Legalectric

It was PACKED, nearly full parking lot and room was crowded. Surprising in a rural area and a town of “2,847.”

Worth the trip down to Caledonia, Albert Collins on my tape loop the whole way (though also my father-in-law’s dance band version, that’s where I learned it). Worth it because now the notion of “MariBell” v. “Gopher to Badger” is now clear, and the 765kV line too.

“MariBell” is “only” the double circuited 765kV and 161kV (NOT 2 765kVs), the part that starts when the two lines are joined at Marion, MN, and down across the Mississippi into Wisconsin. The “Gopher to Badger” starts at the North Rochester substation down to Marion — does it then also cover the MariBell? Not clear.

The noteworthy point — Dairyland wants to use that existing 161kV line, and I guess this open house was mostly for those landowners. The RoW will need to be expanded to 250 feet, and they’re trying, wanting, to work with those landowners to get it done.

Supposedly they’re still trying to figure out how to get out of that North Rochester substation down to Marion — it’s getting crowded with that Pine Island data center 345kV line that’s proposed. Here’s that proposal – the yellow blob is the proposed substation expansion and the yellow line is the proposed 345kV line down into the cornfield. The green is the existing CapX line down to La Crosse and beyond.

Back to MariBell: Here are the handouts. Cookies were had, but NO COFFEE! Also, no announcement on the Public Utilities Commission’s eDockets, and no promises — I’ll do my best to make sure there’s an eDocket post when future open houses come up.

And how’s this for a non-answer?

I’d edit this to: “YES! Ratepayers will pay for this project, apportion amongst MISO ratepayers apportioned by the arcane MISO “Schedule 25.” Maybe it’s no longer Schedule 25, guess I’d better check.

In the Fillmore County Journal:

Houston County Commissioners Hear Initial Presentation on MariBell 765/161 kV Transmission Project

At the November 18 regular meeting of the Houston County Board of Commissioners, representatives of the MariBell 765/161 kV Transmission Project appeared before the commissioners for the first time to share information about the project with the board. The project is a partnership between Dairyland Power Cooperative and GridLiance.

Chairman Eric Johnson called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. Commissioners Cindy Wright, Robert Schuldt, and Greg Myhre were also present. Commissioner Kurt Zehnder was absent.

The agenda was unanimously approved.

The minutes from the November 4 meeting, and the minutes from the November 12 workgroup session were also approved.

Dairyland Power Cooperative Manager, Regional Transmission Projects, Clay DeWitt; GridLiance Heartland Sr. Director Development Jessica Hewitt; and Gridliance Heartland Project Director Josh Daubenspeck appeared before the commissioners to present an introduction of the project and answer questions.

DeWitt explained, “Today we’re going to talk about who the partners are, and we’ll have a full overview of the project, starting with the need, going through the actual project itself, the high level overview, the schedule, the benefits of the projects, routing considerations, and then right away easement process from a high level standpoint.”

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) “is the one who oversees and operates the grid in this particular area of the central United States,” explained Hewitt. “They are the ones that determine the project needs, and they, also, are responsible for this overall system planning.”

Commissioner Johnson said, “MISO is who we need to talk with.”

During and after the presentation, the representatives answered a range of questions from the commissioners and members of the public.  The audience emphasized that communication with property owners must be improved in the future.

The representatives announced that they would be holding an open house in Caledonia on Tuesday afternoon from 4-6 p.m. at the community center. There will not be a formal presentation; instead, it is an opportunity to ask questions. More open houses will be held throughout the multi-year process. Postcards were sent to all property owners who will be affected, informing them of the open houses.

At 9:30 a.m. the commissioners closed the regular meeting and opened the public hearing to gather input regarding granting a six-year property tax abatement to assist in the construction of a cold storage facility at Sno-Pac Foods. The property is identified a Parcel No. 211163000. The commissioners closed the public hearing at 9:34 a.m. and reopened the regular meeting. 

The board then unanimously approved the property tax abatement for Sno-Pac Foods, Inc. The anticipated completion date is July 2026.

The consent agenda was approved. Kelly Zielinski was hired as a Public Health and Human Services collections officer, and James Lyden was hired as a 67-day temporary/casual drop site supervisor.

In other business, the board: 

• Adopted Resolution No. 25-39 and No. 25-40 in support of city of Houston and Caledonia’s Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) applications. 
• Accepted the recommendation from Commissioners Wright and Johnson and Parker to adopt the Houston County Policies and Procedures Manual.
• Approved a three-year contract with UKG and the Minnesota Counties Computer (MCCC) Cooperative for Human Resources, payroll, and workforce management software. One-time cost to launch the software is $17,655 and the yearly subscription fee is $43,065. The subscription fee for the current software program is $9,000.
• Discussed the county’s reorganizational structure and authorized Human Resources Officer Brent Parker to write and initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) for external/economic development services for 2026. 
• Approved the 2026 board meeting schedule as presented by Board Clerk/EDA Director Allison Wagner.
• Approved paying the bills totaling $683,018.84. 

Today is the first of three “Open House” gatherings for the “MariBell” transmission project.

Caledonia?

From the PUC Comment Notice:

This MariBell Transmission Project is a 765kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT project, larger than anything in Minnesota. EDIT after 11/18 open house: BUT the double circuit is a 765kV (5,300 MVA) and the existing 161kV line. they want to follow the 161kV route. THIS is a good example of why you don’t want that 161kV getting its nose under your property’s tent!

We need this WHY?

And don’t worry, this isn’t happening in isolation, as you can see from the MISO map below. TODAY is the last day of the Comment period for the “Power on Midwest” line’s Requests for Exemption (from application requirements) and Notice Plan (how will folks find out about this):

Back to Maribell… (isn’t Maribell the name of some cow?) The MariBell transmission Project is MISO #26 of its “Tranche 2” mega-portfolio of transmission lines in the Midwest:

So far NINE of these projects, MISO #19-26, have Certificate of Need dockets (CN-25-109, 111 & 112, 116-122 — note #CN-25-117-120 have been consolidated under CN-25-117). with Notice of their intent to file applications. “MariBell” is Public Utilities Commission docket CN-25-121 (for Dairyland Power Cooperative) and CN-25-122 for Xcel Energy. So far, no notice if they’ve been, or will be, consolidated.

To look up the PUC docket, go HERE to eDOCKETS, click on the eDockets button there, and you’ll get the search screen. Search for 25-121:

There’s an open comment period now, REPLY comments are due TODAY on the Exemption Requests and Notice Plan (and this map from the Notice Plan is much better):

… so check out the Maribell Transmission Project‘s Notice Plan Petition and Exemptions Request, then pull up the docket, see what others have written, and get replies to those comments in TODAY by 4:30.

Next up, MISO Tranche 2’s #20, Public Utilities Commission Docket CN-25-116, adding a second circuit between “Bison” and Alexandria. The PUC is seeking comments on their Notice Plan, as with the previous MISO #21, CN-25-111, Iron Range – Arrowhead docket. (catch up on MISO Tranche 2 HERE – 24 projects at $2.1 BILLION)

Here’s their Notice Plan — now’s the time to pick it apart. Because it’s “just” adding a double circuit to the CapX 2020 Fargo line, there’s not much to say:

And here’s the PUC’s full request for Comments:

And the short version:

I quickly slapped together No CapX 2020 Comments based on the ones I’d filed the day before on the first MISO Tranche 2 project, further below. Again, this is “just” adding a 2nd circuit, but the “need” question remains — why is this needed — justify it, it has to be more than MISO/MISO’s utility & transmission members want it. MISO’s “approval” does not mean it meets Minnesota’s need criteria in Minn. Stat. 216B.243:

And for that other project, MISO’s #21, PUC Docket CN-25-111, the only Comments filed last week — ONLY THREE COMMENTS. This is a new greenfield project — what does it take to wake people up?

Expect to OD on MISO over the next few years:

• CN-25-109 MISO 20 – Maple River – Cuyuna 345 kV
• CN-25-111 MISO 21 – Iron Range – Arrowhead 345 kV
• TL-25-112 ” “
• CN-25-116 MISO 19 – Bison-Alexandria 345kv
• CN-25-117 MISO 22 – Brookings – Lakefield 765 kV
• CN-25-118 MISO 23 – Lakefield – East Adair 765 kV
• CN-25-119 MISO 24 – Lakefield-Pleasant Valley – N Roch 765 kV
• CN-25-120 MISO 25 – Pleasant Valley – N Roch – Hampton 345 kV
• CN-25-121 MISO 26 – N Roch – Columbia 765 kV Dairyland
• CN-25-122 ” ” Xcel

Here we go… It’s MISO Tranche 2, which means more transmission, and BIGGER transmission coming to Minnesota, and this is for the “Iron Range to Arrowhead” transmission line, the first Notice Plan and Exemptions Request of the bunch. Here’s the BIG picture:

To look up any of these projects, go to eDockets: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/documents then plug in the docket number, i.e. 25-111 for this one:

Interactive Map for Iron Range to Arrowhead HERE!

The PUC dockets to plug in (and FYI, the MISO number from above, substations, and voltage) are:

• CN-25-109 MISO 20 – Maple River – Cuyuna 345 kV
• CN-25-111 MISO 21 – Iron Range – Arrowhead 345 kV
• TL-25-112 ” “
• CN-25-116 MISO 19 – Bison-Alexandria 345kv
• CN-25-117 MISO 22 – Brookings – Lakefield 765 kV
• CN-25-118 MISO 23 – Lakefield – East Adair 765 kV
• CN-25-119 MISO 24 – Lakefield-Pleasant Valley – N Roch 765 kV
• CN-25-120 MISO 25 – Pleasant Valley – N Roch – Hampton 345 kV
• CN-25-121 MISO 26 – N Roch – Columbia 765 kV Dairyland
• CN-25-122 ” ” Xcel

The project with the just filed Notice of Comment Notice Plan and Request for Exemptions is MISO #21, and PUC Docket E015/CN-25-111, from the Iron Range sub to Arrowhead sub.

And here’s the Comment Notice:

The “Topics for Comment” that the PUC lists is just one, about the Exemptions Minnesota Power (MP) and American Transmission Company (ATC) have requested:

But… but… but… where’s mention of the Notice Plan? Do check out the Notice Plan and if it’s deficient, let them know in your comment.

Send Comments to:

I highly recommend signing up for eFiling and filing them directly in the docket — that way others can benefit from your filing to help recognize and address issues. INSTRUCTIONS TO REGISTER (yeah, it’s over 20 pages, but there are screen shots to walk you through, and once you’re registered, it’s EASY to file.

p.s. Here’s a post (linked HERE) from over a decade ago predicting this mess of 765 kV transmission:

Thanks, American Clean Power Ass., f/k/a American Wind Energy Ass.

And yes, transmission and markets, or American Clean Power’s “Markets & Transmission,” — it’s all about money:

This has been just too much to bear, but it’s time to acknowledge that there are indeed 765kV transmission lines targeting Minnesota, more targeting the “Midwest,” and get these (*#&%#( things posted. Thanks, Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), thanks a bunch.

In the Jackson County Pilot:

Upper Midwest’s first 765-kV line could run through county

Here’s the general idea:

In numerical order, PUC Docket wise, the first is MISO #22, is the Big Stone-Brookings-Lakefield part of the system, promoted by our friends at Xcel Energy. The PUC Docket number is CN-25-117, and it only covers the part that’s mostly in Minnesota, Brookings to Lakefield Junction. The Big Stone to Brookings is in South Dakota, though a 345kV “Big Stone-Brookings” line was built not long ago, 2017, so why another, and why a 765kV?

Here’s the rough for this new proposal, duplicating the Big Stone to Brookings, and then, from Brookings to Lakefield Junction (anyone remember the “Split Rock-Lakefield Junction” circa 2001??? That was the first of the 345kVs in the area, Docket 01-1958.

Thus far, the only filing for that project in Minnesota is from Xcel Energy, opening a docket and the notice that it plans to apply for this Brookings-Lakefield Junction transmission line. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT MISO:

Right out the gate, they’re asserting MISO as the basis for need. There’s the statement that “MISO, a federally registered planning authority and regional transmission organization, approved its Long-Range Transmission Planning (LRTP) Tranche 2.1 portfolio of projects…” and why? Here’s what our new Minnesota statute says:

Yes, really. Did legislators have a clue that this means? I doubt it. Here’s the full statute, 216B.246 FEDERALLY APPROVED TRANSMISSION LINES; INCUMBENT TRANSMISSION LINEOWNER RIGHTS.

What’s MISO Tranche 2.1?

• MISO MTEP 24 Transmission Portfolio
• MISO LRPT Report
• Tranche 2.1 Fact Sheet
• LRTP Tranche 2 Business Case Metrics Methodology Whitepaper

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has long been allowing reliance on MISO “approval” for PUC “approval,” and there’s been no recognition that the MISO standards for “approval” are NOT the Minnesota standards. For too long, utilities, typically Xcel Energy, but any utility proposing high voltage lines, have not been required to demonstrate need for their transmission projects.

The next one is a continuation of that project, heading south, MISO #23, this time an ITC project, from Lakefield Junction to East Adair.

ITC filed its Notice of Intent at the same time Xcel filed its Notice in the other docket, using that same language as Xcel to describe it’s project and relation to MISO’s Tranche 2.1:

What about that connector from Lakefield Junction heading east, MISO #24, a 765kV from Lakefield Junction to North Rochester, and MISO #25, a 345kV from Hampton down to Pleasant Valley (note the existing Hampton-North Rochester CapX 2020 345kV line, and the OLD Prairie Island-Byron-Adams 345kV line).

And yes, next up is MISO #26, a 765kV from North Rochester to La Crosse to Columbia, paralleling part of the CapX Hampton-LaCrosse & eastward line. Who’s claiming MISO #26? Yes, that’s coming too…

In PUC Docket order, Docket CN-25-121, another Notice of Intent to file a Certificate of Need application, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) intends to “to construct, own, and maintain the Minnesota portion of the North Rochester – Columbia 765 kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project (the “Project”) from a midpoint structure on the new 765 kV line from North Rochester to Marion Road (as will be agreed between Dairyland and Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy) to the Minnesota-Wisconsin border.”

Dairyland uses the same language as Xcel, except adding its “abundance of caution” at the end:

And then Xcel Energy chimes in, Docket CN-25-122, stating that “Xcel Energy intends to construct, own,
and maintain the North Rochester – Columbia 765 kilovolt (kV) transmission line.”

Xcel Energy again discloses its reliance on MISO:

Earth to Mars, MISO is not the decider in any of these Minnesota Certificate of Need proceedings.

And on eastward to Wisconsin… It looks like MISO #30 is a 765kV from Columbia to Rockdale. Is it going through Middleton/Madison on existing corridor?

Dropping four HUGE lines, 765kV, which has not before been done at 765kV in the Midwest, and all relying on MISO “approval” as a demonstration of need?