Legalectric

Check this take on the PowerOn Midwest project:

PowerOn Midwest Project Series Looking to Enhance Electric Grid to Meet Changing Needs

Too bad they weren’t at the meeting last night! Well attended meeting this evening in Windom on the “PowerOn Midwest” transmission project, PUC Docket CN-5-117.

Tomorrow, two more:

The purpose was to “inform” and to take comments on scoping of “Environmental Report.” The notice:

Here’s the order holding that the Application is complete and referring for a Contested Case!!

Here’s the main part of the order that I’m wondering about — exactly how will this work:

There are even more meetings next week:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

At the April 13, 2026 Red Wing City Council meeting, Mayor Iocco said that he’d been to North Dakota to talk with them about what it means to host a nuclear plant.

Iocco gave a short report on his activities since the last meeting, part of which was a trip to North Dakota to speak with their nuclear committee, that they’re wanting to build a nuclear plant, and he was there to tell them about hosting a nuclear plant. ???

Here’s the link, this starts at ~1:39:

https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3944/media

Look who else is a part of this — are we surprised?

The North Dakota legislature has an “Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee” and here are links.

FYI, TODAY and TOMORROW, they’re in Idaho, INL.

• AGENDA
• VIDEO – 4/21 – it’s live… (check section on E.O.s and “regulatory reform”)
• VIDEO – 4/22 – should be posted tomorrow

Here are meetings with links. Iocco said that this March 24th meeting was the 3rd he’d been to, LISTEN TO WHAT MAYOR IOCCO SAYS, BEGINNING AT 11:04. But first, here’s the meeting minutes version of what he said:

March 24, 2026 – 10:00 am to 4:00 pm CDT

• Agenda
• Meeting Video – Iocco starts at 11:04
• Minutes

December 15, 2025 – 10:00 am to 4:00 pm CST

• Agenda
• Meeting Video
• Minutes

September 3, 2025 – 9:00 am to 5:00 pm CDT

• Agenda
• Meeting Video
• Minutes

Committee Memorandums

• Advanced Nuclear Energy Study – Background Memorandum (PDF)
• Request for Proposal and Proposal Responses – Advanced Nuclear Energy Study (PDF)
• Supplementary Rules of Operation and Procedure of the North Dakota Legislative Management

Is this promotion in the name of the City of Red Wing authorized? Was there a message approved to be delivered?

I sure had questions when I heard this, and so I filed a Data Practices Act Request yesterday:

My rulemaking petition has been given a docket number and now a Comment Period has been announced — Initial Comments due April 30, and Reply Comments due May 7!

What does the Commission deem “Topic for Comment?” and background?

Note the “background,” for some reason it doesn’t mention that nearly all the rules were REPEALED!!

Why does this matter? Who cares? I would hope the Public Utilities Commission cares (though I won’t hold my breath). The legislature had something to say about rulemaking when they repealed almost all the rules:

Note the use of “may,” which is way too much wiggle room: “The commission, in order to give effect to the purposes of this chapter, may adopt rules consistent with this chapter…” Knowing how they avoided rulemaking and tossed the years of work in docket R-12-1246, “may” is just not adequate. I can’t find that any rulemaking has begun, and I’d nosed around about it and no return call… no surprise. It seems to be a “Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!” attitude. Think that’s wise when we’re looking at Need and Routing for the biggest transmission lines in Minnesota history? As Shawn would say, “Goes to show you don’t think!!!!!”

OK, fine… if you, the regulators, won’t get on it, no problem. Here’s a rulemaking petition:

Rulemaking Petition – Minn. R. ch. 7850 & 7849 April 13th, 2026

Now, let’s file comments, and get you all on record about it, and better yet, let’s get moving on rules. I mean really, look at what all was repealed — there are virtually NO RULES for siting and routing of utility infrastructure!

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

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Part	Title
7850.0100	[Renumbered 4410.7000]
7850.0200	[Renumbered 4410.7100]
7850.0300	[Renumbered 4410.7200]
7850.0400	[Renumbered 4410.7300]
7850.0500	[Renumbered 4410.7400]
7850.0600	[Renumbered 4410.7500]
7850.0700	[Renumbered 4410.7600]
7850.0800	[Renumbered 4410.7700]
7850.0900	[Renumbered 4410.7800]
7850.1000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4000	STANDARDS AND CRITERIA.
7850.4100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4300	PROHIBITED ROUTES.
7850.4400	PROHIBITED SITES.
7850.4500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]

What rules were there before? Check it out — which of these would have no use or purpose in routing and siting utility infrastructure? Which of these are crucial, necessary for reasonable process, necessary to consider important factors and factoids? Rules are how the Commission enacts the statutes!

