Today, starting at 10:30, the Wisconsin PSC meeting is on, and last on the agenda, #15, is the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line. They will be deciding whether they will interfere in judicial review of their C-HC order and make that moot by rescinding the order, and then, whether they will immediately RE-ORDER as the utilities want. Regulatory capture much?

Tune in early, because last time they ran through 40 items in 5-6 minutes!

FULL AGENDA

To listen to meeting (whatever happened to the webcast?) go HERE: https://apps.psc.wi.gov/APPS/eventscalendar/broadcast/livebroadcast.aspx

To check out all the filings in this docket, go HERE! Some very interesting and highly recommended comments were filed over the last month.

If you’re curious or upset that there is no longer video livestreamed, contact PSC Helpdesk at (608) 267-9195 or email at PSCHelpdesk@wisconsin.gov

Oh my, take a little time off, and look what happens!

Cardinal-Hickory Creek: Secret messages with former regulator prompt utilities to seek new permit for power line

Here are the Petitions from ITC and ATC filed Monday, June 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and 10:09 a.m.:

And it’s instantly on the agenda for TOMORROW’S Commission meeting (meeting starts at 10:30 a.m.).

Listen to Live Broadcast HERE!

The “notice” was provided on Tuesday. June 29, 2021 at 3:15 p.m., not even 36 hours before the meeting (note there’s a “CS memorandum of 6/29” where Commission staff offers background and suggestions that we don’t get to see):

OBJECTION!!! Ja, you betcha, from Jewell Jinkins Intervenors and others:

What are we asking for? It’s pretty simple:

DALC and WWF filing just came in and they have a very different take:

And ATC and ITC’s scheme is getting some coverage:

Controversial transmission line through Iowa/Wisconsin suffers setback

Owners Of Controversial Power Line Project Ask To Refile Application After Messages With Regulator Surface

Badger Hollow Solar in the news!

December 30th, 2018

In today’s paper:

Rural Wisconsin county split on solar energy project that would be among largest in nation

From the article, an important part, because the PSC does not file the “Environmental Assessment” when issuing their “Preliminary Determination” letter!  People have to ASK for the EA, and then, it takes how long to get it?  COMMENTS ARE DUE JANUARY 7 ON ADEQUACY OF EA AND WHETHER EIS IS NEEDED.  Here’s the Preliminary Determination (for both dockets) stating no EIS is necessary, and the Environmental Assessment which even as PSC staff document points out significant impacts:

PSC_PreliminaryDetermination_100

9697-CE-100_101 EA Appendix A v1_0

PSC_PreliminaryDetermination_101

9697-CE-100_101 Environmental Assessment v37_0

A snippet from the article:

Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s soon-to-be Governor, has appointed Rebecca Cameron Valcq as the new head of PSC.
Sounds like at least one docket, the Badger Hollow buy/sell 5-BS-228, is up for a PSC Commissioner recusal when it’s before the Commission!  Why?  Quarles is Rebecca Cameron Valcq’s firm, where she’s big gun in their Energy division.  Quarles just happens to be representing MGE/WPSC, and they were over the top in objecting to Jewell Jinkins Intervenors participation in the MGE/WPSC “buy/sell” docket 5-BS-228, and the Commission blew them out of the water, denied their Motion for Interlocutory Review, with nary a comment”

MGE/WPSC were LOSERS in WI yesterday

Rebecca Cameron Valcq?

From her Quarles bio:

And from a little birdie in the inbox, the direction that Gov. Evers wants to go:

Public Service Commission key to Tony Evers’ climate agenda

This is reminding me of the appointment of Lauren Azar to the Commission…

 

 

Madison Gas & Electric and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, the Applicants in a “Buy/Sell” (BS!) docket (CLICK HERE for 5-BS-228) for part of the Badger Solar project (and Two Creeks solar too) have been resisting at every opportunity, trying to keep Jewell Jinkins Intervenors from Intervening.  It gets more hilarious as we go through this crap.

First from the Applicants:

Applicant Response (Objection) to Motion to Intervene

So our Reply:

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_228_Reply to Applicants’ Response

The Administrative Law Judge granted our Intervention in technicolor:

Order_Intervention-Third

So the Applicants’ looked for other ways to keep us out of the docket, throwing things at the wall to see what sticks:

WPSC_MGE Motion for Interlocutory Review_354992

Motion_Protective Order

So our Reply to both:

Jewell Jinkins_228_Response_Motion For Interlocutory Review

Jewell Jinkins_228_Response_Motion Protective Order

The Applicants just couldn’t stop:

JewellJinkins_228_Response 2 Reply 2 Response 2 Motion Protective Order  Applicants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order 121918-1

So here’s our Reply to their Response:

   Jewell Jinkins_228_Response 2 Reply 2 Response 2 Motion Protective Order

It was on the PSC agenda yesterday, and they denied the complaint in less than 30 seconds, with no discussion.

Do you think the Applicants will get the hint?  We shall see.  I have my doubts.