A modest success — the FULL Public Utilities Commission will take up the Environmental Review Scoping Decision issued June 9, 2026, a Consent Order. The FULL Commission is taking it up on July 9!

An Objection must be filed within 10 days for full Commission review:

Staff Briefing Papers will come out some time before the meeting, we’ll see how quickly they’ll dismiss our concerns.

Here’s the Objection filed by North Route Group and NO765MN, under Minn. State. 216A.03, Subd. 8(b) and Minn. R. 7849.1400 with many substantive specifics:

Again, not a big deal, but I hope it will get them to discuss on the record and vote on adequacy of this Scoping Decision for the first 765 kV transmission line to go through Minnesota.

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…

Stumping for GOOGLE DATA CENTERS?!?! What a legacy for Michael Noble after 30+ years heading ME3 and Fresh Energy!

Q&A: Michael Noble departs Fresh Energy with optimism for future of climate policy

And talking the talk 26 years ago:

Michael Noble, Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy

Oh, but wait, it’s not just Michael “Noble” who’s left for Google — Gleckner was at least honest about what he’d be doing, and though signing filings for Google, it took him a full six months to register as lobbyist for Google, just days before the PUC’s public meeting about the Google data center in Pine Island:

Thank you and farewell By Allen Gleckner | December 12, 2025

Ever since the 1994 Prairie Island deal and compensation for PIIC becoming the “Renewable Energy Development Fund,” and then the 2002 TRANSlink deal, we knew what they were, though we still don’t know their price. Here we have Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), Izaak Walton League – Midwest (Wind on the Wires was Walton program then); Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy (ME3, now Fresh Energy), and North American Water Office, none of them are intervening opposing transmission (and that’s not even getting into all the “grants” to advocate for coal gasification):

Here it is, North Route Group and NO765MN Objection to Scoping Decision — done and filed ahead of schedule. Then on to Campaign Finance 1001 for tomorrow!

Hot off the press – FIVE days notice, including the weekend. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MEETING, because if they need a planning meeting “regarding implementation of the new Chapter 216I governing energy infrastructure permitting,” well, could we have a clearer showing of a need for RULES? Rules are what’s implemented to deal with the statutes. DOH!

They’re probably going to round up all the usual suspects to come to an agreement on how all, ALL, of these routing and siting dockets will be handled (without rules, without a rulemaking) and ram them all through.

This notice includes TL-26-135 which is the transmission across Hwy. 52 for the Google Echo Zone data center in Pine Island, and TL-25-112 which is the Iron Range-St. Louis Co.-Arrowhead transmission docket, which has a little link that serves the Google data center in Hermantown.

This should be entertaining at the very least!

Oh, but wait… a WTAF follow up after receiving a panelist invite:

Instead, they’re asking “others” NOT to participate.