Hollydale Project public hearings!
March 7th, 2013
Today the public hearings continue for the Hollydale transmission project.
1:30 p.m. at the Medina Ballroom on Hwy. 55
It’s a 115 kV line proposed for Plymouth and Medina through people’s yards — not a good idea. DUH!
For the full docket, go to the PUC’s Search Docket Page and search for 12-113.
Here’s how they present it in Figure 2 of the Certificate of Need application:
But here’s what it really looks like:
I’m representing a family that lives west of the “Focused Study Area” who just moved to Medina and were surprised by this project — no notice that it was proposed — and are challenging need for the project, and if need is demonstrated, supporting the A-2 distribution system alternative, an upgrade of the 13.8 kV system to 34.5 kV, distributed generation at the load along the area highways, and a combination that would address any demonstrated need:
The parties had a phone conference Monday about Xcel Energy’s request to delay the evidentiary hearings (we aren’t formal parties at this point and weren’t invited, but thanks to “plays well with others” Xcel for the heads up about it):
And the response from Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance:
It’s odd delaying a project hearing for a bill that’s speculative, who knows if it might pass or not. But it’s delayed, the evidentiary hearing, that is, until May or June sometime, after the legislative session is over, and details remain to be worked out. I’d guess Xcel Energy has other reasons not to go forward with the evidentiary hearing on need for this line…
PUC Rules Comments due Tomorrow
January 23rd, 2013
Comments due TOMORROW!!! If you want to be a part of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee, this is the time to let them know that you want to be included. After you’ve written your comments, file in PUC Docket 12-1246 or email to: kate.kahlert@state.mn.us
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has opened a docket for… get this:
Possible Amendments to Rules Governing Certificates of Need and Site and Route Permits for Large Electric Power Plants and High-Voltage Transmission Lines, Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7849 and 7850; and to Rules Governing Notice Plan Requirements for High-Voltage Transmission Lines, Minnesota Rules, part 7829.2550; Revisor’s ID Number R-04151; PUC Docket No. E,ET,IP-999/R-12-1246.
This is similar to the OAH “Possible” rulemaking, where they’re on a fishing expedition, for what I have not a clue, whether it’s to get ideas, or find out what not to include or identify the usual suspects, very hard to tell, and I couldn’t get any information out of Bret Eknes at the PPSA Annual Hearing. The notice states “The Commission has not yet drafted the possible rule amendments.”
Here’s the notice — note they do say that part of this is to “maximize citizen participation” so let’s hold them to it:
Request for Comments – “Possible” Amendments to Rules PUC Docket 12-1246
Possible? Ummmmm, right… well, it’s about time. Here’s the PUC’s Rulemaking site (you can also go to eDockets, search for 12-1246):
I’d put in a rulemaking Petition two years ago tomorrow…
Overland Petition 2010 PPSA Annual Hearing, filed January 2011
…and they said they wanted it broken down. OK, sure, whatever, so I did. Thus far I’ve filed the OAH ones, and haven’t gotten around to doing that yet. SO, got to work today and ground out these comments based on the previously filed ones, you can use these for ideas, steal away!
NoCapX & U-CAN Comments – Jan 23, 2013
Once more with feeling, they’re due tomorrow.
Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line Comments
January 16th, 2013
Comments were due today on Minnesota Power’s request for Exemptions from the rules governing content of Applications for a Certificate of Need for a transmission line.
Look at the red on that map — potentially affected areas where MP is looking to put a transmission line. WOOOOO-EEEE, that’s a lot of land!
Minnesota Power’s proposed Great Northern Transmission Line is inching along in the Certificate of Need process. Here’s Minnesota Power’s site:
And to look at the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “Search eDockets” and search for 12-1163. The application is expected sometime in March or so, but I’d guess it will be later.
Here’s how they plan to let people know about the project — it was filed a while ago, Comments were due, and I tried and tried to get people to comment, oh well, here’s what was filed about the Notice Plan filed in October and the Comments filed in November:
That’s sitting at the PUC now. So where are we? Just starting out… Here’s a diagram of the hoops for the PUC process, edited a bit by yours truly for handouts at the meetings a couple months ago, we’re at the very first box in the chart:
Today, comments were due on the Minnesota Power request for Exemptions from some specific rules, Reply Comments, that is. Here’s what’s been filed:
Minnesota Power Exemption Request
Dayton’s “Environmental Review”
December 1st, 2012
Gov. Mark Dayton rolled out the plan early in his term — GUT environmental review and protection. What do Minnesotans think? This week we got a chance to tell him.
