Legalectric

Yes, Xcel Energy’s 2022 10-K is out, below, and as always, the numbers are interesting. That peak demand number above is an important number — note that 16 years later, we’ve not reached that 2006 peak of 9,859 MW:

Here are the peak demand numbers over the years:

And here it is — Xcel Energy’s 2022 10-K:

And don’t forget about Xcel’s “EXCESS CAPACITY” that they’re selling over all this transmission we’ve had to pay for, the massive billions and billions of transmission build-out, and yes the generation that’s generating all this excess capacity:

This is not rocket science, there’s a lot more generation than what’s needed. If “we’d” do a better job of peak shaving, and utilization of storage, there’d be even more.

What are “we” waiting for?

COMMENTS DUE BY MARCH 2, 2023

Xcel-Northfield-AUAR_Scoping-EAW_20230127

Send comments to Mikayla.Schmidt@ci.northfield.mn.us and Jacob.N.Andre@xcelenergy.com

Xcel Energy is proposing changing land use just north and northwest of Northfield, adjacent to the hospital to the east, and along Hwy 19 on the southeast corner. That Xcel Energy is the proposer is significant, as “Development Scenario A: Technology Center” means a data center that would use LOADS of electricity. “Development Scenario B: Industrial Park” just doesn’t have the same Xcel Energy fingerprints on it, but of course it’s an “alternative.” Data centers use a LOT of electricity, certainly a goal of Xcel.

Remembering all the uproar about rezoning at Co. Rd. 1 adjacent to, on west side of, I-35, which has not been developed, now why this, and why there? With all the residential to the south and east of this AUAR, and the EAW notes that some of the area in question was identified in the “2011 Business and Industrial Master Plan” for “larger-scaled, industrial and corporate office use.” SCAN THE PLAN!

Note that it’s up against the hospital. A data center and industrial park seems a bit different than “industrial and corporate office use.”

Here’s the Scoping EAW from Xcel, with RGU City of Northfield — read it and consider:

What’s to consider? For comments, this is “scoping,” so it’s more of a laundry list of what’s missing, what’s been raised but needs more in-depth info, what’s inconsistent with Northfield’s land use plans, and to comment as specifically as possible. A “NOT HERE” or “I DON”T LIKE THIS” won’t cut it.

What to comment on? As is noted in the AUAR EAW, “Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.”

When I think of a data center, I think of the inherent energy sucking nature and the extreme noise, and I am reminded of the significant drainage and erosion problems in the Wisconsin solar projects — impervious surface of roads, driveways, buildings, that’s a problem (does anyone remember the drainage issues with “Grant Park” and the “Presidential” subdivision by the school?).

Regarding energy use, what’s the transmission and distribution system there? Don’t know !I went out there yesterday to have a look, but it was hard to see in the developing blizzard! Snowplow cam from about half an hour after I went through this intersection:

Couldn’t take decent photos, but a reconnoiter showed that there was no apparent transmission lines in, just a low kV line across the top, along 320th Street. Would that be sufficient? I sent a data request to Xcel and Northfield January 31st, but crickets. in 2002 or so, peak load for Northfield was 35MW or so, and I’d guess now it’s about the same, given efficiency gains over the years and lower demand generally.

See the 2011 Business and INdustrial Park Plan, below for some clues on what’s needed.

Here’s what the area looks like now — corn & beans and beans & corn. Note that there is a small solar array at the center of the upper boundary, and a larger array of solar in the southeast corner:

Water: Drainage, water lines in, sewer and stormwater out… Wasn’t it a $430,000 or so water, sewer, and storm system extension needed for Target, circa 1998, extending the city’s system south, and paid for, subsidized, by the City? What all would be needed and who is paying for it? See that 2011 Plan, linked below.

What would increasing impervious surfaces with roads, driveways, and buildings, do to the drainage in the area? What extent of storm system would be needed, and where would that water go? Storm system, again, see that 2011 Plan…

Traffic is likely an issue, because there’s often backup on Hwy. 19 with the trucks lined up to drop at McLane. Adding industry to the north of Hwy 19 not much further west could add to the backup, and they’d need more room at the Big Steer, eh? Oh, it’s a Flying J now…

How about that energy suck? Where would electricity come from? There is a low kW line paralleling 320th Street, 69kV or maybe just a 34.5kV distribution, to which the small solar field connects, at the intersection here, is new, so I presume it was added for interconnection. Now, what’s to the west?

In the solar project along North Ave (Co. 39) there’s a solar collector substation, but I’ll have to go out again for a drive-by and get photos of the transmission on site and nearby, and of course, read the 2011 Plan:

The 2011 “Business and Industrial Master Plan” specifically addresses many of the issues, i.e., detailed specifics of what would be needed to bring water in to this site, where electricity and gas would come from, etc. Do check it out.

As noticed in the EQB Monitor, January 31, 2023:

Xcel Energy/ City of Northfield AUAR

Location: Northfield, Dakota County

Process: Alternative urban areawide review (AUAR)

Step: Draft order of review

End of comment period: March 2, 2023

Project description: Xcel Energy and the City of Northfield are partnering to conduct an

Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for an approximately 787-acre area in the

northwestern portion of the City of Northfield. Portions of the AUAR area include land

within Greenvale Township. Two development scenarios will be evaluated as part of the

AUAR which primarily consist of technology center and industrial park uses. Additional

steps are required to initiate the AUAR process for certain large projects, which include a

public comment period on the scope of the AUAR. This Scoping Document is available for

review and comment as part of the AUAR process in accordance with Minnesota Rules,

part 4410.3610, subpart 5a.

Link to public documents: Excel (sic) Energy / City of Northfield draft order of review

Location of public documents: Northfield City Hall, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057

Responsible governmental unit and contact: City of Northfield, Mikayla Schmidt, 507-645-3059

p. 3 of 7 https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/January%2031%2C%202023.pdf

What to comment on? Again, read it, do a term search for what you’re interested in, and think broadly but in detail. “Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.”

COMMENTS DUE BY MARCH 2, 2023

Send comments to both Northfield, the RGU, and I’d also send to Xcel Energy so they know you’re paying attention:

Once more with feeling, here’s the scoping notice/EAW and proposal:

And again, the 2011 “Business and Industrial Master Plan” — it’s very well done:

From the Business-and-Inustrial-Park-Master-Plan: — is the Xcel Energy proposal consistent with the 2011 Plan? Does the Xcel plan line up with the phasing, and are the steps toward development incorporated into Xcel’s plan?

We could use this level of planning in Red Wing!

Jury awards Fayette County dairy $4.75M in stray voltage lawsuit

Here’s the part that jumped up and hollered:

I’m familiar with the notion that transmission lines over pipelines can/do corrode the pipeline, so this use of “an anti-corrosion system that sends electricity into the ground to protect the pipeline” seems counter intuitive. So digging just a bit, the term “cathodic protection,” which does ring a bell.

Cool Science: Using Electricity to Fight Corrosion

And that article says:

To fight corrosion, we employ a technique called cathodic protection, which literally uses electrical currents to prevent rust.

With cathodic protection, a flow of electrical current is applied from an external source – a rectifier – through the ground and onto the steel pipe. The protective current changes the environment around the steel, stopping the corrosion reaction.

And “cathodic protection” is not a new concept either.

The intersection of these two concepts is what’s got me stumped. Adding this to the list of things to look into when I’m in a warm and isolated cabin up north!

The blue/purple area is the rough footprint of Magic Valley (subsidiary of LS Power) Lava Ridge wind project, by Twin Falls, Idaho. It’s even closer to the Minidoka National Historic Site, the location of a Japenese internment camp during WWII.

Friends of Minidoka have taken an interest and are posting great info on how to write comments, how to participate, because of course participation is where it’s at. Here’s their “Call to Action” page.

The applicants for Lava Ridge propose several alternate footprints:

Zoom about this on NOW.

The Lava Ridge EIS is out and open for comments, and it’s a LOT to review.

COMMENTS DUE BY MARCH 21, 2023

Here are links, starting with the Executive Summary and in order of appearance (there’s really no easy way to do this, and be prepared, just that first one with the narrative, it’s 578 pages long):

• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072054/250078236/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V1_ExecSum-Chapters.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072051/250078233/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2a_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072053/250078235/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2b_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072055/250078237/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V3_Apps2-4_and_6-11.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072050/250078232/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4a_App5_(1%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072052/250078234/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4b_App5_(2%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072056/250078238/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4c_App5_(3%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072057/250078239/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4d_App5_(4%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072061/250078243/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4e_App5_(5%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072058/250078240/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4f_App5_(6%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072059/250078241/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4g_App5_(7%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072060/250078242/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4h_App5_(8%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072062/250078244/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4i_App5_(9%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072063/250078245/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4j_App5_(10%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072064/250078246/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4k_App5_(11%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072065/250078247/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4l_App5_(12%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072101/250078283/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4m_App5_(13%20of%2013).pdf

Of course, the Applicant’s Noise study/report is of great interest to me:

The good news, the BEST news, is that they did use the correct ground factor, 0.0, for their modeling, but wait, that’s not correct. They used a factor of 1.0 and a factor of 0.6 in places:

That’s a map we need to see!!

It sure looks like some folks are too close, or surrounded:

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Lava Ridge wind project, proposed by Magic Valley Wind, is now available — get it here:

BLM page for Lava Ridge

I’d first learned about this when we were on the way from Craters of the Moon National Monument …

… to our next stop, which took us through Jerome, Idaho, and to the Minidoka National Historic Site.

That’s a “new” historical site, where a Japanese internment camp was located. And as we were learning about it online between the two sites, the Lava Ridge wind project popped up — turns out that the wind project as proposed would be adjacent to the historical site! Check the first map above, hunt for “Hunt” Idaho, and here’s Minidoka in relation to “Hunt.”

And from there, Friends of Minidoka popped up, and their advocacy to protect the site, so we’d learned some before we got there:

Friends of Minidoka has an excellent “Comments” page — written suggestions for EFFECTIVE and SUBSTANTIVE comments, and scroll down for a youtube (see also National Trust for Historic Preservation Action campaign), as does the linked BLM pate. From that Friends of Minidoka page:

How to Submit Effective Comments

Effective comments will produce actionable items for BLM. How to Write Substantive Comments provides tips and examples. As per Kasey Prestwich of the BLM, it is important to:

* Focus your comments on the proposed project and what is being analyzed.

* *Describe the significance of the potential impacts and how they affect you, others, places, and activities.

* Provide any new information that is relevant to the project (e.g., potential affected resources).

* Discuss modifications to existing alternatives or suggest other reasonable alternatives with justification.

* Provide detailed information and references to back up your comment.

If your comment includes a statement that describes your opposition or support for the project, ensure you describe specific elements of the project or specific potential impacts that are influencing your position. Position statements must include enough information to help the BLM inform reasonable changes to the alternatives or revisions to the assessment of potential impacts. Avoid comments like “I don’t like this” or “I do like this.”

Identical comments are treated as one comment, including form letters.

Get to work on comments!