Legalectric

Monday’s/Yesterday’s meeting in Dilworth is over, Tuesday’s meetings in Detroit Lakes, and now we’re on to Wednesday:

Be there or be square!

My clients, the Andersens, have land in this narrow pinch point between two transmission lines just west of Hwy. 71:

Here’s the smaller of the line, a “new” 115kV line on the opposite side of the road from their forest:

At the corner, the western edge of Andersens’ property, on the northwest corner of this intersection, where the 115kV line turns from Hubbard Line Road and heads south:

And here’s the 230kV line along the north edge of their property that’s going through the southern end of a wildlife management area:

And to the east, their property on the right side of photo:

Oh, don’t forget the pipeline right to the east!!

For more info, go HERE to the PUC’s eDockets and search for 25-109 and/or 25-110, just plug in the docket number here and you’ll get the list of documents:

And on Legalectric:

• Supplemental Comments – Maple River to Cuyuna 345kV
• Reply Comments – Maple River-Cuyuna 345kV
• Maple River – Cuyuna 345kV line
• More Xmsn open houses up north

Tomorrow is the first Public Utilities Commission meeting on the swath of 765kV lines that utilities want to run across Minnesota:

You can watch it live HERE (it’ll start when the meeting does).

The blue part on the left, from Big Stone-Brookings, through Lakefield Junction, to Pleasant Valley, and up to “North Rochester” which is actually north of Pine Island is what’s at issue tomorrow:

The rest of it, the green part on the right, continues from “North Rochester” back down to Pleasant Valley (!) and east to the Mississippi, and then on through Wisconsin to Columbia. Shades of the CapX 2020 Brookings to “North Rochester” to Hampton, and then Hampton to La Crosse (Briggs Road, north end of Onalaska).

We need another one from South Dakota to Minnesota, why??

Here are Staff Briefing papers, briefly stating situation and positions of those weighing in, and what staff thinks the Commission should do:

What’s odd is that they split the SE to WI up, which they didn’t for CapX 2020. The Minnesota Certificate of Need for CapX was the southern 345kV from SD to WI and also from Fargo to St. Cloud. These “two” 765kV projects are one and the same, their need case is EXACTLY the same, Sections 1.4 and Section 6. How stupid do they think we are? Well… in Staff Briefing Papers, pages 12 and 16-17:

• Regarding the request by NRG/NO765MN to join the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, staff notes that the request for joint or consolidated review of two separate projects appears both unusual and poorly supported. These are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different schedules, and different project-specific need determinations, and combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.
• Staff does not recommend that the Commission combine the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, as requested by NRG/NO765MN. As indicated earlier in these briefing papers, these are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different procedural schedules, and different project-specific need determinations. Combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.

Nope, they are not, as far as the Certificate of Need goes. See either, BOTH, applications, Section 1.4:

Section 6 on Need is word for word the same, EXACTLY the same, except for descriptions of MISO 22-26, which is reversed.

Section 5 is the same too, though that’s the more general picture, through a fun house mirror:

Shades of CapX 2020’s “forecast” of 2.49% increase in peak demand!

That’s one example of why the loss of the Commission’s “institutional memory” matters. We won’t get fooled again? We’ll see.

As for the Contested Case, staff notes it’s a DUH and recommends that this application be referred for a Contested Case! GOOD! Let’s get those workable system alternatives into the discussion.

Onward! Let’s get it done!

It’s another round of utility applicant open houses for the Maple River to Cuyuna Transmission Line, PUC eDocket CN-25-109. I’m betting they also have the computer stations where you can get a print-out with the corridor and your property!

Note above, the route has been “refined.” They cut out the fat, no more “frolic & detour.” What it looked like before:

And now, it’s just one corridor, no options.

Here’s the notice they sent out, though not sure who might have received it. My client who’s for sure in the middle of a narrow part of that corridor has not yet received it:

Learned about this from a Public Utilities Commission ex parte filing, where the PUC asked about this, an “Inquiry regarding recently sent notice/meeting information and notice/postcard that was sent.”

Commission staff, thanks for checking this out!! Without this filing, we’d never have known!
See ya in Park Rapids!

I filed this just now:

Why? Well, we’d filed these Comments and Requests last week, and based on their Response, yesterday’s filing, it’s a hoot:

HERE’S THEIR RESPONSE:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• Consolidate? Wonder where that idea came from? See CN-25-117, where CN-25-118, 118, and 120 were CONSOLIDATED INTO THAT ONE DOCKET!! That was announced by the Applicants with their filing of November 10, 2026, 202511-224811-01, in CN-25-117, CN-25-118, CN-25-119 and CN-25-120. Oh, and DOH, on the other end, Xcel and Dairyland CONSOLIDATED their dockets into one, CN-25-122 has now been consolidated into CN-25-121!

• A stay? Wonder where that idea came from? See CN-25-121, where Applicants ask for a stay until the route application is filed. Reply Comment, p. 2 (“With respect to the process by which the Application should be considered, as discussed in Section I below, the Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.” And “With respect to the process by which the Application should be considered, as discussed in Section I below, the Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.” And “[a]s discussed previously, because this proceeding will be stayed until the Applicants submit a Route Permit Application in Fall 2026, the Applicants request that the Commission defer a decision on the procedural treatment of the Certificate of Need until that time.” And “Based on the Applicants’ agreement to stay the Certificate of Need Application until Fall 2026, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission defer a decision on the process for considering the Certificate of Need Application until after the Route Permit Application is filed to ensure consistent proceedings and reduce public confusion.” See Gopher to Badger Reply Comment, 20263-228942-01, March 3, 2026.

Oh, OK…

• Request a Contested Case and file a Petition for Intervention, where would that idea come from? Check Power on Minnesota Applicant’s (CN-25-117) MP-GRE-OTP_Reply Comments: “Based on the Applicants’ agreement to stay the Certificate of Need Application until Fall 2026, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission defer a decision on the process for considering the Certificate of Need Application until after the Route Permit Application is filed to ensure consistent proceedings and reduce public confusion.” DONE, that was done at your prompt!

They also questioning whether North Route Group and NO765MN have standing. Well, I’d guess that’s no different than the “Joint Intervenors” and “LIUNA” and MISO and whoever else might request intervention. And don’t forget the Commission’s public participation mandate in Minn. Stat. 216I.16.

• And then, about Discovery, where would that idea come from? See the Cover to the Application for the Certificate of Need in docket CN-25-109, page 2 — great idea:

Here’s a noteworthy point — both stress the “legislative intent” — these are quotes:

• Delaying the Gopher to Badger Link applications to wait for the PowerOn route proceedings is also directly contrary to the Legislature’s recent direction that sought to reduce the amount of time between MISO’s approval of projects and certificate of need applications. (fn. Specifically, in 2024, the Legislature reduce the time to file an application after giving notice of intent under Minn. Stat. 216B.246, subd. 3, from 18 months to 12 months. This new 12-month timeframe applies to the project.) See Gopher to Badger Response, p. 4, 20263-229454-01(emphasis added).
• Doing so would also be contrary to the intent of the Legislature which has sought to reduce the amount of time between MISO’s approval of projects and certificate of need applications. Specifically, in 2024, the Legislature reduce the time to file an application after giving notice of intent under Minn. Stat. 216B.246, subd. 3, from 18 months to 12 months. This new 12-month timeframe applies to the project. See PowerOn Midwest Response, p. 5, fn. 9 20263-229455-01 (emphasis added).

Legislative intent? Well, for sure that was the Commission’s legislative agenda, to carry their water, speed things up for the applicants, and the applicants got what they wanted.

A great presentation yesterday at the Goodhue County Historical Society by Kari Lie Dorer (yes, THAT Dorer, of Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest, she married into the family!) from St. Olaf, Professor of Norwegian; King Olav V Chair in Scandinavian-American Studies; Department Chair of Norwegian; Director of Nordic Studies. She has a really interesting and varied background, from years at Concordia language camp (which looks really interesting!), and even Sami studies.

The topic was Muus vs. Muus: The Scandal that Shook Norwegian America (available from Minnesota Historical Society), written by Bodil Stenseth and edited by Kari Lie Dorer and translated by Dorer and Torild Homstad.

This book was first published in Norway, in Norwegian, by Bodil Stenseth as Fru Muus’ klage : Ekteskapsskandalen som rystet det norske Amerika. Kari Lie Dorer did extensive research here on this side of the Atlantic in the heart of Norwegian Synod land, many first hand accounts in letters, and so many newspaper articles, she’s also spoken with some Muus relatives, and she added a lot of material to the book. It’s published only in Norwegian, and it’s available online:

I’d learned of this Muus vs. Muus book when it came out not that long ago, showed up on my feed (!) so I got a copy, and had read about the Muus mess decades ago in Orm Overland’s “The Western Home,” with millions of details of Norwegian immigrants to our region (Overland? I believe he’s no relation, but ??):

Oline Muus seemed a gutsy, patient, persistent, and driven woman who stood up for herself in a time when that just wasn’t done — in the preface, writer Bodil Stenseth characterizes it as “rebellion against her husband” which for me skews my view of her perception. She filed in court to gain access to an inheritance from her father, which BJ Muus had appropriated, after trying to resolve it through the church with zero success (that’s how traditionally things were done then). It took a long, long time, with many church meetings as the court case(s) were ongoing. In church meetings, women were typically not allowed, and for sure not allowed to speak. She prevailed, at significant cost to her reputation, BJ’s too, their standing in the community, both were outcasts in the community. Ultimately, she got a divorce, and custody of their children still at home was granted to BJ, although they went to live with another relative.

I cannot imagine living in that time and going through such abject social dismissal and fighting so hard for basic recognition of her rights, which in Norwegian and U.S. culture were not rights then. The tension between Norwegian synod “law” and U.S. law was a major factor in the rancor, and news of their literal trials and tribulations was covered not just in Norwegian papers in the U.S. but in Norway too.

This was well worth the price of admission — SNORT! Thanks, Goodhue County Historical Society!