It’s almost old news by now, but I took a few much needed days off.

On June 18, 2026, I received the PUC’s “Notice of Planning Meeting,” scheduled for June 23, 2926, FIVE DAYS NOTICE. Who cares? I do, because the topic…

When I learned about this meeting… well, here’s how that went. Suffice it to say I was DISINVITED:

Last minute notice – PUC “Planning Meeting” June 18th, 2026

Now let’s think about this. Implementation of the new Chapter 216I? Isn’t that what rules are for?

Rulemaking at PUC tomorrow – May 27th, 2026

Denied…

And the webcast of the meeting – count the number of times you hear “guidelines.” Guidelines are NOT rules, but they’re pretending that “guidelines” are sufficient.

JUNE 23, 2026 PLANNING MEETING

Here’s the chapter they’re talking about — you really MUST listen to the meeting, above, and check the new laws:

CHAPTER 216I. ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING

In this meeting, the “panelists” all admitted to working so hard with the PUC in the legislature to make that law happen. Supposedly they were to discuss how it’s been working under the new Chapter 216I, and what’s not working well, what could be better. Each one was a transmission promoter.

• So much for the “Power Plant Siting Act,” it’s GONE.
• So much for the rules, “CHAPTER 7850, SITE OR ROUTE PERMIT; POWER PLANT OR LINE” — all gone but three.

And now for a little history about transmission at the Public Utilities Commission and these project promoters. I’ve not forgotten how on September 8, 2001, Beth Soholt (then “Wind on the Wires” under umbrella of Izaak Walton League Midwest, then 2010 spun off, and now Clean Grid Alliance,) and Matt Schuerger (ME3/Fresh Energy, or maybe then Wind on the Wires, then PUC COMMISSIONER and now back at Fresh Energy as Treasurer, Board of Directors.) gathered us “usual suspects” at the Loring, Dinkytown, those of us who would likely intervene in a transmission project. They wanted to know “what would it take for you to accept this line?” My main question is what are YOU getting for your support and how much would we get. SNORT! Matt Schuerger got pretty huffy at that, but obviously this meeting was prelude to a sell-out. I’d be happy to swear on oath, file an Affidavit, about this meeting, and I’m not the only one!

This was not long before the SW Minnesota 345kV project from Split Rock-Lakefield Jct., EQB Docket 01-1958, really got rolling, and just that day or day before I’d picked up my copy of the SW Minnesota transmission study over at Prairie Island Nuclear Plant (then NSP sent it down there for pick up, MUCH appreciated). Very interesting reading, and yes, I’ve still got it.

This was the “it’s for wind” line that wasn’t. The powerflows showed that only 213-302 MVA were coming off of Buffalo Ridge into that line — less than 15% of capacity — demonstrating that it’s NOT for wind coming off of Buffalo Ridge.

Capacity of the line, Exhibit 35 in the record, from Application, Appendix 7:

There was so much “nudge-nudge” and “wink-wink” during that hearing, and obvious shifts in position… lo and behold, this appeared, below, in a different docket, the TRANSlink docket, but here it is — Midwest Center for Environmental Advocacy, ME3/Fresh Energy, Izaak Walton League – Midwest Office (has disappeared off the face of the earth after Pawlenty appointed Bill Grant as Deputy Commissioner Energy Resources, Dept. of Commerce and he went off to other things) and North American Water Office. Look at all the activities to promote transmission. You won’t see any of these folks intervening in opposition to transmission. There’s no obvious money changing hands, but all involved suddenly did very well on grants, just check the IRS 990s — funny how that works:

This part of the Settlement Agreement, p. 4, is rather amusing in light of all the exemption requests preceding any transmission application these days! Perhaps a reminder is in order, but nevermind, the TRANSlink docket didn’t go forward. Those signing on to the Settlement Agreement have not been objecting to all the Exemption Requests!

For some reason, after this SW MN 345kV docket, transmission applicants stopped including powerflows in applications, same time they stopped including calculated line losses, same time they grossly restricted the cost information, itemization of costs, in the application.

The next big transmission dockets were CapX 2020, followed by MISO MVP projects 3 and 4 in Minnesota, and then MISO Tranche 1 and now MISO Tranche 2.1. Bigger and bigger and bigger, now a 765kV to run border to border, SD to WI, with quite the frolic and detour up to “North Rochester” substation by Pine Island and back down.

Look what they want to do, the plan for Minnesota and the Midwest. It’s MISO’s Transmission EXPANSION Plan:

And some more history regarding those promoting transmission:

Wind up to ELPC Transmission Strategy Meeting

March 28th, 2010

And ya wonder where the “environmental” and “energy” opposition to transmission disappeared to? Just check the bank accounts, the IRS 990s!

Enough, the nausea is overwhelming…