Scoping for the PowerOn Midwest 765 kV transmission line? What did Commission decide?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’ve been sick with sinus hacking and wheezing and dripping and brain malfunction. First forgot (YES, FORGOT) and then couldn’t get online, tried and tried. Gave up. Then tried again and no problem, did get on… and it was too late… AAAAAARRRRRRRGH!

September 17, 2026 Agenda Meeting (starts at 3:00:03)

This is what they decided, below, plus Chair Sieben’s Decision Option 3:

Here’s the Sieben Decision Option 3, another “clarification” that makes no logical sense. How does anyone provide “all information” at the very beginning? It’s not the job of Intervenors or the public to dig up and file “all information,” or “sufficient information” — the record is developed in the proceeding, and in the Application the applicants are supposed to consider reasonable alternatives, individual alternatives and combinations of alternatives…

… doesn’t shift the burden of proof? Doesn’t presume need????

Here’s the Staff Briefing Papers, making a recommendation to the Commission:

After seeing how Applicants chose and evaluated “system alternatives,” with such ludicrous presumptions, this:

Gotta keep trying… sigh…

So much transmission, and data centers…

In transmission, “it’s all connected.” Yes, transmission is all connected, and yes, there are data centers (and YES, I need to prettify this… someday!):

BUT careful, the point of the 765 kV is NOT to power data centers — it’s to take the export load off the 345 kV system which is handling both export and all the local load for everything else. Doing that, moving the export up to a 765 kV overlay not only does exactly that, but that 765 kV also provides a lot of additional export capacity, which is what those utilities want. Gotta move that surplus power out in those valleys between the peaks!

With the export power removed, there’s also a lot more capacity to power everything imaginable, including those data centers! For example, above, note there’s that double circuit 345 kV Mankato-Mississippi line going into the “North Rochester” substation, but there’s only one circuit coming out of the substation and then sharing structure with the single circuit CapX 2020! Same with CapX, it’ll now be a double circuit coming down to North Rochester, and remains a single circuit to Wisconsin. And then there’s the Prairie Island-Byron, that ancient single circuit will be upgraded and a 2nd circuit added, so more power there.

This reminds me of geneology, all the charts and graphs and circles and arrows — more than my brain can handle.

p.s. Hermantown may be a whole ‘nother matter!

p.p.s. And there IS this, the letter from Governors, including Walz, of support for Tranche 2.1, which does say:

MISO’s approach in developing a portfolio that seeks to optimize between transmission and generation investments to maintain reliability across MISO’s footprint is even more critical given the potential for long-term local growth from the reshoring of American manufacturing, the growth of electric vehicle adoption, and the recent emergence of data center growth (emphasis added).

Some resources to consider as this transmission routing docket goes forward.

Here’s the draft permit — look for issues not addressed:

And the DNR’s comment – what has been included in the draft permit and what’s missing:

And here’s the application — really need to pick a section of this to review that interests you. There’s something for everyone!

Just got Notice of Prehearing Conference, Notice at 3:55 p.m., Order signed today, August 24, 2026. Guess when this Prehearing Conference will happen?

AUGUST 26, 2026 @ 10 a.m.

Microsoft Teams

Meeting  ID: 240 300 318 194 320

Passcode: Mq7ce2Aq

Yeah, really… two days notice.

If you can, join to witness and show that people are concerned, people are watching. What happens at the first Prehearing Conference is that a schedule is determined, procedural issues worked out. It’ll probably be short, and mostly “Greek to me” for those who haven’t done this before, but it’s the only way to learn how this works, and how it doesn’t work.

The PUC’s Order said:

Expeditiously? Here’s what arrived:

So I just filed this missive — the Prehearing Conference needs to be rescheduled:

Here’s what I received in response:

So I fired this off.

Head is exploding. I’m getting aerobic exercise reading these missives, and one good thing is that it may help me endure long enough to do a Meyer Shark!

Yes, this is “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines,” from way back in 2009, and it also addresses the rules governing compliance with Minnesota’s noise standards, found at Minn. R. 7030.0040.

YEAAA Minnesota Dept. of Public Health, BUT they lost funding for Health Impact Assessments in 2017, so that avenue is closed.

Look what the PowerOn Midwest application says on page 190 in the about potential noise from the 765 kV transmission line:

Here’s how the noise rule, Minn. R. 7030.0050, categorizes RESIDENTIAL farm and rural “land use activities,” which INCLUDES FARM HOUSES:

They claim the PowerOn Midwest project is “Classification 3?” Do they really think we’ll buy that?

The application also states, on page 189, “A noise level change of 3 dB is barely perceptible to a person with healthy
hearing organs in an ideal listening environment…” Earth to Mars, 3dB is a doubling of sound pressure level (SPL).

I’m not seeing any noise modeling. ??? And FYI, when you do noise modeling, don’t you dare use a ground/attenuation factor of other than ZERO! A transmission line is an elevated noise source.

When testifying about the Badger Hollow solar project (Wisconsin PSC Docket 9697-CE-100) and the noise modeling (the solar project motors DO make noise, that was news to me then!), he explained appropriate ground factor for modeling noise from

:

Here’s how I categorize their statements about noise:

Time for a rewrite.

Note that in the Gopher to Badger application they’re not quite so “bold” in their categorization of project noise:

Noise is noise — is the state sufficiently digging into the noise, and noise impacts, of 765 kV transmission lines?

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

CN-25-117 -Application_20262-227787-02