Menagha Xmsn in the Park Rapids Enterprise
October 21st, 2015
Monday’s hearing in Menahga got a thorough report in the Park Rapids Enterprise. Now, will the Administrative Law Judge and the Public Utilities Commission pay as much attention?
And a little correction, “Pipeline” should be “Powerline” in the 3rd paragraph. As newspaper articles go, this is as good as it gets! Lots of detail. And the need part, the “Carol Overland question” is there in black and white.
To see the full Public Utilities Commission dockets, go to the PUC’s SEARCH DOCKET PAGE HERE, and search for dockets 14-787 (Certificate of Need) and 14-797 (Route Permit).
And in the Park Rapids Enterprise:
Hearing held in Menahga to discuss proposed transmission lines
- An east-west section between the existing GRE Hubbard Substation and the proposed MP Straight River Substation. Four and a half miles would be double circuit 115 kV lines and 2.5 miles would be single circuit lines.
- A north-south section of single-circuit lines, around 15.5 miles, would run between the proposed MP Straight River Substation and the proposed Red Eye distribution substation.
- A proposed new MP Straight River Substation, GRE Blueberry Substation and Todd-Wadena Red Eye Substation; relocation of Todd-Wadena’s existing Menahga distribution substation to the Blueberry site and converting the voltage from 34,5 kV to 115 kV. There would also be modifications to the existing MP Pipeline Substation and GRE Hubbard Substations.
Menahga Transmission Project hearing
October 21st, 2015
Tonight was the public hearing for the Menahga Transmission Project. This is A transmission project with a pipeline driver.
This is a weird project. They’re admittedly having problems with the old 34.5 kV distribution system, that was established ages ago in the GRE_Long Range Xmsn Plan_October 2008, and in the last four Biennial Transmission Plans (their application claimed that “this project” had been under discussion since 2007 as project “2007-NE-N3”):
2007-NE-N3_2007 Biennial Transmission Plan
2007-NE-N3_2009 Biennial Transmission Plan
2007-NE-N3_2011 Biennial Transmission Plan
2007-NE-N3_2013 Biennial Transmission Plan where it morphed into “2014-NE-N21”
Check the 2007 map for project 2007-NE-N3:
Does that bear any resemblance to the project they applied for:
Nope, there’s no resemblance, I didn’t think so either.
But I did find this interesting map of the “project area” that shows the 2007 area in question and more easily shows the logic behind their claim that:
There’s that green line right down the middle that’s the focus of the “problems” claimed. And from that 2007 report:
The Hubbard-Menahga 115 kV line would be the start of a Hubbard-Menahga-Wadena/Compton-Wing River 115 kV line.
Walk through that list of cities, and you don’t get anything that looks like what they proposed. It does indeed look a lot like fixing that green line that connects all the cities would answer their problems!
In the hearing, I clarified the capacity of the line, which at 140 is 7 times that needed for their 20 MW load (click for larger chart). Go to the 477 on left side (kcmil) and then scoot over to the “115” column in the MVA rating columns on the right, scroll down to the “140.” As the engineer confirmed, the 140 MVA is essentially MW…
And here’s the peak demand for the entire area, 16.48 MW, for which they’re wanting a 140 MVA capacity line:
Why?
Oh, well, there is that pipeline driver, the MinnCan pipeline over to the Koch refinery, and they want more pumping stations to increase the capacity from 165,000 barrels a day to 350,000 barrels a day. And they want to double circuit the part on the northern end, from Hubbard substation to somewhere west of that for a “future GRE project” that they will not identify further, but they did not deny that it was Sandpiper (and $50 says it is).
The good news is that there’s tofu in the neighborhood for fortification, should get three meals out of this!
LTE: Thanks, City Council, for Reconsideration
October 19th, 2015
And the Republican-bEagle here in Red Wing published my Letter to the Editor, here it is online:
Letter: Thanks, City Council, for reconsideration
Menahga Xmsn Project public hearing TOMORROW!
October 18th, 2015
Yes, it’s TOMORROW! Great River Energy and Minnesota Power want to build a transmission line to solve a distribution problem (age and overloads) and power up pipeline pumping stations for the MinnCan MPL Line 4 and for another “potential” project, oh, maybe, perhaps, the Sandpiper pipeline?
6:00 p.m.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Menahga Senior Center
19 Cedar Avenue
Menahga, MN 56464
For more information, check this Legalectric post:
A transmission project with a pipeline driver
You can see everything in the Public Utilities Commission docket, just go to DOCUMENT SEARCH HERE and search for either Certificate of Need docket 14-787 or Route Permit docket 14-797.
TOMORROW!
A transmission project with a pipeline driver
October 16th, 2015
It never ends, does it. Here’s the Great River Energy and Minnesota Power Menahga Project, a 115 kV transmission line doing the do-si-do around Menahga! Pipeline driver? Yup. The new pumping stations will increase capacity of the MinnCan Pipeline (MPL Line 4) from 165,000 barrels a day to 350,000 barrels a day, or something like that. It’ll double the capacity. Great, just great. And remember, the MinnCan pipeline was the one where no one cared about it, no one weighed in against it, and now, everyone everywhere is fighting pipelines. This one quietly goes through, fueling the refinery in Rosemount, the Koch refinery. Hmmmmm…
App_Part 1_CoverSrvList_20151-106198-01
App_Part 2_Summary_20151-106198-02
App_Part 3_Text_20151-106198-03
App_Part 4_Appendices A-f_20151-106198-04
App_Part 5_DetailedRouteMaps_20151-106198-05
App_Part 6_App H-J_20151-106198-06
App_Part 6_CORRECTED App J_20151-106872-01
App_Part 7_App K_20151-106198-07
And here’s what we filed last week and the judge’s response (DENIAL!!) and our response to that, and also today’s filing.
First, to get things moving:
Andersen_CoN and Route Permit – Request for Contested Case_FINAL
And the judge’s response:
Suffice it to say, we weren’t pleased with that, so:
And today, to get this in before the Public Hearing on Monday: