The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s Order in the PowerOn Midwest docket (CN-25-117) denying the North Route Group and NO765MN’s Motion for Reconsideration is official:

This significantly limits what System Alternatives are evaluated in the Environmental Report. The Order states:

1) Staff may screen alternatives and impacts based on legal availability, relevance to the certificate of need decision, feasibility, availability, sufficiency of information, and ability to meet the stated need. This is consistent with Minnesota Rules 7849.1400 and 7849.0110.

2) MISO determines the “need” and “purpose” of a project…and “the Commission may exclude from analysis any alternative that does not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project . . .”; Minn. R. 7849.1400; and

3) How can anyone provide “all supporting information” that the PUC deems “sufficient?” Minn. R. 7849.1400, subp. 6, requires an individual proposing an alternative route for study to submit all supporting information they would like the Commission to consider.”

Then again, methinks there are some specifications MISO is requiring that are not covered by these limitations. We shall see…

I represent North Route Group and NO765MN in this PowerOn Midwest docket. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANY OF THESE

What’s the problem? Some intervenors did not get notice that this extension was under consideration. When raised, no problem, apparently, just this acknowledgement: “Any party may, for good cause shown, request any specific scheduling relief they believe is warranted.” Guess no notice is not good cause?? Or that those who did not receive notice must request?

Got notice over a week ago that the Public Utilities Commission wants an extension for time to file the Environmental Report for the PowerOn Midwest Certificate of Need (Docket CN-25-117), from September 23 to October 19, an additional 26 days.

OK, no problem. But what that means is that public comment is cut by 26 days!

Extend the public comment period by 26 days too! DOH!

Nope, they don’t want to do that.

WTAF?!?!?!

Scoping for the PowerOn Midwest 765 kV transmission line? What did Commission decide?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’ve been sick with sinus hacking and wheezing and dripping and brain malfunction. First forgot (YES, FORGOT) and then couldn’t get online, tried and tried. Gave up. Then tried again and no problem, did get on… and it was too late… AAAAAARRRRRRRGH!

September 17, 2026 Agenda Meeting (starts at 3:00:03)

This is what they decided, below, plus Chair Sieben’s Decision Option 3:

Here’s the Sieben Decision Option 3, another “clarification” that makes no logical sense. How does anyone provide “all information” at the very beginning? It’s not the job of Intervenors or the public to dig up and file “all information,” or “sufficient information” — the record is developed in the proceeding, and in the Application the applicants are supposed to consider reasonable alternatives, individual alternatives and combinations of alternatives…

… doesn’t shift the burden of proof? Doesn’t presume need????

Here’s the Staff Briefing Papers, making a recommendation to the Commission:

After seeing how Applicants chose and evaluated “system alternatives,” with such ludicrous presumptions, this:

Gotta keep trying… sigh…

So much transmission, and data centers…

In transmission, “it’s all connected.” Yes, transmission is all connected, and yes, there are data centers (and YES, I need to prettify this… someday!):

BUT careful, the point of the 765 kV is NOT to power data centers — it’s to take the export load off the 345 kV system which is handling both export and all the local load for everything else. Doing that, moving the export up to a 765 kV overlay not only does exactly that, but that 765 kV also provides a lot of additional export capacity, which is what those utilities want. Gotta move that surplus power out in those valleys between the peaks!

With the export power removed, there’s also a lot more capacity to power everything imaginable, including those data centers! For example, above, note there’s that double circuit 345 kV Mankato-Mississippi line going into the “North Rochester” substation, but there’s only one circuit coming out of the substation and then sharing structure with the single circuit CapX 2020! Same with CapX, it’ll now be a double circuit coming down to North Rochester, and remains a single circuit to Wisconsin. And then there’s the Prairie Island-Byron, that ancient single circuit will be upgraded and a 2nd circuit added, so more power there.

This reminds me of geneology, all the charts and graphs and circles and arrows — more than my brain can handle.

p.s. Hermantown may be a whole ‘nother matter!

p.p.s. And there IS this, the letter from Governors, including Walz, of support for Tranche 2.1, which does say:

MISO’s approach in developing a portfolio that seeks to optimize between transmission and generation investments to maintain reliability across MISO’s footprint is even more critical given the potential for long-term local growth from the reshoring of American manufacturing, the growth of electric vehicle adoption, and the recent emergence of data center growth (emphasis added).