Yes, this is “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines,” from way back in 2009, and it also addresses the rules governing compliance with Minnesota’s noise standards, found at Minn. R. 7030.0040.

YEAAA Minnesota Dept. of Public Health, BUT they lost funding for Health Impact Assessments in 2017, so that avenue is closed.

Look what the PowerOn Midwest application says on page 190 in the about potential noise from the 765 kV transmission line:

Here’s how the noise rule, Minn. R. 7030.0050, categorizes RESIDENTIAL farm and rural “land use activities,” which INCLUDES FARM HOUSES:

They claim the PowerOn Midwest project is “Classification 3?” Do they really think we’ll buy that?

The application also states, on page 189, “A noise level change of 3 dB is barely perceptible to a person with healthy
hearing organs in an ideal listening environment…” Earth to Mars, 3dB is a doubling of sound pressure level (SPL).

I’m not seeing any noise modeling. ??? And FYI, when you do noise modeling, don’t you dare use a ground/attenuation factor of other than ZERO! A transmission line is an elevated noise source.

When testifying about the Badger Hollow solar project (Wisconsin PSC Docket 9697-CE-100) and the noise modeling (the solar project motors DO make noise, that was news to me then!), he explained appropriate ground factor for modeling noise from

:

Here’s how I categorize their statements about noise:

Time for a rewrite.

Note that in the Gopher to Badger application they’re not quite so “bold” in their categorization of project noise:

Noise is noise — is the state sufficiently digging into the noise, and noise impacts, of 765 kV transmission lines?

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

CN-25-117 -Application_20262-227787-02

Downloading all, here ya go, Tranche 2.1 moving forward:

Applicants – PowerOn Midwest

MISO

Commerce-DER

LIUNA

Let’s see, PowerOn Midwest, MISO’s Tranche 2.1 on parade. Albert Lea 10am, then Austin on Wednesday (gotta admit, I fell asleep when charging my phone!); then Zumbrota at 10am, back home then off to Kasson yesterday evening. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Handed out at close to 400 of these. Lots of time and not much done other than yack and yack. Lots of good questions, lots of the same questions, and lots of pointed “If you’re seriously concerned, GET ON eDockets!! NO EXCUSES!” That was the message of the day… days.

The crowds were… shall I say these were highly attended? 160+ in Albert Lea, 150+ in Austin, ? in Zumbrota, and 100+ in Kasson (weird place, in the middle of the County Fairgrounds).

I did learn something at the Albert Lea open house — I’ve not been tracking routing much as it’s Certificate of Need that’s ongoing now. What I learned is that is that there’s a proposed route, though in the narrower purple line, that is right below Myre-Big Island State Park! THIS IS MY PARK!!! We camp-hosted there, and spent so much time at Big Island, meetings with Doreen Hansen and Association of Freeborn County Landowners, hearings at the college:

You’d think they’d avoid a State Park? It’s also going through the Freeborn Wind project area, the landowners there getting hit again.

And speaking of viewsheds, here’s the poop… The blob of land where the “38” is, that’s Big Island, the campground is up against the water. I went to the park after the open house, killing time on the way to Austin…

From Google, here’s the Island, showing the campground.

Sites 1-5 are on that upper loop, along the road next to the lake. the furthest site, at that crossover is site, the camp host site. Sites 1-4 have the best internet on the island, have officed there many times, particularly during the Freeborn Wind fiasco (WS-17-410).

And at Site 1 way back when, before meeting Doreen Hansen, Association of Freeborn County Landowners:

Here’s what I found at Big Island. Standing at the lake by the bench across from Site 1 yesterday, though I had my directions off, and due south is a bit to the left. There was a loon just off the shore! And those lattice towers would be how far above that treeline? Impact on State Park viewshed, anyone?

Also, look at those protected areas south of the lake — I can’t imagine they’d really route it through this area, but knowing how this works, I’ll be taking a close look at the other route on the north side of Albert Lea, and on the lookout on other route issues proposed for this long route.

We’ll see how this goes. It’s not really time to look at routing, I’ve been working on rustling up participation in this Certificate of Need docket, and routing, that’s not a job for North Route Group and NO765MN, but it sure got my attention!!

Here we go, responses to Information Requests in PUC’s PowerOn Midwest Docket CN-25-117, MISO’s Tranche 2.1 765kV buildout – to view docket, go HERE and search for “25-117” for what’s been filed in eDockets:

Responses from Applicants:

READ THIS REPORT – p. 23-24 – IT’S PATHETIC!

Responses to Commerce IRs from Applicants & MISO:

MISO Responses to NRG & NO765MN

Note the changes, fewer route options proposed on the poweronmidwest.com page, the “I-90” route has been eliminated, apparently. However, they can return, and other options can be added as well, it’s not over until it’s over.

Here’s the North Route Group and NO765MN Motion for Reconsideration of the amended Scoping Decision:

What happened? Well, on July 9, 2026, the Public Utilities Commission took up Objections to the Scoping Decision – info and video of the meeting here, it’s worth a look:

“SUFFICIENT INFORMATION” at this time?

Then, the written order came out, July 15, 2026:

The problematic part is in yellow, problematic because it shifts timing of production to NOW, before there’s a record (other than miscellaneous comments filed), before the contested case. This means that system alternatives can be rejected NOW, before we even get to the contested case, before they’re evaluated in the Environmental Report, AND, if not in the Environmental Report, system alternatives won’t be considered by the Commission. Well, we could try for a Supplement to the Environmental Report, but good luck with that! System alternatives need to be added to the mix NOW!

The Applicants have some time to respond to our Motion, and then it’ll be taken up by the Commission, it’ll take at least 3-4 weeks, what with a response, notice, etc.

ONWARD!