7850.1000	DEFINITIONS.
7850.1100	PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY.
7850.1200	APPLICABILITY.
7850.1300	PERMIT REQUIREMENT.
7850.1400	SMALL PROJECTS.
7850.1500	EXCEPTIONS TO PERMITTING REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN EXISTING FACILITIES.
7850.1600	JOINT PROCEEDING.
7850.1700	PERMIT APPLICATION UNDER FULL PERMITTING PROCESS.
7850.1800	PERMIT FEES.
7850.1900	APPLICATION CONTENTS.
7850.2000	APPLICATION REVIEW.
7850.2100	PROJECT NOTICE.
7850.2200	PUBLIC ADVISOR.
7850.2300	PUBLIC MEETING.
7850.2400	CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCE.
7850.2500	EIS PREPARATION.
7850.2600	CONTESTED CASE HEARING.
7850.2700	FINAL DECISION.
7850.2800	ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.
7850.2900	PERMIT APPLICATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE PROCESS.
7850.3000	PERMIT FEES.
7850.3100	CONTENTS OF APPLICATION.
7850.3200	APPLICATION REVIEW.
7850.3300	PROJECT NOTICE.
7850.3400	PUBLIC ADVISOR.
7850.3500	PUBLIC MEETING.
7850.3600	CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCE.
7850.3700	ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION.
7850.3800	PUBLIC HEARING.
7850.3900	FINAL DECISION.
7850.4000	STANDARDS AND CRITERIA.
7850.4100	FACTORS CONSIDERED.
7850.4200	FACTORS EXCLUDED.
7850.4300	PROHIBITED ROUTES.
7850.4400	PROHIBITED SITES.
7850.4500	PERMIT APPLICATION REJECTION.
7850.4600	PERMIT CONDITIONS.
7850.4700	DELAY IN ROUTE OR SITE CONSTRUCTION.
7850.4800	MINOR ALTERATION IN GENERATING PLANT OR TRANSMISSION LINE.
7850.4900	AMENDMENT OF PERMIT CONDITIONS.
7850.5000	PERMIT TRANSFER.
7850.5100	PERMIT REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION.
7850.5200	EMERGENCY PERMIT.
7850.5300	LOCAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED FACILITIES.
7850.5400	ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING.
7850.5500	ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON UTILITIES.
7850.5600	PROGRAM ADVISORY TASK FORCE.

So get to work on those comments! Send to:

It was a LONG day at the Public Utilities Commission last Thursday, and here it is, almost Thursday again! The “Gopher to Badger” transmission line, PUC Docket CN-25-121, was #6 on the agenda.

Technically, what was at issue was “completeness,” whether the application was complete, but more important was a decision on what process to use. There seemed to be a concerted effort to push this project through using an “informal process.” Ummm, nope, over my dead polar bear!

North Route Group and NO765MN had a few things to say about completeness, process, and raising contested material issues of fact:

We’re not the only ones — about 150 comments came in. Listen up, PUC! That’s a lot of comments.

To look at the docket, go HERE and search for docket 25-121:

And an even more important longer term issue, that the Dept. of Commerce DER recognized, put in writing, that there’s more info that they want, in technicolor:

Staff briefing papers laid out, sort of, the issues, comments of parties, and staff recommendations.

Bottom line decision options:

Last minute additional decision options:

This last minute one is to assure our Petition to Intervene isn’t lost, trashed, or forgotten:

Most of these were not hills to die on, but ideally, 1, 6, 9, 11, 13 & 14, and add last minute 16 so we’re still in the mix. The most important was to avoid this absurd notion of an “informal review,” an idea that seemed orchestrated:

In what world is an “informal process” reasonable for a 100+ mile long (~145 in MN?) 765kV transmission line Certificate of Need proceeding? Guess again.

Commissioner Tuma made the motion for 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 (with 60 days after written Order), 11a, and 16. Passed unanimously.

Little, but important, win – avoided “informal process” of #4, but maybe it’ll come up again, though #3 was clear on Thursday. CN-25-117 did move forward to contested case, and this is likely too, so it was said. Littler win — #3 Certificate of Need review is on hold until the route application is filed in the fall, and then we address process again (would have rather had the application referred for a contested case NOW, but oh well…) Another positive development is #11, that applicants will have to provide the info that Commerce DER wants within 60 days of the Commission’s written order. That’ll give us something to chew on.

During last of discussion, Commissioner Sullivan stressed the need to look at highway right-of-way, as provided by the 2024 legislative changes, Tuma too. Sullivan was also VERY clear that “this is all the same project,” that CN-25-117 PowerOn Midwest is directly linked to this CN-25-121 Gopher to Badger. Well, DOH!

But he was the only one adamant about it and not adamant enough. Historical, institutional, knowledge is missing, this is just like CapX 2020, a/k/a Grid North Partners. There’s no curiosity, and assumptions are made that it would be “confusing” to put the Certificate of Need dockets together. HUH? We’ve done it before, just look at the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need (CN-06-1115), not at all confusing. They’ve already consolidated into 117 is 118, 119, and 120, and consolidated into 121 is 122, so there are 6 MISO projects here, MISO 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. What’s one more consolidation to pull it all together?

Note: Need arguments in these applications are the same, see below, look up Application Section 1.4 and Chapter 6 on need. Really, COMPARE:

Also check out Chapter 5!

We’ll have another whack at this apple.

Here’s the link to the meeting (eeeeuw, do I really need to look at this to get the link?) — we’re #6 on the agenda:

Details 2025-267 ** ET3,E002/CN-25-121 Dairyland Power Cooperative; Northern States Power Co. d/b/a Xcel Energy In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need for the Gopher to Badger Link 765 kV High Voltage Transmission

Here’s the start, over a month ago:

MISO Variance Analysis for Northland Reliability Project

March 6th, 2026

Here’s the rough map of the project:

Yesterday we had another document from the Northland Reliability Project utilities, in response to MISO’s request for information:

Here’s a representative response in this filing — you’d think it’s from the Epstein files:

The catch is that this information does not appear to be legit CEII classified, as it’s their info and not info filed with FERC and legitimately classified as CEII.

And if they want to say it is, no problem, FERC does provide an access point — 18 U.S.C. 388.113(g):

I already have an executed agreement in this docket, but I think I’ll wait until it gets more interesting, like MISO’s next round of questions, or the utilities’ answers, or… or… or…

We KNOW all transmission projects of based on OLD numbers have majorly increased costs! Two of them are under MISO review: