Legalectric

Tomorrow is the first Public Utilities Commission meeting on the swath of 765kV lines that utilities want to run across Minnesota:

You can watch it live HERE (it’ll start when the meeting does).

The blue part on the left, from Big Stone-Brookings, through Lakefield Junction, to Pleasant Valley, and up to “North Rochester” which is actually north of Pine Island is what’s at issue tomorrow:

The rest of it, the green part on the right, continues from “North Rochester” back down to Pleasant Valley (!) and east to the Mississippi, and then on through Wisconsin to Columbia. Shades of the CapX 2020 Brookings to “North Rochester” to Hampton, and then Hampton to La Crosse (Briggs Road, north end of Onalaska).

We need another one from South Dakota to Minnesota, why??

Here are Staff Briefing papers, briefly stating situation and positions of those weighing in, and what staff thinks the Commission should do:

What’s odd is that they split the SE to WI up, which they didn’t for CapX 2020. The Minnesota Certificate of Need for CapX was the southern 345kV from SD to WI and also from Fargo to St. Cloud. These “two” 765kV projects are one and the same, their need case is EXACTLY the same, Sections 1.4 and Section 6. How stupid do they think we are? Well… in Staff Briefing Papers, pages 12 and 16-17:

• Regarding the request by NRG/NO765MN to join the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, staff notes that the request for joint or consolidated review of two separate projects appears both unusual and poorly supported. These are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different schedules, and different project-specific need determinations, and combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.
• Staff does not recommend that the Commission combine the PowerOn Midwest docket with the Gopher to Badger docket, as requested by NRG/NO765MN. As indicated earlier in these briefing papers, these are distinct proceedings involving different applicants, different procedural schedules, and different project-specific need determinations. Combining them into a single review would likely create procedural confusion, reduce efficiency, and negatively affect public participation.

Nope, they are not, as far as the Certificate of Need goes. See either, BOTH, applications, Section 1.4:

Section 6 on Need is word for word the same, EXACTLY the same, except for descriptions of MISO 22-26, which is reversed.

Section 5 is the same too, though that’s the more general picture, through a fun house mirror:

Shades of CapX 2020’s “forecast” of 2.49% increase in peak demand!

That’s one example of why the loss of the Commission’s “institutional memory” matters. We won’t get fooled again? We’ll see.

As for the Contested Case, staff notes it’s a DUH and recommends that this application be referred for a Contested Case! GOOD! Let’s get those workable system alternatives into the discussion.

Onward! Let’s get it done!

Busy day today. We’ve had the final round of Completeness Comments on both the Gopher to Badger and Power on Midwest web of 765kV transmission across southern Minnesota. Really,all the way across southern Minnesota. On the western border, it runs through South Dakota from Big Stone coal plant down to Brookings, near Sioux Falls, and then across through Lakefield Junction over to Pleasant Valley… then for some reason up to North Rochester sub just north of Pine Island (with a 345 kV line also running that way, and up to Hampton, WTAF?) and then from North Rochester substation down to the southeast to Marion, then to the southwest (?) back to Pleasant Valley, and from their straight across following Dairyland’s 161kV line to the Mississippi and beyond to the Columbia substation near Portage, Wisconsin. That’s a LOT of 765kV transmission line:

Filed by North Route Group and NO765MN in both dockets – Gopher to Badger CN-25-121 and Power on Midwest CN-25-117. WHY? Because it’s all connected:

Filed by Applicants in both dockets:

Filed by Commerce-DER in both dockets:

Last and least, filed by Liuna – least because how off can ya get??:

It’s all connected — and here’s the eastern part of the 765kV line across Minnesota, from South Dakota headed east across the Mississippi into Wisconsin — the western web comments were due Monday:

Reply Comments filed – SW MN 765kV lines March 3rd, 2026

Today’s inbasket had good news for us on the eastern end, where they want to follow a 161kV line across SE Minnesota’s Driftless region — the good news is that “Gopher to Badger” backed off of its asinine “informal process” and:

Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.

Informal process?!?!?! How stupid do they think we are?

Good, they’re being reasonable. Did they really think they could get away with “informal process” that does not exist?

Anyway, Reply Comments were due Wednesday and here is ours, NRG and NO765MN:

Whew, last one for this week, CN-25-117 “Power on Midwest” on Monday, CN-25-109 “Maple River-Cuyuna” yesterday, and CN-25-121 “Gopher to Badger” and “Maribell” today. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I am so glad that the Iron Range to Arrowhead scoping meetings and comment deadline was cancelled and isn’t due tomorrow.

Here’s the Comment for North Route Group and NO765MN:

p.s. Parking MISO Schedule 26A for good measure — need to keep it available for reference:

GET TO WORK!

Here’s the Notice with “Topics for Comments” (PUC Docket CN-25-121) and how to file comments.

FYI: MN PUC – How To eDockets

Most important is that the notion of “informal process” is UNACCEPTABLE. This is a HUGE project, and first of a kind 765kV transmission in Minnesota, in the Midwest… so many miles over such sensitive area, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING! Check this out and send in Comments:

Yeah, they’re this big — imagine this over southern Minnesota, the Driftless and across the Mississippi through Wisconsin!