[0:01] Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the September 4th, 2025 agenda meeting in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

[0:11] My name is Katie Steven. I'm the chair of the Commission. I'll take the roll first to the other commissioners who are present for today's hearing. Commissioner Partridge.

[0:20] Here. Commissioner Ham. Here. Commissioner Sullivan. Here. Commissioner Tuma.

[0:27] A quorum is present. We have six items on our agenda today. We will take a lunch break.

[0:35] Probably like at 12, 30 or so. And we, but we definitely won't start item number six before

[0:46] So if you're on for item number six, we won't take that up until one 30 at the earliest.

[0:55] Our first item today is a docket number or item number one will be introduced by Caesar Pane.

[1:04] Please introduce the first item.

[1:06] Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, item number one, and today's agenda is in the

[1:12] matter of the application of utter care power company for a site permit for the up-to-66

[1:18] mega-watt-soul-way solar project in Beltrami County, Minnesota.

[1:23] And the questions before you today are, should the commission adopt the administrative

[1:27] law judges' findings affect conclusions of law and recommendations, should the commission

[1:33] find that the environmental assessment and the record created at the public hearing adequately

[1:39] addressed the issues identified in the scoping decision and lastly should the commission

[1:44] issue a site permit for the up to 66 megawatt solar project. The parties are here and available

[1:51] for any questions you may have. No other comments, no changes to the decision options

[1:58] Thank

[2:01] you

[2:12] very much. If the parties could please come forward, we'll begin with the opening

[2:16] comments.

[2:36] We'll begin with the applicant, so is it you, Ms. Brousvind, who are making

[2:41] opening comments? Good morning Madam Chair, Commissioner Just Christie Brousvind, appearing

[2:45] on behalf of the Water Tail Power Company. Mr. Reaver will be providing the opening statement

[2:49] for Soleil.

[2:51] Welcome Mr. Reaver, please introduce yourself and begin.

[2:54] Yep, thank you.

[2:57] Press and revert.

[2:58] Audertail power.

[2:59] So thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding Audertail powers proposed

[3:04] Solar Facility, which includes construction of up to 66 megawatts of affordable reliable

[3:10] and renewable energy for our Minnesota customers.

[3:14] We believe this project represents not only a forward-thinking investment in clean energy,

[3:18] but also a strategic use of available infrastructure and interconnection opportunities

[3:22] within the MISO system. This always solar project is uniquely positioned to take advantage of

[3:29] MISO's expedited surplus interconnection process by utilizing an existing interconnection that historically operates at low capacity,

[3:38] due to the peaking nature of the associated gas plant. This seldom use interconnection allows us to deliver new solar

[3:44] generation to the grid, without the need for costly or time-consuming upgrades, enhancing

[3:50] efficiency, and enabling us to bring benefits to our customers more swiftly.

[3:56] Our commitment to balancing affordability and reliability with environmental stewardship

[4:00] remains unwavering, with sole solar offers a low-cost, clean energy resource that aligns

[4:05] with Minnesota's renewable energy goals, while continuing to meet the evolving needs of

[4:10] customers across the region.

[4:13] While negotiations for vendor and contractor contracts are ongoing, all current indications

[4:18] suggest that the project will feature a strong presence of both local and union labor,

[4:24] a testament to our dedication to supporting the regional economy and the skilled workforce

[4:27] of powers.

[4:29] Regarding the proposed decision options in staff briefing papers, Audertail Power supports

[4:35] adoption of the recommendations put forward by Commission staff, including decision options,

[4:41] 1, 3, 4, A through B, as well as 6, A through F and 8. Once again, we thank the Commission

[4:50] for its thoughtful consideration of this proposal. We see Seoulways solar as an excellent

[4:55] low cost option for our Minnesota customers and appreciate your attention to them.

[5:00] Mayor, to this initiative. We're eager to collaborate with the PUC stakeholders and community members

[5:05] to advance this promising project. And of course, we're happy to answer any questions.

[5:12] Thank you very much, Mr. Reuer. Next, how about La Yuna, Dr. Franco?

[5:21] Good morning. Good morning, chair Seben. And commissioner, my name is Lucas Franco, here on behalf of La Yuna,

[5:31] We want to thank Audertail Power Company for their commitment to work with local labor, unions

[5:36] and other stakeholders to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of this project.

[5:41] The project will create approximately 70 to 80 good family sustaining construction jobs during

[5:47] its peak.

[5:48] This is good news for the local community and local workers.

[5:52] We have many members close to this project, many of which have transferable skills and

[5:57] eager to work on this project. In particular, we have a lot of experience pipelineers that

[6:03] have worked in the oil and gas industry and look forward to opportunities to work on this project.

[6:10] Autotails engagement with us shows a commitment to being a good neighbor and stewards of the land

[6:15] and locally economy in developing this project. In addition to creating high quality jobs and

[6:20] free our opportunities. This whole way solar project will help

[6:24] out to help meet Minnesota's renewable energy and carbon free power

[6:28] standards while capturing the benefits of expiring tax credits.

[6:32] We believe that the applicant meets the statutory requirements for a

[6:36] site permit. We agree with staff recommended decision options.

[6:40] One three four eight to be six eight to f and eight. And thank you so

[6:44] much for the opportunity to comment.

[6:47] Thank you. And Mr. Runky, welcome. Please state your name for the

[6:50] record and provide any comments you'd like to.

[6:54] I'm Nathan Runky with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49.

[7:00] I actually don't have much for comments, so I would echo a lot of what Luke has just said,

[7:05] but we just wanted to make sure we're here in case there are any questions.

[7:08] Thank you.

[7:09] Thank you.

[7:11] And Mr. Cajayski.

[7:16] Thank you, Chair.

[7:17] Steven and Commissioners on Richard Cajayski, the Director of Government Affairs for the

[7:20] or Central States regional council and carpenters.

[7:23] We strongly support granting a site permit

[7:25] for the up to 66-megawatt Seoul-Way Seoul

[7:28] Project offers a valuable opportunity

[7:31] for skilled union labor, economic advancement,

[7:33] and regional sustainable development.

[7:38] This advances union careers and economic impact.

[7:40] The project creates high quality union jobs

[7:44] while promoting superior training

[7:45] and industry-leading safety standards,

[7:47] provided through union apprenticeship programs, the opportunity to use union labor ensures

[7:52] workers' benefits from living wages, health care, retirement security, and gives them the

[7:59] ability to raise strong families in a resilient community. Renewable energy projects, like

[8:05] soleway, stimulate the local economy, as our union members work, live, and spend in this

[8:12] This would advance Minnesota's carbon reduction goals and transition to clean our energy and the renewable energy projects like these can provide skilled development opportunities for a diverse local workforce while providing career advancement in the clean energy fields.

[8:29] Provides a commitment to community benefits, union labor delivers high quality construction and maintenance ensuring long-term operational success and reliable service.

[8:39] Labor's involvement this project will prioritize safety, stability, and accountability

[8:43] garnering community trust in renewable energy investments.

[8:49] The Carver's Union is ready to partner with Otter Tail Power to realize the important

[8:54] project affirming a shared commitment to ethical labor standards and economic and environmental

[8:59] progress for this region.

[9:00] Thank you.

[9:02] Thank you very much and we'll turn to Commissioner questions who would like to start.

[9:09] Thank you, Chair Seabend.

[9:13] So I appreciate everybody being here in the comments today.

[9:17] This record was, in my opinion, fairly positive and straightforward.

[9:21] And I don't have a whole lot of questions.

[9:23] I think there were just a few issues noted.

[9:27] A couple of those come up very regularly and we've discussed those quite a bit in other projects.

[9:32] So I'm not sure we need to go over them again.

[9:35] The change to the noise monitoring language looked fine and I'm seeing Mr. Kirsch not his head that that is an acceptable change. So that sounds good.

[9:46] The one issue that did pop up is this idea of whether the lifetime should be 35 years or 30 years.

