Legalectric

Someone told me they might be osprey nests up there on Hwy. 10 — check these out — could be!

From Moundsview Schools, which aer participating in the Twin Cities Osprey Project.

I know it was a problem with the short lattice structures used for wind turbines in the old days, but when I was going up Co. Rd. 10 in Itasca, I saw two eagle nests in the H-frames along the road. One was small, but one was pretty hefty. TRANSMISSION? (next time I’ll bring my camera — maybe there will be chicks?)

Utility workers destroying Monk Parakeet nest
from Invasive Species Weblog

Then, when I’m trying to find another editorial about Dick Day’s putting his wife and Tom Neuville’s son on the payroll and failure to document state and federal withholding in Campaign Finance reports, I see this article in the Mankato paper today: “Texas utility tries to foil parakeet nests,” and so I dug a bit… It’s not just eagles on transmission towers, it’s monk parakeets too. Don’t be suprised if you think the birds are perching on your shoulder, some of these sites have great birdcalls. Krie agrees!

Here’s the best: Florida Monk Parakeet Nesting Substrates

The eagles nest looked like this but one was four or five times this size!

Next time you’re headed up Co. Rd. 10, going north from Warba, check out the eagle nests! Yeah, that goes for you, too, all you Excelsior folks!

Substation at southeast end of CFU line

Last week, I filed an “Application for Leave to Present Evidence,” which is the means to get additional evidence considered in an administrative appeal in Iowa. It’s all right there in the rules! Iowa Code 17A.19(7).

First Cedar Falls Utilities files this Motion objecting: Download file
Hmmmmmmmm… Ivan the Terrible’s slipping, he’s not demanding sanctions against me this time!

And then IUB filed this Resistance to my Application for Leave to Present Evidence: Download file

What’s hilarious about this is that they are arguing that the line will carry 33MW, yeah, that’s it, 33MW — a 161kV line. Uh-huh, right. Well, it’s lawyers arguing engineering, but even their 1978 study, which they didn’t enter as evidence for some reason, anticipates a lot more than that! The utility self-reported to MAPP that the capacity is 329MVA, off by a factor of 10. And that 329MW is more on the order of what I’d expect from a low capacity 161kV line.

Here’s the MAPP Form 1 that I got by subpoena, shows the 329MVA: Download file
The CFU line is the second one listed on the chart.

33MW… yeah right… I cannot wait to argue this one in a hearing. There’s nothing on the record to support their statements that it’s 33MW. Not one electrical study, no MAPP reports, nothing whatsoever. And when I dig up the studies, they say something way different. Sure, my clients didn’t have that info during the hearing when they weren’t represented — how would regular people have access to this information? But none of this was entered in the record, the utility has the burden of production and proof and produce nothing, and the goods news is that producing nothing means that there is nothing to support a finding that the line will have a 33MW capacity, there is nothing to support a finding that this line will not harm the public.

Yes, we are having fun now! And we have not yet begun to fight!

Go figure… we’ve got an appeal pending, argued the Motion to Dismiss and have received a Scheduling Order with Dismissal of CFU’s Motion to Dismiss, and are still waiting for the decision on Iowa Utilities Board’s Motion to Dismiss, and here’s CFU stringing wire? Color me a Minnesotan in Iowa, but that seems pretty stupid to me.

Here is the view that Bert and Diane Schou saw today. How depressing and distressing…

I spent some time a couple weeks ago looking at how transmission comes into and out of Prairie Island, and finally got some pictures today — taking a sick day and have to justify my existence, and a good thing to finally check out this route given we’ve got three lines planned in the area, in order of likely appearance:

1) SW MN to Prairie Island (but maybe Hampton)

2) Prairie Island to Rochester to LaCrosse

3) Chisago County sub to Red Rock to Prairie Island

This is that house on the bluff, beautiful house and beautiful view, as long as you don’t look to the immediate west and see the 345kV line that is just on the other side of a tree line. And of course that’s the Prairie Island – Byron line, the one that the PI-Roch-LaX will probably share a corridor with up and over the bluffs. And what are they doing up there? Well, that homeowner is selling the house! And they’re putting in the “Westwood” subdivision up there, right next to the transmission line. The lots they’re selling are in the right, under the transmission and to the right. Half of the homes have driveways under the line. Here’s a plat of the project, and I was standing for this photo at the bulbous blip down near the bottom. See how the line goes through all the lots on the right side?

If they run another line with this one, where is it going to go? There’s nowhere else but on the right hand side, closer to the houses on that side…

I’ve left messages for the two realtors/developers up there, and the City Planner, no response yet.

Here is the link to the 2005 Transmission Plan that lists the PI lines on p. 36-38. The Prairie Island-Roch-LaX line application is expected 1st quarter 2006 (these things are usually delayed a bit),
Here is the site for the Minnesota Transmission Owners

And here is the section of the report with p. 36-38

Attached is a Download file“>Sept. 6, 2005, letter from CapX2020 giving a quick rundown of these projects, again, this is the Prairie Island-Roch-LaX line that goes over your development up on the bluff right by 61. It’s listed on the bottom of p. 2 in a chart, and on p. 6 is the map.

Look close to the house on the right-hand side for the 345kV line.

In MN, there’s the PEER “non-proliferation” theory, and usually new transmission follows existing transmission corridors, and so this will probably follow the PI-Byron line (the existing one up there). However, to build it, it would require additional easement alongside that line. I’d guess that’s a problem!

Here’s their plat with my “artiste’s conception” of transmission route:

There was meeting about this held in Rochester, at Rochester Public Utilities, info on that meeting is on the www.minnelectrans.com site. They must under the rules provide notification to the affected cities, counties and townships, but no city, county, or township officials ever show up at the meetings and probably haven’t a clue this is coming up. …sigh… and they’re building new, very expensive homes up there…