Yesterday’s Public Utilities Commission meeting was a cluster. At issue were Objections to the Commission’s Environmental Report Scoping Decision:

Alternatives analysis is crucial, because system alternatives may only get into the record in a Certificate of Need proceeding, and not routing. Turned out that yesterday’s debate was about alternatives, and a requirement that an alternative have support of “sufficient information” and that meets Applicants’ “stated need” at the Environmental review stage? How does that work?

FYI, “stated need” is used 4 times in this Scoping Decision, four times: three times on p. 6, and twice on that page referring to alternatives, “whether alternatives meet stated need” and regarding generation, whether it would “meet, reduce, defer stated transmission need.”

The Objections:

And those Staff Briefing Papers — here ya go – and what’s weird, I don’t recall an email of this, and I’m not the only one:

HERE’S THE LINK TO THE MEETING, AGENDA #2 STARTS ABOUT 7 MINUTES IN!

Oh my… here’s the main issue, adding this to the scope from Applicants’ last minute filing:

Issues? Oh yeah… there are issues… this is so perverse (Characterized by or resulting from willful opposition or resistance to what is right, expected, or reasonable.)

• “unsupported by sufficient information” — explain how “sufficient information” gets in the record at this stage, the Environmental Report stage?? That doesn’t happen until “informing the record” in the contested case.
• “would not meet the stated need for the project” – STATED need? The Applicants’ STATED need is the threshold? That assumes that what they’re saying is the need IS the need. How does the record reflect need at the Environmental Report stage? It’s not been proven, the applicant has the burden of proof, yet simply STATING a need is sufficient to assume as a threshold for an alternative?

On objecting to this language, specifically these two phrases, because that’s limiting alternatives in the ER right NOW, with their order, Commissioner Tuma says, “You’ll have the opportunity to make those points in front of the ALJ, they have the burden of proof…” “You’ll get your chance in the Contested Case” at least twice.

As if I don’t know procedure, don’t know that we’re intervenors, don’t know that we’re dealing now, July 9, with the SCOPE of the ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT at this meeting, the Scope which will determine what alternatives will be considered, if and how, that the Environmental Report is due out September 23, and that the public and evidentiary hearings are in November, and the environmental review, limited as it is in a Certificate of Need proceeding, is based on the Order of the Commission TODAY!

And where did that language come from? It’s a cut and paste of the Applicants’ filing the day before, but the Applicants “only” wanted a change of “may” to “must” as taken from the source, the Staff Briefing Papers.

The rest of that language, other than the change of “may” to “must,” the origin of the “unsupported by sufficient information” and “stated need for the project? in Order Point 2? Looks like it’s EIP Staff.

It’s quite simple. “Opportunity” in the Contested Case is too late if alternatives are eliminated by the Scoping Decision, even before the Environmental Report! The Commission isn’t about to approve anything that’s not been through even the nominal “Environmental Report” in a Certificate of Need docket.

Remember when so many potentially affected landowners did not get notice of the Mankato-Mississippi River Transmission Project?

Public Hearings & NO NOTICE to 1,341 newly affected landowners May 11th, 2025

More on the 1,341 Landowners May 14th, 2025

Earlier today, a post came over the interwebs, TODAY, of a letter written by the Mayor of Faribault on June 3, 2026, “RECEIVED June 24, 2026” and posted in eDockets today, JULY 8, 2026:

The City of Faribault didn’t weigh in during the Hearings or Comment Periods, weren’t an Intervenor. But… NO NOTICE to 1,341 newly affected landowners. Did Faribault get notice? And if no official notice though, I do wonder how “the City” would not know of meetings and hearings in Faribault. I know I went to at least one at the American Legion, a VERY hot day, and I think it was… IT WAS! It was TWO YEARS AGO tomorrow, July 9, 2024!

And this letter filed in eDockets today? Well, the ORDER ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE REPORT AS MODIFIED, FINDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADEQUATE, GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF NEED, AND ISSUING ROUTE PERMIT was issued April 14, 2026:

Inquiring minds want to know. Failure of Notice, Failure to Notice, or ????

It’s the North Plains Connector! This has been sitting in “Drafts” for so long that I almost forgot about it. Good thing “need” comments are due soon for the Iron Range-St. Louis Co.-Arrowhead line next week!

Here we have another transmission line, a DC line running from Colstrip (yes, a coal plant) in Montana across over to a converter station and running AC up to Center (another coal plant, Milton Young) and southeast to St. Anthony (why?).

DRAFT EIS for North Plains Connector (comment period ended in February, Final EIS due in “summer 2026)

DOE/EIS-0568: North Plains Connector; Multiple Locations

Here’s what’s there already (openinframap.org – the greatest thing since sliced bread!):

And a closer view of the eastern end, because Leland Olds doesn’t show and also the Square Butte 250MW DC line headed to Arrowhead substation doesn’t show:

The Square Butte 250MW DC line is being upgraded.

In that eastern end of that transmission line, here’s what’s nearby — 4,009.6 MW of COAL:

• Antelope Valley 954MW
• Coal Creek 1,215.6 MW
• Coyote 450 MW
• Leland Olds 656 MW
• Milton Young 734 MW (Center converter station)

Yes, that’s 4,009.6 MW of coal. Which of these coal plants have shut down?

And yes, there are wind projects now in the area,1,008.7 MW:

• Baldwin 102.4 MW
• Bison 496.8 MW
• Glen Ullin 106.7 MW
• Oliver 198.8
• Sunflower 104 MW

1,008.7 MW of wind

Plus there’s the Heskett gas plant, 176.4 MW (don’t know if that’s peaking, intermediate, or what).

How much transmission is needed if they’re really shutting down coal plants, 4,000MW of coal in that one area with transmission already crossing the border into Minnesota?

How many of the 4,009.6 MWs of coal need to be shut down for transmission to accommodate 1,008.7 MW of coal? If the 4000 MW of coal are shut down, logically, there’s room for another 3,000 MW of wind. So why transmission?

Spend some time on openinframap.org and get acquainted with this “IT’S ALL CONNECTED” transmission system!

Here are specifics of the North Dakota termini, taken from the Application Appendix G at the North Dakota PSC Docket PUC-26-082 (which seems to be stuck in molasses, or crud oil, in February)

First, heading east, the DC line comes into this “Morton Converter Station” in the middle of nowhere:

At the converter station, it forks off into two transmission lines, the Blue Oliver transmission Line heading to

And the other of the 2 lines, the Orange “Morton Transmission Line” headed to a substation in Morton County:

Because it’s all connected, what’s the plan? I’m getting bleary-eyed trying to figure that out…

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…