FYI: MN PUC – How To eDockets

The last two weeks have been scoping meetings for the Environmental Impact Statement for the “MN Energy CONnection.” Per Xcel’s site, “You can read the Certificate of Need filing here and the Route Permit application here.” I don’t see the word “REVISED” on this…

Here’s the REVISED Certificate of Need application:

And here’s the Route Application:

Route-Application App C are the maps — TOO LARGE — see eDockets

So many people getting notice of the “MN Energy CONnection” transmission line have CapX 2020 in their yard, and they are PISSED! It was standing room only last night in Litchfield, 100 of my flyers gone and folks were still filing in. Again this morning in Monticello, over 100 again:

Several this morning brought up EMF and the magnetic fields. The magnetic fields from the “REVISED” application are cause for concern — look at their modeling levels shown for the edge of the Right of Way:

Anyway, there’s a lot tocomment about, things that should be included in the EIS. But now’s not the time to write. More later.

Here we go for another round — a Motion for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission:

Minn. R. 1400.7600 CERTIFICATION OF MOTIONS TO AGENCY.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/… Any party may request that a pending motion or a motion decided adversely to that party by the judge before or during the course of the hearing, other than rulings on the admissibility of evidence or interpretations of parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400, be certified by the judge to the agency…

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/

We’re asking that the Public Utilities Commission take up the matter of World Organization for Landowner Freedom’s Intervention:

Included after the Motion, but here separately:

It’s just so offensive. This matter matters (!), and W.O.L.F. is the only one in there objecting and requesting Intervention. Why this Motion? Why ask for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission to consider and decide? Well, in a nutshell:

Why?? Because of the ALJ’s denial of W.O.L.F.’s intervention based on a false statement regarding W.O.L.F.’s “only” contribution, and conflation of two different conditions in the original Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Line Exemption Order, that of the noise condition and the necessity of noise reduction measures to comply with Minnesota’s noise standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) with an 800 MVA transformer limitation of capacity to assure the line isn’t for bulk power transfer! I have an urge to do a Data Practices Act Request and have the EQB’s Arrowhead Transmission Project record sent to his office!

This same Administrative Law Judge threatened the “Union Intervenors” with unauthorized practice of law… veiled threat? No, it’s overt. He had to take the action of looking beyond the OAH Rules to find Minn. Stat. § 481.02 and Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 3(5) (2022), and to say:

In short, while the Judge does not intend to manage the practice of law in this matter, parties should be aware that potential issues could arise for non-lawyers who are not statutorily exempted from the general prohibition of non-lawyer practice of law in Minn. Stat. § 481.02. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board may be a resource for more information on this topic.

Really, that’s a quote — and no, it’s not a “helpful cautionary warning” — check this footnote:

OH. MY. DOG! That’s just too bizarre.

• Looking up a name on MARS attorney registration site takes a matter of seconds — “does not know” when it’s that easy to find out? Give me a break…
• But that’s not an issue. Runke and Kolodzieski have not held themselves out as attorneys, to my knowledge.
• But more importantly, non-attorneys are welcome to practice in hearings before Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). See the Power Plant Siting Act rules, Minn. R. 1405.0600, and also Minn. R. 1400.5800. This is something a Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings frequently presiding over utility dockets should know. There’s no excuse for threats like that, bandying about “unauthorized practice law.” This is not “court” and the OAH rules expressly provide for non-attorney representation.

I’ve run short of printable words, though I did quick hammer out this objection, and copied the Chief Judge:

This is all so contrary to the Public Utilities Commission’s charge to encourage public participation:

216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

Subd. 2. Other public participation.

The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.

My head is going to explode… they’re trying again to expand geographic areas branded “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors” and Designation of NIETCs with expanded criteria triggering the opening for the feds to grab that permitting authority. They call it a Transmission Facilitation Program. Their dreams of transmission are based on the DOE’s National Transmission Needs Study. Compare that with the most recent NERC Long-Term Reliability Assessment. The DOE is for some reason not relying much on the “NERC Report.”

And along with that, there’s THIS rulemaking, to establish procedure for federal review of transmission proposals. I was reminded of this rulemaking thanks to a DOE Grid Deployment Office email, so here’s a reminder for all of you!

There was a webinar a couple weeks ago, I did participate, got nominal comments in, but this needs serious work on detailed well-founded comments. From the DOE page:

DOE is now seeking public comment and feedback on the proposed CITAP Program via a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments must be received by11:59 p.m. ET on October 2, 2023.

Really, READ THIS and get to work:

Hot off the press from Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, a notice of rulemaking. Here’s the pdf of the Notice – it’s very intense and detailed, a lot crammed into four pages:

Comments are due by September 22, 2023. Send to:

Andrew Olson (andrew.d.olson@state.mn.us)

Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

190 Centennial Office Building

658 Cedar Street

St. Paul, MN 55155

And the email from Campaign Finance:

To:  Interested members of the public

The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board is considering adopting, amending, and repealing administrative rules concerning campaign finance regulation and reporting, lobbyist regulation and reporting, and audits and investigations.  The Board may consider other rule topics that arise during the rulemaking process.  A copy of the Board’s Request for Comments, published today in the State Register, is available at cfb.mn.gov/pdf/legal/rulemaking/2023/Request_for_comments.pdf.

Three Board members will serve on a subcommittee that will work with staff to develop the proposed rule language.  The subcommittee meetings will be open to the public and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule topics and language.  Information related to the rulemaking, including how to comment, how to sign up for the rulemaking notice list, the dates of upcoming subcommittee meetings, copies of official documents, and draft rules when they are ready, will be posted on the Board’s rulemaking docket webpage at cfb.mn.gov/citizen-resources/the-board/statutes-and-rules/rulemaking-docket/.

You are currently subscribed to the Board’s rulemaking notice list.  If you no longer wish to receive notices regarding the Board’s rulemaking efforts, please reply to this email or unsubscribe using the form on the Board’s rulemaking docket webpage linked above.  Please contact me with any questions or concerns related to rulemaking.

Respectfully,

Andrew Olson

Legal/Management Analyst

651-539-1190

andrew.d.olson@state.mn.us

Scoping for the “Northfield AUAR” ended a while ago, and now, it’s the DRAFT!

DRAFT AUAR HERE

Comments are due Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:30 p.m.

Send comments to Northfield, and I’d recommend you also send to Xcel and Stantec:

• Northfield: Mikayla.Schmidt@ci.northfield.mn.us with Xcel/Northfield Draft AUAR in the subject line, or if hard copy, Mikayla Schmidt, City of Northfield, 801 Washington St., Northfield, MN 55057.
• Xcel Energy: Jacob.N.Ander@xcelenergy.com
• Stantec: Erin. Sejkora@stantec.com

Of course, it gets my attention whenever Xcel does anything, and this large AUAR, on the northwest edge of Northfield sure got my attention. My comments, sent in February (5 months ago!):

This AUAR got my attention because it includes a “data center” option:

Note in Development Scenario A, the “Technology Center” takes up 538 acres, the majority of the area:

And what caught my attention initially was that this popped up around the time that Xcel was going back and forth about a big data center near the old Sherco plant site. Then that application was withdrawn.

Funny thing though, two dockets appeared, filed by Xcel, M-22-572 (CONTRACTS FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO A NEW LARGE CUSTOMER’S MINNESOTA DATA CENTER PROJECT), and M-22-579 (CONTRACTS FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO A NEW LARGE CUSTOMER’S MINNESOTA DATA CENTER PROJECT), with Xcel Energy filings in November, 2022. The two initial filings by Xcel in these dockets are both pdfs of 142 pages, 137 of those the Petition and tariff provisions. They seem identical, but I’ve not gone over page by page.

What I do note, in these days of focus on energy conservation, is the load predicted, on page 6 of both, expecting quite a load suck:

“The initial data center Premise is expected to achieve an initial load of at least 10 MW and grow to exceed 75 MW by the end of its first 10 years in service.“

It’s important to consider the electrical service to these sites, locations unknown. What new infrastructure would be needed? One data center I know of was set in the middle of Glencoe, and is a nuisance to neighbors, violating the MPCA’s noise standards. How is location of data centers determined, what factors are considered? With the Northfield AUAR proposed by Xcel, in the Xcel service territory, and anticipating 538 acres for a “technology center,” it’s at the very least within the realm of possibilities.

The most recent posting in both of these dockets was from “Amber Kestral” (reminds me of the names for transmission line conductors!), not Xcel.

There were identical one page filings from “Amber Kestral,” stating a request for a pause:

In transmission, we’ve noted for decades that “it’s all connected.”

Do review the Xcel/Northfield AUAR and send in comments by August 17th!

DRAFT AUAR HERE