Surprise! The first meeting about the state’s environmental review was standing room only, when we got there a line started at the door going back and winding in. They’d supposedly expected 30-40 but got about 200, 175 signed in and I’d bet quite a few didn’t. Keep in mind that this was a meeting held at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday. Suzanne found a spot with just enough room for us to stand. As it was getting started, I noticed, DUH, that there was a white board behind me, so because there was no designated way to make comments other than holler, well, of course I did that too, particularly regarding FUNDING, because there was no mention of funding and how all the agencies are hurting to the point of being unable to regulate, anyway, a few of my comments (click photo for larger view):
There were meetings this week, and there are more the week of December 10 — SHOW UP AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATE’S JOB ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
December 10 – Worthington, Worthington High School 3:30pm – 6:00pm
I’ve posted before about Gov. Dayton’s brown environmental initiatives — right off the bat he muzzled and prodded MPCA and DNR to ram permits through:
And then he announced plans to “streamline” environmental review, and we all know what “streamline” means”
So at these meetings ostensibly about “environmental review” we were funneled into a “multiple guess” exercise about the “Environmental Report Card” and nothing about “Improvement of Environmental Review” or “EQB Governance and Coordination” which were reports that, in addition to the “Environmental Report Card” were approved by the EQB on November 14, 2012. There was a “comment” opportunity at the EQB, but there were maybe 5 people who commented, utterly ineffective solicitation.
EARTH TO MARS! With the EQB approving those reports November 14, BEFORE the public meetings, there was pretty much ZERO input into those reports. Although it’s heartening to see that there’s been some pull-back from the overt gutting of the EQB laid out in the draft report, and maybe, MAYBE, pull back from reframing the whole intent of environmental review, it’s a problem where the fix is in and where the important policy documents are done before we’re invited to join the game. Thanks, guys…
Here are the reports:
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
- Minnesota Environment and Energy Report Card
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, someone like Bill Grant, formerly Izaak Walton League, now Dayton’s Deputy Commissioner in charge of Energy Facility Permitting, the guy who facilitated the CapX 2020 transmission buildout, and who promoted coal gasification, he has no business being involved in siting of utility permits. He has an egregious conflict of interest, having been part of energy project promotional efforts, and needs to be fired. Here’s Grant eing interviewed before the program started:
At two recent frac sand mining meetings in Red Wing and Wabasha, I handed out at least 270 flyers, , posted info on this blog and sent info out on lists. I’m hoping that had something to do with so many turning out. Frac sand was a major topic, I really stressed the need to fund the state’s regulatory agencies so they can do their job, and others way over across the room were not happy with how the discussion was an exercise in control of discussion. It’s safe to say that they got an earful.
Rep. Denny McNamara came in and worked his way back to a tiny open spot by us, he ended up next to Alan, and Alan quietly said hello and noted that they’d first met at a meeting in Cottage Grove regarding the 3M incinerator, and he gives Alan a nasty look and makes a gratuitous snide comment about “Oh, did you get a haircut?” and looks at the back of his head. EH? Alan said something in his oh so nice way, and I piped up from behind, “At least he doesn’t dye his!”
Denny McNamara’s trainer better put a muzzle on him. That guy is supposed to be representing the people in his district, and in that case he represented the interests of 3M, notorious polluter of the water and air, and he has the nerve to be a defensive jerk when there’s no need to be. If mere mention of meeting him at a hearing regarding the 3M incinerator elicits that brand of obnoxiousness, oh my, he must be guilty of more offensive rolling to corporate interests than suspected!
A google pops up this article right at the top:
Rep. Denny McNamara tonight plans to take an axe to a swath of proposed environmental projects that are paid for by Minnesota Lottery money.
McNamara, R-Hastings, is planning to initiate a challenge to about $8 million worth of projects that were previously recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). The total bill recommends $52 million in projects that are paid over a two-year period out of the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, which is built up by Lottery proceeds.
Check out that post… Hey Denny, how about addressing the extreme environmental issues around Hastings? So glad he’s been ousted as Chair of the House Environment Committee.
Notice Plan – “Not-so-Great” Northern Transmission Line
November 19th, 2012
Today Comments were due on Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line. I’m sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to call a transmission line “Great” and that’s just how it is… Anyway, Minnesota Power is getting ready to file a Certificate of Need application, this is the lead up, what they have to do to provide notice to people when they actually file. So here’s their draft plan:
Minnesota Power’s Notice Plan for Great Northern Transmission Line
Comments on that plan were due today. Here’s what I filed:
Here’s what Commerce filed earlier today:
Haven’t gotten word on any others.
To keep an eye on what’s going on in this docket, go HERE and search for docket 12-1163.
A little sidebar here — while looking for a logo, some things popped out — did you know that Minnesota Power sponsors, with the Lignite Energy Council, a “Teachers Seminar” on coal? It’s the only teacher workshop listed, though there are multiple listings under “School Programs” and “Educational Materials.”
OH MY! Check their “Electricity 101” pdf:
p. 7:
1929—Stock market crash revealed that many holding companies were over-leveraged
–As a result, federal and state governments strengthened utility regulation.
There are some interesting charts and graphs in Electricity 101 that are interesting and that I’d like to see updated. Hear that, MP!?!?!
