Legalectric

Recent release, from Strategic Economic Research:

Economic Impact Analysis of the PowerOn Midwest Project in Minnesota

And downloaded for future reference just in case it disappears. The “Implan” economic analysis for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project was such a farce — we’ll see if this is the same:

Are costs of the project considered as well? There are all sorts of costs and benefits that can be quantified. Was it a reasonable range or limited to those easily claimed and dollars assigned?

In attempts to prove up benefits, Implan has been used before. From testimony regarding Duluth Labovitz School’s Implan study of economic benefits of the Mesaba Project coal gasification plant, in the hearing, specifically the economic health benefits of coal:

Is this report as bizarre?

Let’s get reading. Get familiar enough with this to pick it apart.

I expect that a similar report will be issued for the eastern portion of the 765kV project (CN-25-121). The project applicants are certainly vulnerable when “what’s in it for Minnesota” and “what’s in it for our community” questions arise about this “pass-through” project.

p.s. The report does list tax payments to “counties” but I want to see this itemized, county by county:

Rules? Who needs ’em?

My rulemaking petition is before the Public Utilities Commission tomorrow:

There have been a few filings in this docket. In chronological order, starting at the beginning, oh, with the statute first and then filings (and note, the statute does say “may.”):

• Rulemaking Petition – Minn. R. ch. 7850 & 7849 April 13th, 2026
• Comment on 7849 and 7850 Rulemaking Petition April 16th, 2026
• 7850 Rulemaking – Reply Comments May 7th, 2026

And here we go — they say it won’t start before 12:30 pm — that’s appreciated!

Routing the most massive of transmission lines through Minnesota without rules?

Or is it time for an award:

Just filed, Environmental Report Scoping Comments of North Route Group and NO765MN, and process comments too:

Today the RW Chamber of Commerce held a “State of the City,” billed as Mayor Gary Iocco and Council Administrator Chris Heineman. At the most recent Council meeting it was billed as Iocco with two council members. ??

The planned part of this shindig was review by Chris Heineman, not exactly stimulating, and after he went through slides, which I’d guess from his comments that he’d done something similar last year, the baton was tossed to Iocco who improvised, and I didn’t get a lot of it down.

Here’s the recording: Nope can’t do it on phone, and can’t do it from the computer either, “Sorry, you are not allowed to upload this file type.” But I do have a recording — need to figure out how to post it.

Posting the recording wasn’t working at all on phone, but here’s what notes I’ve got, and I missed a LOT. Chris just pretty much read the slides, but it was hard to keep up with Iocco:

Hot off the press, well, yesterday… “PowerOn Midwest‘s” latest filing in the CN-25-117 docket states that “… the Applicants do not oppose Intervenors’ petition to intervene.” Good!

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

CN-25-117 -Application_20262-227787-02

Here’s yesterday’s filing:

Unclear? Filed in BOTH dockets, specifically named both dockets in the Petition narrative… Oh, right… OK, whatever…

And of course they do not object to MISO intervening either.

On June 1, there’s the first Prehearing Conference, and we’ll have the schedule pretty much nailed down. Better yet, Discovery will be a happening thing! The applicants have the burden of proof in this Certificate of Need proceeding, and there’s a lot of info that we need, that they need, to show that this specific project is needed.

ONWARD!