These “two” 765kV projects are one and the same, their need case is EXACTLY the same, Sections 1.4 and Section 6. How stupid do they think we are? Well… in Staff Briefing Papers, pages 12 and 16-17:

• Regarding the request by NRG/NO765MN to join the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, staff notes that the request for joint or consolidated review of two separate projects appears both unusual and poorly supported. These are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different schedules, and different project-specific need determinations, and combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.
• Staff does not recommend that the Commission combine the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, as requested by NRG/NO765MN. As indicated earlier in these briefing papers, these are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different procedural schedules, and different project-specific need determinations. Combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.

Nope, they are not, as far as the Certificate of Need goes. See either, BOTH, applications, Section 1.4:

Section 6 on Need is word for word the same, EXACTLY the same, except for descriptions of MISO 22-26, which is reversed.

Section 5 is the same too, though that’s the more general picture, through a fun house mirror:

Shades of CapX 2020’s “forecast” of 2.49% increase in peak demand!

That’s one example of why the loss of the Commission’s “institutional memory” matters. We won’t get fooled again? We’ll see.

As for the Contested Case, staff notes it’s a DUH and recommends that this application be referred for a Contested Case! GOOD! Let’s get those workable system alternatives into the discussion.

Onward! Let’s get it done!