Legalectric

Minnesota Power’s Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Project was probably the longest and most torturous transmission project in Minnesota and Wisconsin, at least, if not worse, than CapX 2020 Hampton to La Crosse. Arrowhead_Weston ran over a less than 15 mile distance in Minnesota, crossing over the St. Louis River near Duluth, and the over into Wisconsin where it headed down to the Weston coal plant.

World Organization for Landowner Freedom (W.O.L.F.) intervened and showed up for years in the various proceedings for this transmission project. There was a two week hearing in Duluth (MEQB Docket: MP-HVTL-EA-1-99), I’d started that in a tent in a friend’s back yard, and we were officing in the garage… then off to Madison for a two month hearing (PSC Docket 05-CE-113), which after initial CPCN approval went on through 3 iterations due to cost increases and routing through Douglas County, Wisconsin. FYI,weird, the A-W EIS is HERE in the Library of Congress files, along with other Wisconsin utility EISs:

Anyway, throughout most of this fiasco, other than the very end, World Organization for Landowner Freedom intervened and participated with gusto. In Minnesota, we raised the issue of noise, which as found in the ALJ’s Findngs of Fact, would be too high (lots on noise search the pdf for more) and lack of need for this project, that the applicants were misstating need, claiming we’d all freeze in the dark in an incubator/on a respirator without a job. Over and over, the Applicants’ attorneys asked, “And where were you on June 25, 1998?”

As to noise:

And in the ultimate EQB Order regarding noise:

Regarding the initial Arrowhead-Weston applicants claim, circa 1999, that Arrowhead-Weston transmission was needed, was our finding in the “repository” the proof positive that the June 25, 1998 outage was self-inflicted, that the trip of the line and the resulting wave of outages across the Midwest, was due to the operators failing to ramp down those bulk power transfers that were far over the operating limits for the King-Eau Claire-Arpin line! Here’s that report from the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, the “MISO” of that day:

And another report entered into the record, another issue of “high exports” that triggered disaster when system couldn’t handle an outage when all that power was being exported:

For these reasons, bulk power transfer was a concern due to utilities’ practice of overloading the system for their marketing gain. Soooooo… the other thing accomplished, other than noise, was a limitation of 800 MVA at the Arrowhead substation, which means that the line cannot be used for extreme bulk power transfer. From the EQB’s Findings of Fact and Order::

… and…

Recently, Minnesota Power has applied for permit from the Public Utilities Commission to “modernize” its AC to DC system, as the converters are ? way, way older than their expected 30 year lifetime. MP’s need statement for the project is based on the age of the DC to AC conversion equipment, that those converters are no longer made, and that parts are difficult to find. Hence, time for replacements to keep that line going.

The Commission did agree to a joint permitting process for “need” and “routing” (a very short line from the old substation to the new one. See PUC Dockets E015/CN-22-607 and E015/TL-22-611:

The purpose of this project is to facilitate use of the Center, ND to Arrowhead substation going forward. That’s a line that Minnesota Power bought a few years back, “for wind,” though I’m not really convinced. That line was built eons ago. Here’s the plan in short, from the application:

There were scoping meetings held for the Environmental “Assessment,” months ago, with comments due September 13, 2023.

Then, the comment period was extended by DOC-EERA for “residents that are farther than 1/4 mile outside of the project boundary.” R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-S

Bit in swoops American Transmission Company, with a late filed comment with an “alternative” proposal!

READ THIS!

To which Minnesota Power had a well crafted and detailed reply, here’s the gist, but it’s SO well-written, worth a careful dissection:

Then ATC had this to say:

And based on the late ATC filing, Commerce-EERA recommended:

Then issued its Scoping Decision filed December 1, 2023:

BUT, the Commission has a meeting on November 29, 2023, and discussed this EIS Scoping and the ATC Alternative and sent it over to OAH for a contested case.

And then, AFTER the Commission’s Order and Commerce-EERA Scoping Decision is released, long after the Comment period over, ATC submits a CHANGE!

So Commerce-EERA files a REVISED scoping decision, including this new change! REALLY!

I’m recalling that offering system alternatives and routes that did not “meet the need” of the project proponent were rejected out of hand.. but this is OK?!?!?!?!

What ATC is proposing is as Minnesota Power states, a plan to circumvent the Arrowhead-Weston substation limitation of 800MVA by physically, electrically, going around the transformers in the substation!! AND it gets worse, ATC is openly wanting, planning, on EXPANSION! WHAT?!?!

ATC has intervened in these two dockets:

To further this goal, they’ve recruited FIVE (5) big buck Minnesota and Wisconsin attorneys:

And World Organization of Landowner Freedom?

W.O.L.F. is on alert!

My head is going to explode… they’re trying again to expand geographic areas branded “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors” and Designation of NIETCs with expanded criteria triggering the opening for the feds to grab that permitting authority. They call it a Transmission Facilitation Program. Their dreams of transmission are based on the DOE’s National Transmission Needs Study. Compare that with the most recent NERC Long-Term Reliability Assessment. The DOE is for some reason not relying much on the “NERC Report.”

And along with that, there’s THIS rulemaking, to establish procedure for federal review of transmission proposals. I was reminded of this rulemaking thanks to a DOE Grid Deployment Office email, so here’s a reminder for all of you!

There was a webinar a couple weeks ago, I did participate, got nominal comments in, but this needs serious work on detailed well-founded comments. From the DOE page:

DOE is now seeking public comment and feedback on the proposed CITAP Program via a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments must be received by11:59 p.m. ET on October 2, 2023.

Really, READ THIS and get to work:

Hot off the press from Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, a notice of rulemaking. Here’s the pdf of the Notice – it’s very intense and detailed, a lot crammed into four pages:

Comments are due by September 22, 2023. Send to:

Andrew Olson (andrew.d.olson@state.mn.us)

Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

190 Centennial Office Building

658 Cedar Street

St. Paul, MN 55155

And the email from Campaign Finance:

To:  Interested members of the public

The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board is considering adopting, amending, and repealing administrative rules concerning campaign finance regulation and reporting, lobbyist regulation and reporting, and audits and investigations.  The Board may consider other rule topics that arise during the rulemaking process.  A copy of the Board’s Request for Comments, published today in the State Register, is available at cfb.mn.gov/pdf/legal/rulemaking/2023/Request_for_comments.pdf.

Three Board members will serve on a subcommittee that will work with staff to develop the proposed rule language.  The subcommittee meetings will be open to the public and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule topics and language.  Information related to the rulemaking, including how to comment, how to sign up for the rulemaking notice list, the dates of upcoming subcommittee meetings, copies of official documents, and draft rules when they are ready, will be posted on the Board’s rulemaking docket webpage at cfb.mn.gov/citizen-resources/the-board/statutes-and-rules/rulemaking-docket/.

You are currently subscribed to the Board’s rulemaking notice list.  If you no longer wish to receive notices regarding the Board’s rulemaking efforts, please reply to this email or unsubscribe using the form on the Board’s rulemaking docket webpage linked above.  Please contact me with any questions or concerns related to rulemaking.

Respectfully,

Andrew Olson

Legal/Management Analyst

651-539-1190

andrew.d.olson@state.mn.us

And after I saw the PurpleAir report, and looked again today, the horrible air has moved south, and we’re likely in yellow or even green today. Whew. And some ideas occurred to me, as I was asked yesterday what the City could do:

I’m not sure what we can do about the smoke from Canada to improve the air quality.  What would you propose we do?

and:

Air monitoring won’t help with the smoke it will tell us what we already know. What is your solution to the bad air we can see? 

So after some thought, with #1 and 2 below immediately, and then 3 and 4 later, I sent a follow up missive to the Council:

All –

FYI, yesterday someone did post a PurpleAir monitor reading for our area:

That was yesterday. Today, the local PurpleAir monitor is not online, but https://fire.airnow.gov/ shows improvement for our area:  

When asked, “What is your solution to the bad air we can see?,” obviously we can’t do anything about the Canadian and US fires (they’re all over the country, see map: ). However, there are precautionary steps the City could and should take. The City does have a responsibility to protect the public health and safety of our community. A very good start would be:

1) Start acting on air quality, i.e., to not add any air emissions from any of our big polluters, like Xcel, USG, ADM, etc.;

2) Advocate and agitate MPCA repeatedly to get all the expired permits reviewed;

3) It also occurred to me later that when it’s this bad, the City should issue warnings, urge people to mask up if outside (oh, that’ll go over well, but it’s their health or lack thereof) and to stay inside and use air filters. Yesterday at Menards, there were MANY people coming out with air filters, probably to build those cheap and easy box fan filters).

4) The City should set a threshold for AQI index where outside events would be cancelled, as was done in the last round of extremely high AQIs made attending outside events hazardous for those of us who breathe.

I’m debating getting a PurpleAir monitor (the Zen model: https://www2.purpleair.com/products/list) and connecting to NOAA, though given the medical expense cash crunch now, yes, it is a matter of debate here.

If the City isn’t willing to get on MPCA to install air monitors, the City should spend the $299 x ? to put up a few here and there around town and link them to NOAA. We residents do deserve to know the AQI. Also, there should be one installed near every one of our big emitters in town, location based on the wind rose, for consideration when MPCA, if ever, gets around to permit renewal review, and for when any of these want to contract for more burning.

Again, the City has a responsibility for the health and safety of its residents, and you’re the policy setters.

Carol, a breather whose health is affected by unhealthy air.

Really bad air here in Red Wing today, so I sent another Air Quality (and lack thereof) missive to the City Council:

All –

Once again, it is likely a very bad air day, red dots, orange dots, and we have no monitors, much less a baseline for air “quality,” or lack thereof, in Red Wing.  https://fire.airnow.gov/

What are you, each of you, doing to protect the health and safety of our community? That’s the primary job of the City and the City’s electeds.

Carol A. Overland, loading some things in the car and feeling the PM2.5

Checking later in the day, after some exertion outside that had quite an impact, I found this on that site, our blue dot on the map accompanied by a red square, a “Purple Air” monitor:

Yeah, that’s pretty grim.