Legalectric

December 10, 2024 was the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing. It was before ALJ Christa Moseng, and there were very few commenters. I’m not seeing any minutes, and don’t know if they’ll ever be posted. There were only two of us commenting, myself, and Dan Wanbeke, who has a CapX 2020 line on his land. If the proposed MN Energy CON line is built, he could be surrounded by transmission.

Wanbeke gave a detailed description of his experience and takeaways, one of the most important was a comment of the PUC’s Bob Cupit (since retired):

There are winners, and there are losers.

A very interesting part of Wambeke’s testimony was regarding the stray voltage problem, all the water in their farm was energized, and the shower tested at 15 VOLTS! The local utility has been out many times, and when Capx 2020 was down for a brief time, no stray voltage, and when it was again energized, the stray voltage was back. He testified about induction current, that when there’s a distribution line running parallel to a massive transmission line, there can be induction current (this also happens with pipelines), and the distribution lines are indeed parallel with CapX transmission. This is NOT rocket science, and the CapX utilities better deal with this. If meeting minutes come out, I’ll post, though the thought occurs to me that this was a “hearing,” so it will probably be a top secret transcript. Will keep an eye out.

These next two tidbits were handouts at the hearing:

And now on to comments filed since:

FYI, the DOT “Policy of Accommodation” that should be entered in every docket, because it sets out how utilities can interact when projects are proposed near roads — I’ve observed cases where the utility paid no attention to DOT comments and landowners nearby were screwed with little notice because utility had to quickly alter plans because DOT would not allow planned placement:

On to the regular folks, so far just two of us!

I’d made oral comments at the hearing (via web), but had to put it in writing to be more specific, because the changes are immense, and there needs to be a record. As I said in my Comment, not for the first time, “I’m disgusted, frustrated, incensed, and committed to showing up before the Public Utilities Commission until I drop dead someday in the large hearing room.” I had to file a corrected version, was bleary-eyed and found typos, missing words and punctuation, and FYI, the first one below has been corrected:

This one, from Kristen Eide-Tollefson for CURE, Communities United for Responsible Energy, is important because she’s seen the changes over the decades, THREE decades, of dealing with the Power Plant Siting Act. Now it no longer exists, hence Eulogy for the PPSA:

Let’s trot out this one again, we’re overdue for a Transmission Transition:

An hour in utility futility! The Power Plant Siting Act annual hearing is over. Comment period? Here’s how:

The most important thing I see is that as of this legislative session, THE POWER PLANT SITING ACT NO LONGER EXISTS! Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E was the Power Plant Siting Act:

But now? It’s all been repealed and renumbered, and RENAMED under a different chapter:

And permitting statutes were repealed, amended, and then renumbered and sent over to a new “Chapter 216I.” Click that link to check it out.

What does it mean for siting and permitting if the Power Plant Siting Act is repealed? Kinda don’t want to think about it.

Big solar projects, utility scale projects taking up 2,500-3,500 acres of prime farmland, are an issue here in the midwest. There are legitimate problems, primarily runoff and erosion necessitating drainage mitigation and large ponds; and the problem of fencing around the project funneling wildlife onto the roads and highways.

Anyway, there’s been some attention paid to these issues, in one case by none other than my “friends” at Great Plains Institute, who were part of a federal study on stormwater management:

That’s good, an admission that there are problems with water draining off all these acres of impervious surface.

And this just came through today from the Environmental Quality Board:

The guidance has a link to a way to find “high value” resources:

Most high value resources described in this guidance document can be identified using Minnesota
Conservation Explorer (MCE).

COMMENTS DUE BY MARCH 2, 2023

Xcel-Northfield-AUAR_Scoping-EAW_20230127

Send comments to Mikayla.Schmidt@ci.northfield.mn.us and Jacob.N.Andre@xcelenergy.com

Xcel Energy is proposing changing land use just north and northwest of Northfield, adjacent to the hospital to the east, and along Hwy 19 on the southeast corner. That Xcel Energy is the proposer is significant, as “Development Scenario A: Technology Center” means a data center that would use LOADS of electricity. “Development Scenario B: Industrial Park” just doesn’t have the same Xcel Energy fingerprints on it, but of course it’s an “alternative.” Data centers use a LOT of electricity, certainly a goal of Xcel.

Remembering all the uproar about rezoning at Co. Rd. 1 adjacent to, on west side of, I-35, which has not been developed, now why this, and why there? With all the residential to the south and east of this AUAR, and the EAW notes that some of the area in question was identified in the “2011 Business and Industrial Master Plan” for “larger-scaled, industrial and corporate office use.” SCAN THE PLAN!

Note that it’s up against the hospital. A data center and industrial park seems a bit different than “industrial and corporate office use.”

Here’s the Scoping EAW from Xcel, with RGU City of Northfield — read it and consider:

What’s to consider? For comments, this is “scoping,” so it’s more of a laundry list of what’s missing, what’s been raised but needs more in-depth info, what’s inconsistent with Northfield’s land use plans, and to comment as specifically as possible. A “NOT HERE” or “I DON”T LIKE THIS” won’t cut it.

What to comment on? As is noted in the AUAR EAW, “Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.”

When I think of a data center, I think of the inherent energy sucking nature and the extreme noise, and I am reminded of the significant drainage and erosion problems in the Wisconsin solar projects — impervious surface of roads, driveways, buildings, that’s a problem (does anyone remember the drainage issues with “Grant Park” and the “Presidential” subdivision by the school?).

Regarding energy use, what’s the transmission and distribution system there? Don’t know !I went out there yesterday to have a look, but it was hard to see in the developing blizzard! Snowplow cam from about half an hour after I went through this intersection:

Couldn’t take decent photos, but a reconnoiter showed that there was no apparent transmission lines in, just a low kV line across the top, along 320th Street. Would that be sufficient? I sent a data request to Xcel and Northfield January 31st, but crickets. in 2002 or so, peak load for Northfield was 35MW or so, and I’d guess now it’s about the same, given efficiency gains over the years and lower demand generally.

See the 2011 Business and INdustrial Park Plan, below for some clues on what’s needed.

Here’s what the area looks like now — corn & beans and beans & corn. Note that there is a small solar array at the center of the upper boundary, and a larger array of solar in the southeast corner:

Water: Drainage, water lines in, sewer and stormwater out… Wasn’t it a $430,000 or so water, sewer, and storm system extension needed for Target, circa 1998, extending the city’s system south, and paid for, subsidized, by the City? What all would be needed and who is paying for it? See that 2011 Plan, linked below.

What would increasing impervious surfaces with roads, driveways, and buildings, do to the drainage in the area? What extent of storm system would be needed, and where would that water go? Storm system, again, see that 2011 Plan…

Traffic is likely an issue, because there’s often backup on Hwy. 19 with the trucks lined up to drop at McLane. Adding industry to the north of Hwy 19 not much further west could add to the backup, and they’d need more room at the Big Steer, eh? Oh, it’s a Flying J now…

How about that energy suck? Where would electricity come from? There is a low kW line paralleling 320th Street, 69kV or maybe just a 34.5kV distribution, to which the small solar field connects, at the intersection here, is new, so I presume it was added for interconnection. Now, what’s to the west?

In the solar project along North Ave (Co. 39) there’s a solar collector substation, but I’ll have to go out again for a drive-by and get photos of the transmission on site and nearby, and of course, read the 2011 Plan:

The 2011 “Business and Industrial Master Plan” specifically addresses many of the issues, i.e., detailed specifics of what would be needed to bring water in to this site, where electricity and gas would come from, etc. Do check it out.

As noticed in the EQB Monitor, January 31, 2023:

Xcel Energy/ City of Northfield AUAR

Location: Northfield, Dakota County

Process: Alternative urban areawide review (AUAR)

Step: Draft order of review

End of comment period: March 2, 2023

Project description: Xcel Energy and the City of Northfield are partnering to conduct an

Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for an approximately 787-acre area in the

northwestern portion of the City of Northfield. Portions of the AUAR area include land

within Greenvale Township. Two development scenarios will be evaluated as part of the

AUAR which primarily consist of technology center and industrial park uses. Additional

steps are required to initiate the AUAR process for certain large projects, which include a

public comment period on the scope of the AUAR. This Scoping Document is available for

review and comment as part of the AUAR process in accordance with Minnesota Rules,

part 4410.3610, subpart 5a.

Link to public documents: Excel (sic) Energy / City of Northfield draft order of review

Location of public documents: Northfield City Hall, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057

Responsible governmental unit and contact: City of Northfield, Mikayla Schmidt, 507-645-3059

p. 3 of 7 https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/January%2031%2C%202023.pdf

What to comment on? Again, read it, do a term search for what you’re interested in, and think broadly but in detail. “Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.”

COMMENTS DUE BY MARCH 2, 2023

Send comments to both Northfield, the RGU, and I’d also send to Xcel Energy so they know you’re paying attention:

Once more with feeling, here’s the scoping notice/EAW and proposal:

And again, the 2011 “Business and Industrial Master Plan” — it’s very well done:

From the Business-and-Inustrial-Park-Master-Plan: — is the Xcel Energy proposal consistent with the 2011 Plan? Does the Xcel plan line up with the phasing, and are the steps toward development incorporated into Xcel’s plan?

We could use this level of planning in Red Wing!

For years, I’ve wanted to put together a test project here in Red Wing, a solar heating panel on the south facing wall of many of the homes in town. Given the major impact of a heating panel on ONE house, imagine the heat, cost savings, and energy consumption decrease in a fleet of them! Oh well… I’ve not done the work, but if I have some time, dream on, but parking some pages here and starting a file.

There are so many good sites with info. The most important take away is that it’s very CHEAP to build these, and doesn’t take much skill.

And some related inks:

Low Profile, Aluminum Downspout, Solar Hot Air Construction Project

Downspout Test Collector Construction

OK, parked…