Legalectric

I know I’ve been preoccupied, struggling to keep up and not doing a very good job of it, but how did I not know that the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant was shut down for the winter and the river has completely frozen over?? Granted this is proof positive that we don’t “NEED” this generation, but what does it mean for the river and those dependent on that open water? Fish, eagles, other wildlife??? Maybe the plant closure is why the 2024 nuclear notice came out late (no calendar)?

That’s from MPR on November 22, 2023 about this shutdown on October 19, 2023, over a month later:

Electrical trouble shuts down Prairie Island reactor

Odd, it took the STrib that long too, November 22, 2023. Guess Xcel belatedly sent out a press release?

Xcel’s Prairie Island nuclear plant will be out of commission until January

So something between generator and substation? Something similar may have happened to Unit 2 last May:

Nuclear reactor at Xcel’s Prairie Island plant remains offline after ‘unusual event’ reported Saturday

Turned out it wasn’t “just” a transformer — there was a problem with the “main feed water pump” that had to be fixed too: “The licensee determined that the fire alarms were caused by the electrical transient which occurred due to the fault on the Unit 2 main transformer” and then:

From NRC reports:

And here’s the Notification:

More info needed. It’s a cold winter Sunday, good for googling.

Here we go, World Organization for Landowner Freedom is BAAAACK!

Here we go!

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