Legalectric

Dairyland Power Cooperative’s transmission through Onalaska and La Crosse is something to see…

Dairyland Power Cooperative and USDA’s Rural Utilities Service has released the “Q-1D South” Environmental Assessment, open for Comment until July 1, 2016:

Q1-South_Environmental Assessment (BIG FILE)

And from Dairyland’s site:

Briggs Road to La Crosse Tap (Q-1D South) – Environmental Assessment

Comments are due July 1, 2016 — send to:

USDA’s Dennis Rankin:  dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

(I’d also cc DPC’s Chuck Thompson:  cat@dairynet.com)

By U.S. Mail:

Dennis Rankin

Environmental Protection Specialist

USDA Rural Utilities Service

1400 Independence Avenue S.W.

Mailstop 1571, Room 2242

Washington, DC  20250-1571

What’s to comment on?  I see two issues that should be sufficient to stop this project in its tracks — the debt load of Dairyland Power Cooperative and the physical setting of the project which too near and right over people’s homes.

Debt load — Dairyland Power Cooperative’s debt is excessive and should prohibit taking on more debt:

Dairyland Power Cooperative’s Annual Meeting was last week.  One purpose of an organization’s Annual Meeting is to discuss its financial status and approve plans going forward.

Dairyland depends on federal USDA/RUS loans to pay for its transmission expansion, such as the Q-1 transmission upgrades, including Marshland-Briggs Road and now the stretch from Briggs Road to North La Crosse south of I-90. Another USDA/RUS loan paid for Dairyland’s share of the CapX La Crosse line now blighting the bluffs. Dairyland will also be part owner of the MISO Hickory Creek to Cardinal line from Iowa to Madison. That’s a lot of transmission and loans.

Dairyland recognized this financial risk and lopsided debt/equity position, and in 2012 sought help from FERC_(DPC_Request4DeclaratoryOrder), requesting a hypothetical capital structure of 35 percent equity and 65 percent debt when its actual capital structure was 16.5 percent equity and 83.5 percent debt, and FERC did grant this relief in an Order for DPC for CapX 2020 (see FERC Docket, go HERE and plug in docket EL13-19-000).  That Order, and the 83.5/16.5% debt/equity ratio was prior to the present Q-1 D South project and the MISO MVP Hickory Creek to Cardinal transmission line.  Dairyland requested a “hypothetical” (bogus) debt/equity ratio to preserve its credit rating and enable low cost loans. The true debt level makes DPC a higher risk.

Are Dairyland members aware of the 83.5%/16.5 % debt/equity ratio and reliance on loans for major transmission projects? What’s the debt level where new projects are included? This new transmission enables increased power marketing and sales, a private purpose. Is this highly leveraged position for new transmission in the best interests of Cooperative members?

Physical setting of the project — it’s just too close!

The map way above is what the transmission system in the area looks like theoretically, according to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, but here’s what Dairyland’s Q-1 South line looks like on the ground:

Really… Here’s what it looks like from a satellite with the lines drawn in, on the far south:

Here’s what it looks like further north — look at all those homes:

And here’s what the Wisconsin PSC Code says about clearances in PSCW 114.234:

(2) Transmission lines over dwelling units. [Follows NESC 234C1b, p. 119] (Addition) Add the following paragraph c:

c. Transmission lines over dwelling units.

No utility may construct conductors of supply lines designed to operate at voltages in excess of 35 kV over any portion of a dwelling unit. This provision also applies to line conductors in their wind-displaced position as defined in Rule 234A2.

Note: It is the intent under s. SPS 316.225(6) that the public not construct any portion of a dwelling unit under such lines.

Note: The term “dwelling unit” has the meaning given in ch. SPS 316, which adopts by reference the definitions in NEC-2008.

Note: See s. SPS 316.225(6) Clearance Over Buildings and Other Structures, which refers to ch. PSC 114 regarding clearance of conductors over 600 volts and the prohibition of dwellings under or near overhead lines.

Remember Xcel Energy’s Hollydale Transmission Project that was derailed when it was clear it wasn’t needed, and so Xcel Energy withdrew the application with regular compliance reports on status of the project, and a promise of a need study so long ago???

Yeah, I’ve been forgetting too, it’s been so long.  Here’s Xcel Energy’s page on what’s now called the “Plymouth Project.”

But, here it is!!  Finally, it has arrived, the Hollydale System Assessment Report from Xcel Energy that we’ve all been waiting for:

Plymouth_and_Medina_Electrical_System_Assessment-Final_Complete

Pay particular attention to the map above of the “study area,” and note that it is the Interstate 494/694 ring and Hwy 55 to the east and north where the problems are, and the problems are yellow and orange, and not red.  The problems are not in the area of the Hollydale substation and not to the west, towards Medina.

When do we start seeing problems?  Looks like it’s in 2036, 20 years from now, double the usual 10 year transmission planning outlook (hint, that means it STILL is not needed) — and note, again, the problems are to the east and north, along the highways:

I’ve got to scour this report, but I do not think that they’ve considered select placement of distributed generation, i.e., solar panels on all the big boxes in the areas above in red!  Or residential solar on those in yellow.  What’s so difficult about that?

Here’s their choice:

On the plus side, there’s new substations planned in the red territory.  On the minus side, they still want to utilize the Hollydale substation.  On the plus side, they plan to expand transmission using 34.5 feeders, which is what I promoted as a solution.  On the minus side, they plan to keep the 69 kV line through Plymouth, with an eye on utilizing it in the future.  On the PLUS side, they claim that there’s no impact on the Hollydale – Medina section of the 69 kV line, claim that there’s no change from present use and non-use, and for my clients in Medina, that’s a good thing.  On the MINUS side, they don’t propose to tear that “unused” 69 kV line down.  On the MINUS side, they don’t propose to put all the transmission and distribution underground.  And remember, just yesterday, when there was a large distribution outage due to wind out in the western suburbs?

So now, it’s time to read this report!

Be there or be square — transmission open houses in eastern Iowa near Dubuque and southwestern Wisconsin near Cassville.

Monday, May 16 –
Peosta Community Center
7896 Burds Road
Peosta, IA 52068

Tuesday, May 17 –
Pioneer Lanes
1185 US (Business) 151
Platteville, WI 53818

Wednesday, May 18 –
Deer Valley Lodge
401 West Industrial Drive
Barneveld, WI 53507

Thursday, May 19 –
Deer Valley Lodge
401 West Industrial Drive
Barneveld, WI 53507

Where’s Art Hughes when you need him??

Art Hughes has died…  March 31st, 2009

Days before he died, Art Hughes was testifying in Peosta against an ITC transmission line heading east to Peosta, here’s the photo from that hearing, and the article about it is in the “Art Hughes has died…” link above.

And now they’re doing another round of open houses, yesterday in Peosta, IA.  Wherefore Art thou?  Well, Art, where are you?  I guess they remember him, because this time it’s “open house” and not a meeting/hearing.  These “open houses” are held by ATC, ITC, and Dairyland about its plan for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Project.  This project is the southern part of the “5” project on the MISO MVP project map below, from the Hickory Creek substation (near Dubuque) to the Cardinal substation (near Madison)(the northern part of 5 is the Xcel/ATC Badger Coulee line).  It’s one of the transmission lines that fills in the 345 kV transmission gaps to enable North & South Dakota to Chicago bulk power transfer.

Once more with feeling: Open House Schedule — each starts at 4 p.m. and goes until 7 p.m. (hello, ITC, it’s planting season, how convenient!):

Before, Onalaska’s scenic overlook, gazebo, and “Sunny” the famous Onalaska fish:

After Xcel Energy’s chain saw workout:

What do you think of this clearcutting  for Xcel’s 69 kV line along Hwy. 35 as it goes through the heart of Onalaska, at the Mississippi overlook and “Sunny,” the Onalaska Fish?  Is that butt ugly, or what?

Xcel Energy’s Nancy Dotson and ___________, their engineer (where are my notes?) said the line would be moved to down below Sunny and the observation deck/gazebo, and that they would not clear cut the area.  I was skeptical because if they run the line through, trees come down, that’s the story of transmission.  When trees come down for transmission, it’s permanent impact, because you can’t grow trees under or near transmission lines.  Oh, but no, they said, it’s not going to be that bad.

Well, it is that bad.  It looks like shit.

And Joe Chilsen, the Mayor of Onalaska, knew this would be the result when he went before the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal to allow an exemption to the airport height restriction to get this project through.  He signed off on Xcel Energy’s application on January 21, 2016, a month before it went to the La Crosse Board of Zoning Appeal, and about two months before Xcel Energy took their chain saws to the trees.

This is the Clearbrook – Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission project proposed route.

Comments were due on the scope of environmental review for this project, and here’s what we filed yesterday:

Erie-Bourdeaux Family Revocable Trust – Scoping Comment

It looks like a simple little thing, right?  WRONG!  What’s not readily apparent is that this transmission line is support for the Sandpiper crude oil pipeline, and is dependent on location of a tank farm and pumping station at the northwest terminus of the transmission line, and it’s way, way premature.

Couple of main points:

1. This transmission line is IN ADDITION to an existing 7 pipelines and the Sandpiper pipeline and the Line 3 rebuild all in that corridor, on the northwest end running cross country through wetlands between Erie Lake and Klongerbo Lake!  That’s 9 pipelines and a transmission line all right there in that narrow strip of property.  How much can a family bear?!?!
2. The Sandpiper pipeline is delayed, even the Enbridge proponents admit that:
   

   Enbridge: Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed Until 2019

3. Clearbrook West terminal is NOT permitted and is NOT a done deal, in fact the MPCA says it ought to be in Crookston!

    20148-102081-01_MPCA Comment-Crookston

So why is Minnkota Power pushing for this transmission line now?  Why would they apply for it in 2014?  There’s no need… not now and maybe not ever.