Legalectric

The Maple River-Cuyuna 345kV transmission line, that’s the orange one on this map above.

First the Initial Comments:

And then Reply Comments:

Applicants’ filed their Reply Comments:

And we filed the Andersen Comments:

And that’s it!

So on to tomorrow’s Reply Comments on the Gopher-Badger 765kV transmission line!

Underground transmission is the topic of the week, month, well, maybe year. Underground transmission has been approved in Iowa – the Soo Green transmission project was approved back in 2023. It’s a DC line to be routed along railroad tracks! An underground DC project was “approved” by PJM from the Heritage substation to the Mosby substation, both in Virginia, though it’ll need state approval, PJM, like MISO, is NOT the decider, they are NOT the regulators.

Rather an opposite situation in Maryland, where there’s an underground transmission project proposed, and it turns out that in Maryland, the Public Service Commission doesn’t have regulatory authority over underground projects, only above ground!

Support grows to stiffen state oversight of underground power lines

This jurisdictional issue is slogging its way through the Maryland legislature.

Locally, there are objections to that project, mapped out above, and below, because it’s going through a historical district. What would be their take on an above ground transmission line on that route?

Here’s the PJM report of the Sub Regional RTEP Committee – Mid-Atlantic from way back in 2016, they’re still trying to figure this out:

And this:

I’d filed these on Monday… “Power on Minnesota” filed theirs too (scroll down for theirs).

Time flies when you’re having fun…

Why? Well, look at this, supporting “the Commission’s informal process” which DOES NOT EXIST!!

Unlikely to be contested issues of fact, informal process would allow them and the public to more fully and effectively participate? What are they smoking? Whose brilliant idea was it to put such bizarre thoughts in writing? Hmmmm, maybe look at their funding and see how much they were paid to quash public participation in a non-existent “informal process.”

But wait, MISO said the same thing (no surprise, this decades long transmission build-out is “MISO’s” idea, their members, and they’re the entity out front promoting it):

“For the reasons stated…” ??? What reasons. All that’s in the comments is what MISO has done, MISO this, MISO that, and MISO IS NOT THE REGULATOR! There’s zero about contested issues — but of course — how would they know if there are contested issues when this is the INITIAL comment period!

And then there’s Commerce saying the same thing. Good grief, I recognize that Commerce is the name of the agency, that Commerce does not represent ratepayers or the public, but…

It’s time to haul out that comment grinder again:

“Power on Minnesota” had a more realistic approach, though dismissing issues I’d raised in Comments, acknowledging the possibility of contested case and intervenors:

… the Commission itself may determine that a contested case would be beneficial. To allow for full development of the record—whether under the informal or contested case process— and also avoid potential schedule delays in the future, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission decline to order a contested case proceeding at this time and request that further contested case requests be submitted with a petition to intervene and before the close of the scoping comment period in this matter to allow the Commission to resolve such requests when it considers the scope of the Environmental Report.

Reply Comment, p. 2, Power on Midwest (emphasis added), see Comment, below..

Yup, that’s the plan, that’s how the rules say it’s done, request Contested Case before the end of the comment period! And as we know, in these proceedings, we’ve got to bring up everything early and often.

Here’s the Reply Comment of the Applicants: