________________

Next week, Monday April 6th and Tuesday April 7th, there are meetings about the “Iron Range-St. Louis County-Arrowhead” transmission line, or “ISA Transmisison Project,” and an online meeting on Thursday, April 9th.

BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!!!

In the Notice are directions to show up at the online meeting, Thursday, April 9th, and the full Notice is right below:

Read the section on what this meeting is about on pages 3-4 of that Notice.

Comments are due by 4:30 p.m. on April 23rd:

The biggest problem with this line that I see is that ATC, and now MInnesota Power, are wanting to eliminate the 800MVA limitation on the Arrowhead substation, a limitation that’s been in place since 2001. And what’s really weird is that in the HVDC Modernization Project, at the Arrowhead substation and the DC line, CN-22-611 and TL-22-607, ATC wanted to hijack the Minnesota Power project, and Minnesota Power was not having it… yet now it’s OK… a complete turn around. Hmmmm, wonder what happened there?!?!?! What does this new project have to do with that Phase Shifting Transformer at Arrowhead? Well, for sure it’s connected, so putting more electricity into the Arrowhead substation, that’s simple enough.

And then there’s MISO, today saying, not to worry, this is NOT to power the Hermantown Data Center… which then reinforces the notion that it’s for export, bulk power transfer!

Where is the increased power coming from — the DC line? From Manitoba Hydro? From CapX 2020 connecting in — after all, it’s ALL connected! Inquiring minds want to know. Why? There’s a Presidential Permit limiting power coming across the border to 833MW.

And the purpose of the Arrowhead limitation was to prevent bulk power transfer of North Dakota generated coal. What coal plants have shut down??

I’m representing, STILL representing, World Organization of Landowner Freedom, it never ends. We were an intervenor in the Minnesota and Wisconsin dockets for the Arrowhead-Weston transmission project — that was 25+ years ago, with a couple iterations I think the last in 2004. WOLF was not allowed to intervene in the HVDC Modernization Project when that limitation of the Phase Shifting Transformer was at issue!

Way back when, we were at the MN Appellate Court about this substation and Arrowhead transmission project exemption from Minnesota permitting by EQB in 2001-2002 and got nowhere:

So here we go about that Arrowhead substation again, and about the bulk power coming into the substation, in this “Iron Range to St. Louis County to Arrowhead” transmission project.

Two missives regarding Talon Mine in the inbox yesterday:

First, this cut and paste of tidbit in the Current Monitor: March 31, 2026 Volume 50, Number 13:

Talon Nickel January 12, 2026 Exploratory Drilling Plan

Location: Aitkin and Carlton Counties
Process: Petition
Step: Petition exempt from review

Notice description: On March 24, 2026, EQB staff received notice from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (the designated responsible government unit) that the above-named project is exempt from environmental review under Minn R. 4410.4600 Subp. 2 B.

Responsible governmental unit and contact: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Jill Townley, 651-259-5168

Second – Got a missive the other day from Dept. of Natural Resources, the state agency that handles mining permits. Talon Metals made a change a while ago in January, a Legalectric post:

Tamarack Mining & Talon Metal update

And here we go, DNR‘s release of Proposer Documents:

March 23, 2026 Tamarack Mining Project Revised EAW Form (PDF)

March 23, 2026 Tamarack Mining Project Revised Figures (PDF)

Per the DNR, this is the SIXTH revision:

We’re still in this mobius strip of scoping, haven’t even had a public comment period yet. Sign up HERE on DNR Talon/Tamarack page to get the DNR‘s notices and other info:

Since June of 2023, and we’re still going round and round and round, which calls into question whether this project is real or vaporware — it’s reminding me of the Mesaba coal gasification project! How many years before the DNR says “STOP WASTING OUR TIME!”

Here’s Talon HQ in Tamarack. Maybe next time I’m up visiting my friend in Tamarack I’ll drop in and say howdy!

Again, sign up HERE on DNR Talon/Tamarack page so you will get the DNR‘s notices so you can weigh in on this project.

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

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.