On October 22, 2026, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission met to consider the site permit for Lemon Hill Solar (PUC Docket GS-25-126. This meeting was one of the most difficult to watch, and I’m sure glad I wasn’t representing anyone on this project.

ALJ’s Recommendation

I’d read the ALJ’s Recommendation because of a couple of issues raised, particularly karst, and also erosion, an issue in one of the Wisconsin dockets I’d worked on. The ALJ recommended the permit be denied, giving detailed reasons and citing evidence from the record. Denial of an application is rare, I know the Freeborn Wind application was originally denied, the application withdrawn, until Commerce and Xcel changed the rules, moved the goal posts, and applied again. Of course then it sailed through. I’ve not heard of another recommendation of denial, but ? there could be others, I don’t have an eye on every PUC Docket.

And this –I’ve never seen anything like this:

LISTEN TO THIS MEETING – STARTS AT 33:44:

October 22 Public Utilities Commission Meeting: Start at 33:44 (won’t let me embed)

The written order is not out yet… will update this post when it’s available.

Night before last, during a dog & pony show, I’d commented that Xcel’s demand was flat, in response to a claim that we “need” more generation. Later, a man said that he didn’t believe that Xcel’s demand was flat. I noted that I got that from Xcel’s SEC 10-K filings, that I’d been tracking it since 2000, and he kept repeating that he didn’t believe it. What can I say to that??

LOOK IT UP!!!

But actually, I lied!?!?! Xcel’s 2025 demand was DOWN 377 MW from 2024.

Xcel demand… sigh… DOWN AGAIN!

February 25th, 2026

Here are the specifics:

2025’s peak of 8,445 MW is down 1,414 MW from the 2006 peak of 9859!

1,414 MW is more than the capacity of Prairie Island’s two nuclear reactors. That lays bare the rationale for Xcel’s extreme push for export.

Reports are disappearing, like the WRAO report, and the WIREs Phase II and Appendices below, so here they are for posterity! These Meta boxes are really irritating, I deleted from the upload, but they reappear. To get rid of them, click the grey thing in the upper left:

Remember when so many potentially affected landowners did not get notice of the Mankato-Mississippi River Transmission Project?

Public Hearings & NO NOTICE to 1,341 newly affected landowners May 11th, 2025

More on the 1,341 Landowners May 14th, 2025

Earlier today, a post came over the interwebs, TODAY, of a letter written by the Mayor of Faribault on June 3, 2026, “RECEIVED June 24, 2026” and posted in eDockets today, JULY 8, 2026:

The City of Faribault didn’t weigh in during the Hearings or Comment Periods, weren’t an Intervenor. But… NO NOTICE to 1,341 newly affected landowners. Did Faribault get notice? And if no official notice though, I do wonder how “the City” would not know of meetings and hearings in Faribault. I know I went to at least one at the American Legion, a VERY hot day, and I think it was… IT WAS! It was TWO YEARS AGO tomorrow, July 9, 2024!

And this letter filed in eDockets today? Well, the ORDER ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE REPORT AS MODIFIED, FINDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADEQUATE, GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF NEED, AND ISSUING ROUTE PERMIT was issued April 14, 2026:

Inquiring minds want to know. Failure of Notice, Failure to Notice, or ????

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: