Legalectric

From a post about 2,100 MW of new transmission:

Developers of 2,100 MW MISO-PJM transmission line choose engineering firm

Let’s think about this a bit. This is a MISO to PJM transmission project. Transmission serves what’s on the line. In MISO, (see above) it’s coal, followed by natural gas, both fossil fuel, and those two followed by nuclear, the most toxic, dangerous, and expensive generation.

Amid all the bluster about climate change, coal generation has ramped up over the last year. Factor to consider — in May of 2020, not much was happening anywhere, so increased generation from then seems likely, to be fair, we need comparison to 2019, BUT, clearly the coal plants are NOT being shut down. And with our transmission build-out over the last 20 years, they can ship and sell it anywhere. What is it going to take to get this fossil generation shut down?

And look at PJM’s mix:

And again, much of the coal in PJM was smaller plants, except for that monster in West Virginia, smaller plants that were too expensive to run, not at all marketable, so they were shut down. MISO is another story, with large coal plants, transmission to get it from any Point A to Point B, and probably the last coal plant to be built, Warren Buffet’s 700MW MEC coal plant, served by the transmission build-out through southern Minnesota and across Iowa.

Why would we need more transmission? WE don’t. THEY DO, it’s a major part of their new business plan. As Lisa Agrimonti so aptly stated in a recent Grid North Partners Conference, it used to be about NERC reliability criteria, “a pretty simple story,” but now, “we need this transmission line to deliver energy more broadly” and it’s a more complicated need story.

Yeah, that’s what they’re wanting to do, for sure!

With the change from reliability to the general “we want it” corporate greed = need, how can a project be challenged?

Here we go again. It’s bad enough that CapX 2020 is morphing into CapX 2050/Grid North Partners, but they’re having a “conference” (sign up here) in a couple weeks.

Look at the Chair of this panel, none other than the Chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the description:

… TO MEET OUR COLLECTIVE GOALS?

Remember the toadying for CapX 2020? Remember the toadying for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project coal gasification? Remember the toadying for Prairie Island/NSP/Xcel Energy’s nuclear plants, particularly Prairie Island circa 1994 and 2003?

This sort of thing has been an issue before, and former Chair LeRoy Koppendrayer has been the only one to acknowledge this type of participation as an issue — this was in 2007:

IEDC gets carried away

When this happens, I contact the PUC and register concerns, and have always been assured that they know well the boundaries.

And, well, here’s Commissioner Tuma on DOE Nuclear Waste panel circa 2016:

DOE “Consent-Based” Nuclear Waste Mtg.

This was also an issue with Commissioner Reha when she went off on a coal gasification junket to Belgium and promotion of CapX 2020! See the John Tuma link, above, for this with active links:

When the promotion and bias is so blatant, I’m not about to watch silently. Earth to PUC Commissioners, here are the PUC’s rules:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7845.0400/

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7845.0700/

And when you see something, say something?

Ummmm, right…

ALJ “INVESTIGATIVE REPORT PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 216A.037”

Listen to Commissioner Tuma’s words that were the subject of our complaint at the link above. And the ALJ’s report delivers this warning:

I guess it will be an informal complaint, eh?

Association of Freeborn County Landowners had filed a Complaint against Public Utilities Commissioner John Tuma and Chair Katie Sieben:

AFCL files Complaint against Tuma & Sieben

They filed their response and shipped it off to Office of Administrative Hearings for an investigation (note statute says “hearing” … oh well…):

AFCL Complaint forwarded to OAH for hearing

Here’s the result, hot off the press:

There’s no requirement of public participation? Minn. Stat. 216E.08, Subd. 2. And parties? No mention. What’s the point of being a party? And following that Office of Legislative Auditor report, guess it doesn’t matter, no one is paying attention.:

Public Utilities Commission’s Public Participation Processes – OLA-Report

Notice of a new topic on the agenda isn’t required? Yeah, I guess the notice statutes don’t matter.

Talking to a participant is not ex party contact? The County is indeed a participant…

Next step is that it goes to the Commission to rubber stamp it.

Who cares? Listen to this:

Association of Freeborn County Landowners filed a Complaint with the Public Utilities Commission against Commissioner John Tuma and Chair Katie Sieben last week.

The PUC responded with this… oh my… and an Affidavit from John Tuma, he DID contact a Freeborn County Commissioner about pre-empting the township’s Ordinance and local control:

And under the statute, Minn. Stat. §216A.037, the PUC must refer it to the Office of Administrative Hearings:

The administrative law judge assigned to the ex parte complaint proceeding by the Office of Administrative Hearings shall conduct a hearing investigation and shall issue a report within 30 days after the matter is referred. If the administrative law judge determines that the report cannot be properly completed within that time period, the judge shall report that fact to the commission within the 30-day period and shall file a final report within a reasonable time thereafter, no later than 60 days after the referral to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Minn. Stat. §216A.03

… so today, it was referred. GOOD!

Why? Well, this is about the July 16, 2020 meeting, the one where you just have to listen to the video – yeah, we’ve got the transcript, but the video just conveys so much more:

Oh, look out, now that I’ve learned how to clip snippets from videos, there’s no stopping me!!

This is the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s deliberation and decision from December 19, 2019, on Xcel/NSP (they never use the name consistently) Application for Amendment of the Freeborn Wind Project site permit: