Catching up from a couple days ago, the “PowerOn Midwest” Applicants, Northern States Power Company, Great River Energy, and ITC Midwest, have filed “Applicants’ Response to Scoping Comments.”

This is important, because “Response to Scoping Comments” in another docket was the vehicle introducing the notion of a “DNR Proxy” route, one that did NOT include the DNR’s opposition to a new Mississippi River Crossing, and did not include recommendation of EXISTING CROSSINGS, alternate river crossings that were utterly reasonable. Veracity matters!

This Filing Letter and COS Scoping Comments needs a very close look!

For example, look at their bottom line on the Thomforde suggestions:

“THE APPLICANTS… DO NOT CONSENT TO FURTHER EVALUATION!”

Wonder why?

Recent release, from Strategic Economic Research:

Economic Impact Analysis of the PowerOn Midwest Project in Minnesota

And downloaded for future reference just in case it disappears. The “Implan” economic analysis for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project was such a farce — we’ll see if this is the same:

Are costs of the project considered as well? There are all sorts of costs and benefits that can be quantified. Was it a reasonable range or limited to those easily claimed and dollars assigned?

In attempts to prove up benefits, Implan has been used before. From testimony regarding Duluth Labovitz School’s Implan study of economic benefits of the Mesaba Project coal gasification plant, in the hearing, specifically the economic health benefits of coal:

Is this report as bizarre?

Let’s get reading. Get familiar enough with this to pick it apart.

I expect that a similar report will be issued for the eastern portion of the 765kV project (CN-25-121). The project applicants are certainly vulnerable when “what’s in it for Minnesota” and “what’s in it for our community” questions arise about this “pass-through” project.

p.s. The report does list tax payments to “counties” but I want to see this itemized, county by county:

Just filed, Environmental Report Scoping Comments of North Route Group and NO765MN, and process comments too:

Hot off the press, well, yesterday… “PowerOn Midwest‘s” latest filing in the CN-25-117 docket states that “… the Applicants do not oppose Intervenors’ petition to intervene.” Good!

For your reading enjoyment, the CN-25-117 Application, there are also appendices, you can find them at the eDocket:

CN-25-117 -Application_20262-227787-02

Here’s yesterday’s filing:

Unclear? Filed in BOTH dockets, specifically named both dockets in the Petition narrative… Oh, right… OK, whatever…

And of course they do not object to MISO intervening either.

On June 1, there’s the first Prehearing Conference, and we’ll have the schedule pretty much nailed down. Better yet, Discovery will be a happening thing! The applicants have the burden of proof in this Certificate of Need proceeding, and there’s a lot of info that we need, that they need, to show that this specific project is needed.

ONWARD!

Interesting filings today in PUC Docket R-26-172 — how can anyone oppose rulemaking, and how can anyone think it’s reasonable to route transmission and site generation without rules? The Public Utilities Commission is tasked with regulating utilities, and how does one regulate without regulations?

Here’s what has come in today — the deadline is 4:30 but I’ll have to hit the road soon — if others come in I’ll post later. This first one is choice:

The next two, not so much — how convoluted can they get?

And here’s what I had to say, on my behalf, and also clients North Route Group and NO765MN (CN-25-117 and CN-25-121) and the Andersens (CN-25-109), after seeing some of the comments:

Take a good look at what the legislature did to the rules. And those that say “renumbered,” click on those and you’ll see they were moved and repealed as well!

CHAPTER 7850, SITE OR ROUTE PERMIT; POWER PLANT OR LINE

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION