Legalectric

Is Tree City sign next to go?  Well ???

Mayor Chilsen testified before the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal, and didn’t address the impact of moving this transmission line on the scenic overlook.  Is he well representing the City’s interests?  This is an election year.

Before, Onalaska’s scenic overlook, gazebo, and “Sunny” the famous Onalaska fish:

After Xcel Energy’s chain saw workout:

What do you think of this clearcutting  for Xcel’s 69 kV line along Hwy. 35 as it goes through the heart of Onalaska, at the Mississippi overlook and “Sunny,” the Onalaska Fish?  Is that butt ugly, or what?

Xcel Energy’s Nancy Dotson and ___________, their engineer (where are my notes?) said the line would be moved to down below Sunny and the observation deck/gazebo, and that they would not clear cut the area.  I was skeptical because if they run the line through, trees come down, that’s the story of transmission.  When trees come down for transmission, it’s permanent impact, because you can’t grow trees under or near transmission lines.  Oh, but no, they said, it’s not going to be that bad.

Well, it is that bad.  It looks like shit.

And Joe Chilsen, the Mayor of Onalaska, knew this would be the result when he went before the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal to allow an exemption to the airport height restriction to get this project through.  He signed off on Xcel Energy’s application on January 21, 2016, a month before it went to the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal, and about two months before Xcel Energy took their chain saws to the trees.

This is the Clearbrook – Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission project proposed route.

Comments were due on the scope of environmental review for this project, and here’s what we filed yesterday:

Erie-Bourdeaux Family Revocable Trust – Scoping Comment

It looks like a simple little thing, right?  WRONG!  What’s not readily apparent is that this transmission line is support for the Sandpiper crude oil pipeline, and is dependent on location of a tank farm and pumping station at the northwest terminus of the transmission line, and it’s way, way premature.

Couple of main points:

1. This transmission line is IN ADDITION to an existing 7 pipelines and the Sandpiper pipeline and the Line 3 rebuild all in that corridor, on the northwest end running cross country through wetlands between Erie Lake and Klongerbo Lake!  That’s 9 pipelines and a transmission line all right there in that narrow strip of property.  How much can a family bear?!?!
2. The Sandpiper pipeline is delayed, even the Enbridge proponents admit that:
   

   Enbridge: Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed Until 2019

3. Clearbrook West terminal is NOT permitted and is NOT a done deal, in fact the MPCA says it ought to be in Crookston!

    20148-102081-01_MPCA Comment-Crookston

So why is Minnkota Power pushing for this transmission line now?  Why would they apply for it in 2014?  There’s no need… not now and maybe not ever.

Yes, up in Clearbrook last night for the DoC EERA’s Public Meeting for Scoping of environmental review (lite) for the Minnkota Clearbrook – West Clearbrook 115 kV Transmission Project.

For the full scoop on this project go to PUC’s Docket SEARCH HERE, and search for docket 14-665, and for the backstory, dig up the Sandpiper dockets, 13-473 and 13-474, a very large undertaking.

Caesar Panit of the PUC and David Birkholz of Commerce hosted last night’s meeting:

Last night’s meeting was quite well attended for such a short transmission line, just 5+ miles, but that’s likely because of its connection to the Sandpiper pipeline project.  It’s an important project to Enbridge, and one that should be closely scrutinized because as of this point, it’s timed exactly backwards, and shouldn’t even be proposed until Sandpiper is permitted and we know where it’s going to go, and whether there will even be a “Clearbrook West” terminal.

Timed backwards?  Yes… This project is way premature, because it’s transmission to power the Sandpiper new “Clearbrook West” terminal and pumping station, one which is just starting back into the intense environmental review of a court ordered EIS (yes, finally Minnesota appellate court agrees that an EIS must be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Need), and it is not safe to presume that the new “Clearbrook West” terminal is going to be there given the MPCA Comments and proposal of Crookston as a logical alternative:

20148-102081-01_MPCA Comment- Crookston Terminal Location

But that’s not all that’s interesting… in the Application, Minnkota had a brief mention of RUS, the USDA’s Rural Utility Service.  And I had one of those flashes, having dealt with RUS on CapX 2020, and now the Dairyland Q-1 “upgrade” project through Onalaska.  So I asked them about it, on the record, and learned that yes, RUS is financing this project, that yes, there will be environmental review, likely an “environmental report,” and that there might be a public comment period on it if USDA’s RUS chooses, and when I asked whether Dennis Rankin is handling it at RUS, he said, “Yes, that’s the guy!”  It is a very small world, and as we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.”

Minnkota is kind of dodgy about what this project is for, saying repeatedly it’s for “one customer” but given the terminal at the proposed Clearbrook West area where Sandpiper’s new Clearbrook West terminal would go, it’s a DOH!

Here’s the site from Sandpiper’s Application, Appx G.3 Facility Drawings_01.30.13, showing it next to Klongerbo Lake (keeping in mind MPCA’s recommendation of the Crookston alternative):

Other things to note:

Enbridge pushes back timeline for pipeline projects

2015 Biennial Transmission Projects Report-selected

They say they want to avoid wetlands… but in the “cross country” area near the “Clearbrook West” terminal location, it’s all wetlands, and in the terminal area itself, it’s wetlands, not suitable for a pipeline terminal.  What are they thinking?

There’s lots of info to inform the scoping decision, and for sure Commerce and the PUC will get this info!

Remember Xcel’s CapX 2020 peak demand projections of 2.49% annual increase?  How wrong can they be?  And how unjustified was their basis for a Certificate of Need for CapX 2020?  And how are they held accountable for those gross misrepresentations?  This is why the rate case in progress, PUC Docket 15-826, is so important.

I love it when this happens… Xcel Peak Demand is again DOWN!  There’s a trend, and it’s called decreased demand.  Demand has yet to exceed the 2007 peak, and now it’s 8 years…

Here’s the Xcel Energy SEC 10-K filed a couple days ago:

2015 – Xcel Energy 10-K

Is it any wonder they want to get away from a cost based rate a la their “e21 Initiative” scheme?  Particularly now that the bill for CapX 2020 is coming due and their newest rate case (PUC Docket GR-15-826) is now underway?

And the specifics, and note how they inexplicably forecast a 2016 peak of 9,327: