Legalectric

I’ve wanted to do be a DNR Camp Host since we got our pop-up, and this year, I signed up, and just got invite to a Potluck for potential Camp Hosts!  At many state parks, there’s sufficient phone access to have internet access and work from campsite — how cool is that.  And some are right in the neighborhood of work, so I can meet with clients in my “office” and be close to hearings. Spend a month in a campground, do nominal work, some meet & greet, whatever, I’m ready!  And Alan could bring the van with a boat on top, or a trailer, and get out in the water.

Except for Big Bog State Park, what a hell-hole that was, SO hot, and bugs by the millions, plus a campground filled with big RVs and trailers, just awful.  Excellent bathrooms and solar at the park couldn’t make up for the heat and bugs.

The only cool thing about it was back behind the trailer, there were docks for boats, one for each of the campsites along the river into Red Lake.  But the bugs were so bad, and there was one hell of a storm, we were there for the “Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line” USDA-RUS hearings in July… Big Bog? NEVER AGAIN!

I digress… anyway, I hope to be able to be a Camp Host this year.  We shall see!!

It’s out, the USDA’s RUS EIS for Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement – November 2018

• Volume 1: Chapter 1-3

• Volume 2: Chapters 4-8, Appendices

From the RUS Notice, how to send in comments and list of public meetings:

RUS page for Environmental Review for Cardinal – Hickory Creek Transmission Line Project – Iowa & Wisconsin

Time for a nap.  Just filed Comments on the USDA RUS’s Environmental Assessment for Dairyland’s Q-1 D South transmission line.  Here’s the EA:

Q1-South_Environmental Assessment

And here are the Comments I filed on behalf of No CapX 2020:

No CapX 2020 EA Comment_July 1, 2016

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh, and the interesting thing is that just this morning, I got a copy of the “Briggs Road-La Crosse Tap 161 kV Rebuild Study”  Thank you, Chuck Thompson!

Above is my view of La Veta, Colorado.  As I drove in, I saw two deer sauntering, yes, SAUNTERING across a farm field at the edge of town.  And in town, they were just walking around like they owned the place, fat and happy.  This one above was a buck escorting two of his does, maybe one and last year’s progeny, and they were walking down the streets, through yards, hanging out oh-so-casual.

There are some days, well, most days, I confess, when I really love my job… yesterday was another!

Yesterday was a forum held by TLC, Transmission Line Coalition, last night in La Veta and tonight in Alamosa:

TLC Forum Poster

Here’s some of what I had to say:

San Luis Valley Dog & Pony

Xcel, of course, was there, and I’m sure they’ll be there tonight!

Here’s the ALJ Recommendation, this will sound very familiar to those in Minnesota:

San Luis Valley ALJ Recommendation

As we say in transmission, “IT’S ALL CONNECTED.”

Xcel’s GI-2008-32 Feasibility Study Report

HPX Stakeholder 11-14-07 (9.3% line loss, export)

(Pretend there’s a link here to USDA’s RUS EIS page – it’s DOWN DOWN DOWN)  NEVERMIND, it’s now UP UP UP!  From RUS (note this San Luis project is about 4 months behind Dairyland/Capx:

Tri-State Generation and Transmission

Association, Inc.

San Luis Valley-Calumet-Comanche Transmission Project – Huerfona, Alamosa and Pueblo Counties, CO – The agency has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on this proposal; the original level-of-review was an Environmental Assessment.

• Federal Register Notice to hold Scoping Meeting and the intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (August 3, 2009 – 47 KB)
• Calumet-Comanche Electric System Improvement Project – Macro Corridor Study (May  2009 – 24 MB MB)
• San Luis Valley-Calumet-Comanche Transmission Project – Alternatives Evaluation (June 2009 – 510 KB)
• San Luis Valley Electric System Improvement Project – Alternatives Evaluation and Macro Corridor Study (June 2008 – 14.2 MB)
• Public Scoping Report (November 16, 2009 – 28.6 MB)
  • Index of Public Comments

What I want to know is WHY they are using lower capacity ACSR conductor for these projects — and the claimed “need” is SO low, why aren’t they just reconductoring the whole system — ACSR, euwwww, that is SO 1960s:

SW MN 345kV Ex35, App. 7 – Conductor Spec

And demand forecasts?  Need a good laugh?  Here’s the sales forecast for Public Service of Colorado, our good friends at Xcel:

I’ve just learned that this area is mushroom country — methinks that this “forecaster” has been dabbling in some of the more exotic varieties to come up with this chart!