[9:54] Um, I will just say that because this project specifically is owned by Reggie.

[10:00] The committee will have a great deal of insight into the project. I feel comfort with 35 years. I think I don't have any kind of problem with that. I think we'll have the ability to monitor the project and ensure that it continues to produce energy. Mr. Kirch, do you have any strong opposition to 35 years as a lifetime?

[10:26] Mr. Kirch, please state your name for the record.

[10:28] Good morning, commissioners, Raekers, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Energy Infrastructure, Permitting, Staff.

[10:35] I don't think there's any objection.

[10:38] I think staff just wanted to point out consistency is helpful in permit compliance.

[10:45] You know, it's a slippery slope.

[10:46] Argument are the parade of horrible.

[10:48] If this one's 35 is the next one, 32 is the next one, 38.

[10:52] And so to aid in permit compliance, we think it is important to be consistent, but there could be exceptions.

[11:00] And I understand that.

[11:02] I think that's helpful.

[11:05] I don't know if other commissioners have questions about that.

[11:08] From my perspective, Commissioner Partridge, I was comfortable with 35 years,

[11:12] and I appreciate EIP raising this issue.

[11:15] But I think if you look at the rate impacts and how it would be spread out over a longer period of time,

[11:21] and it would help mitigate the rate impact

[11:24] to, again, as you said, to a regulated utility

[11:27] where we're concerned about rates.

[11:29] That's why largely I'm supportive of 35 years,

[11:32] and think, you know, consistently, if we do continue to see,

[11:36] to try to maintain consistency to Mr. Kerch's point,

[11:40] it might just be, we want to move to this longer period anyway.

[11:45] Commissioner Humm.

[11:48] Thank you, Chessie.

[11:48] So I have a question to company on this issue.

[11:52] So what is your assumption in your ILP under your solar project?

[11:58] Yeah, thanks for the question commissioner.

[11:59] We used 35 years in that.

[12:02] So yeah, because commission approved the 35 years

[12:05] and then I think it is consistent that company

[12:08] is proposing 35 years in this target.

[12:11] So I think that's why I am supporting 35.

[12:15] and hopefully next weekdays or the new right up to this project is completed,

[12:23] weekdays or in your vital filing, you should clearly indicate that you are using

[12:29] 35 as your depreciation time period and indicate that in filing.

[12:39] Any other comments on the 35 years from commissioners or questions?

[12:45] Commissioner Partridge?

[12:45] I do have one slight edit to make, or to propose, I would say, to decision option number eight.

[12:55] And that is just that decision option number eight is one that we regularly adapt to allow for edits to type of graphical errors.

[13:04] We identified one specifically in the permit here, where it refers to the Department of Commerce and should refer to the EIP staff at the PUC.

[13:14] And so Ms. Patterson has language that simply adds that to number eight to specify that we would replace

[13:22] Department of Commerce with EIP staff for accuracy. And that is the only item I have on this.

[13:33] Docket.

[13:34] Great. Ms. Patterson, do you want to put that up or did you put it up?

[13:39] Oh, you did. It's just small. There we go.

[13:43] No objection to that from the parties.

[13:47] And Ms. Bruseven or Mr. Ruhr, when remind us

[13:51] when you hope to begin construction and the targeted

[13:56] in-service state and how if there's anything you're doing

[14:02] to speed the process along so that it can...

[14:07] Adam Chair.

[14:08] Qualify for all the good things we wanted to qualify for.

[14:10] Assuming that meeting concludes as we anticipate when I go back to my office we'll be starting our pre-construction

[14:17] filings this afternoon.

[14:18] Audertail plans to start limited construction on its own emphacility and tree clearing this fall.

[14:24] To facilitate a full start of construction in the spring and then be in service by the end of next year.

[14:30] So the construction period is about how is about like spring to end of the year.

[14:36] hopefully it will be in production then at the beginning of twenty-six.

[14:42] At the end of twenty-six, the end of twenty-six, the beginning of twenty-six.

[14:45] So starting construction this fall helps ensure that we can take full advantage of

[14:49] a good construction season in twenty-six as soon as we possibly can.

[14:54] And Mr. Reuer is this project going to be jointly shared amongst your amongst.

[15:00] Most other states within Undertale's jurisdiction or is it remind us how you're proposing to spread

[15:08] the costs to the Minisotans?

[15:12] Yep. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. Matthew Olson is online for a thought or

[15:17] till power. I think he might be best to answer that question.

[15:21] Mr. Olson, welcome. How would you like to talk about your jurisdictional split here between partnering

[15:29] and neighboring states, or could you fill a Senate on how that's going?

[15:35] More on commissioners, Matt Wilson, for our child power company.

[15:40] I think it's yours even yet.

[15:40] This is a project that we head into

[15:47] the allocation, as we talked about.

[15:50] I think for you in June,

[15:55] roughly 83% of Minnesota,

[16:04] that allocation will change

[16:08] in the load change between the states.

[16:10] It's anticipated then the impact of that for Minnesota ratepayers,

[16:16] essentially as we will offset additional power costs that would have been allocated to other states.

[16:23] So it likely will benefit rate pairs to be getting this clean energy resource once it's online correct.

[16:34] That's just

[16:36] you.

[16:37] I'm sure it's too much.

[16:38] Yeah, particularly if you're getting it in the ground quickly, that'll help out a lot.

[16:41] So we get that, I'm sharing, and this improvement, this is a good news that I'm hearing,

[16:48] but there's a lot of trees there.

[16:49] This is a good thing because it's not prime farmland, I guess, and so we don't have to worry

[16:54] about that.

[16:55] But this will probably be one of the probably outside of MPs coming when it's Boswell,

[16:59] some of the most tree clearing that we have done, and if we're starting quickly,

[17:03] I don't see this bump here, but I'm just curious, communicating with DNR already about

[17:09] this fast time line so that they're aware so that they can address any concerns they may have

[17:15] with wildlife management that is part of this program.

[17:18] I'm Chair Commissioner Tuma.

[17:19] We will be engaged with DNR here with Rachel, she's in the room to make sure that we are

[17:30] in full coordination and there was a modification that was introduced in Mr. Reaver's testimony

[17:34] that removed some of the panels that were in the southwest corner of the project and that

[17:39] reduced the number of acres of tree clearing pretty significantly. So we think that that was also helpful measure to minimize those impacts.

[17:46] I just want to make sure Ms. Bump was worn appearance. She's in the room and so now she's for worn that's all that that's all I need to know so.

[17:56] I didn't I didn't I didn't I didn't I didn't I didn't I didn't back there so she's not coming forward. So I don't he doesn't need to come forward. I just wanted to make sure DNR was aware of the expedited time.

[18:06] So, Commissioner Ham.

[18:10] Thank you, Chair Steven.

[18:11] So, another question to company.

[18:13] It is being considered as a surplus interconnection.

[18:16] So, what is company's plan to getting off from the surplus interconnection and being full resource?

[18:23] You know, future and future after we build all other transmission line, probably your interconnection costs will be very minimum.

[18:30] Is there any plan from company making it as a full resource rather than surplus interconnection?

[18:36] I think for the question commissioner, there are no current plans to do that, this is the nature

[18:43] of the peaking resource that's there and the solar resource that we're bringing online

[18:48] and kind of the operations of that gas plant.

[18:50] We believe the surplus interconnection is a good value for our customers and so at this point

[18:55] there's no plans to pursue its own standalone interconnection.

[18:59] But that means you are losing the capacity of the accreditation for this solar, so I think

[19:05] some point of time company need to evaluate the trade of between losing this capacity versus

[19:11] the connection cost.

[19:15] Thank you for that.

[19:15] And that's absolutely something we'll continue to monitor, especially with the miceau policy changes

[19:20] that are ongoing.

[19:21] Thank you.

[19:24] Commissioner Antima.

[19:24] It is a good point.

[19:25] And I've never thought through this.

[19:28] If let's say the sole way station is needed to be called on.

[19:33] And the solar is producing at 50% of its capacity at that moment.

[19:39] Is it possible for both units to be running and injecting?

[19:43] Because obviously, you can run a gas plant at pretty much any level.

[19:46] That's why we like them.

[19:47] They can ramp and they can, is that what happens?

[19:51] Because more than likely, at that stage, the solar is going to be cheaper.

[19:56] So is that the way they operate, I don't even know the answer that question.

[20:00] So, yeah, thanks for the question. Commissioner Tuma. Yes, you're right. So, essentially, we have a point of interconnection level of 50 megawatts. Both these plants are also rated to be able to produce about 50 megawatts give or take. And so we just we never can exceed that 50 megawatts, but they can both operate simultaneously. And we'll we'll look to operate on most economically that we can.

[20:25] or something every day? Thank you.

[20:30] Ms. Brousen, this is a little unusual to when we were just talking about the replacement

[20:36] or the clearing of a number of trees and a different solar dock at the commission.

[20:45] I think if I'm remembering ordered replacement trees to be planted nearby.

[20:51] It was that anything that was considered in this

[20:54] socket for the actual clearing of where you would potentially

[20:59] replant the equivalent number of trees that were cutter

[21:02] is that I don't think it was brought into the record,

[21:06] so it's kind of on the fly here.

[21:09] But Madam Chair, that wasn't something that was raised

[21:10] in the record certainly there.

[21:14] This is at the Solation and so we'll be clearing the

[21:17] minimum number of trees necessary to build the solar

[21:20] project and trying to maintain the other existing trees in the area but a replacement was not

[21:24] contemplated in the record? I just think it's something that we should as joint not directed

[21:31] specifically at Ottertail here because it wasn't in the record and we didn't talk about it and

[21:36] I should have asked about it earlier but it's something as we get tree clearing projects

[21:42] parties including the DNR and surrounding tribes and others that are interested we should

[21:50] consider like planting equivalent number of trees in adjacent parcels, where we can.

[21:59] So I'm just expressing my lack of thinking about this ahead of time, really, but something

[22:09] to consider for the future. Commissioner Sullivan.

[22:15] I like where you're going with that. I mean, obviously, I don't think we're in anything right now,

[22:19] but I like trees too, the natural gas people know that to be true.

[22:26] But I want to go back to, this is more of a curiosity, so I'm interested in how you're

[22:33] using this in tandem with the sole weight gas unit that's there.

[22:38] So are you able to, like, in effect, firm them both up, you know, like you can,

[22:48] you have a

[22:48] but you can, because the solar is also going to be there, you almost like at that node,

[22:56] at the interconnection, you can say we're 100% or it allows us to store gas on site so

[23:03] that we're, you're kind of getting around, I don't know if this is firm gas, if you have

[23:09] a firm contract for delivery of gas, I'm just really curious in like how they're working

[23:14] together, and since this is the opportunity for me to ask this question that's why I'm doing it now.

[23:20] Yeah, thanks for the question, Commissioner Sullivan. I'll do my best to kind of explain the

[23:27] firming up so that there is a benefit to adding additional generation out of an existing interconnection

[23:34] for reliability purposes in our case for economic purposes. The one thing that we're

[23:40] and do you clear like you can kind of firm them both up like the gas probably has like a 91% accreditation

[23:47] and the solar probably is accredited at some number in the 30s or something and you could kind of

[23:52] give them both they can both get a bump up almost like when you do solar plus storage.

[23:58] That's the way I was thinking about it.

[24:00] Yeah, I think maybe one way to look at it is you have a point of interconnection accreditation

[24:05] And you are bringing two units to the equation that can maximize the amount of accreditation out of that single point of interconnection, right?

[24:14] So instead of saying the gas is getting slightly more or the solar is getting slightly more because it's adjacent.

[24:21] It's more of thinking of it as we have a 50 megawatt interconnection and there will be benefits now, you know, to a slight degree of an increase.

[24:30] And again, as I mentioned, there's a lot of changes that mice are right now, but there will be a slight increase potentially due to the added reliability of the solid farm there.

[24:42] It's interesting. Thanks.

[24:44] Any other questions or discussion? Commissioner Partridge, you have a motion. I do.

[24:51] I would move number one.

[24:55] This is an option number three, this is an option four.

[25:00] A, and B, decision option 6, A, B, C, D, E, and F, and decision option 8 as modified.

[25:13] Great. Is there any discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all in favor of Commissioner and Partridge's motion, please say aye, aye, aye, aye.

[25:25] Opposed, the motion prevails 5 to 0.

[25:27] Thank you very much.

[25:29] Thank you, Michelle.

[25:30] All the parties.

[25:58] Mr. Act, please introduce item number two.

[26:04] Good morning, Chair Sivan, commissioners.

[26:06] Item number two is Dr.

[26:08] Number IP-7145-ws-24-349 in the matter of Wisconsin power and light companies.

[26:19] site permit application for a large wind energy conversion system of up to 153 megawatts in Freeborn County, Minnesota.

[26:29] The questions before the commission are, or the question before the commission is, should the commission issue a draft site permit for the BENT 3 North Wind Farm in Freeborn County, Minnesota and staff is available for questions.

[26:44] Okay, great, do we have, we don't have opening comments, correct?

[26:52] No, but he contacted me that day.

[26:55] I believe the applicants are here.

[26:59] If the applicants will come forward for commission questions and if

[27:17] anyone else, if the department or anybody else has, I don't think they do.

[27:21] if good morning please state your name for the record. Good morning chair Stephen

[27:28] commissioner's salary hearing from the taff law firm, occurring on behalf of

[27:31] Wisconsin to light.

[27:34] Good morning Marcus Gulante, Wisconsin power light. Great.

[27:40] Do commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time?

[27:50] I can I could

[27:55] believe our first proposed wind project under our new process, and so that's kind of an exciting milestone,

[28:05] so can put that on a plaque.

[28:09] And this will kick off the next set of discussions and

[28:14] public engagement, and so this is really in my mind just us seeing go forth and do great work with

[28:23] public to gather input and feedback and then we will be back to look at all of that and in the

[28:31] conclusion and outcomes there. So I don't have any questions for you, but this is very exciting.

[28:38] We like to see new in-projects and it's great that you are moving forward under this new process

[28:43] passed by the legislature in 2024?

[28:49] Great, and as thank you, Commissioner Purchase for pointing that out and the general message

[28:55] is that our staff is working really hard to with applicants to ensure that they can process.

[29:05] These documents as quickly as possible will still allowing for robust input from the public,

[29:11] And it's really helpful to have the applicant already have done a lot of that.

[29:18] Prep work with, for example, the Albert Lee economic development agency.

[29:23] We already have their comments in and other participants in this record.

[29:29] So thank you, Ms. Herring, on behalf of your applicant for doing a lot of that pre-work.

[29:35] That will help ensure that the public is informed and the commission can ultimately make a good decision

[29:40] here in the coming months.

[29:45] Any other comments from commissioners?

[29:48] Commissioner Partridge, do you have a motion?

[29:50] I do.

[29:51] I move decision option one in decision option two.

[29:57] Is there any discussion of commissioner and partridge?

[30:00] Motion. Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails five to zero. Thank you very much.

[30:14] Okay. The next item, if parties want to come forward, is item number three.

[30:24] Take a second to allow staff to come up, and I know we have people online for this one too.

[31:16] Good morning, Chair Steven and Ken commissioners.

[31:19] Item number three is for docket number E-T-2 slash T-L-24-132 in the matter of the application

[31:27] of Great River Energy for a route permit application for the Lake Town 115 KV transmission line

[31:33] in Carver County, Minnesota.

[31:35] The questions before the commission are, should the commission adopt the ALJ's findings

[31:39] of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations?

[31:42] Should the Commission find that the environmental assessment is adequate, and should the Commission grant a route permit for the proposed transmission line project?

[31:52] Environmental review staff with the PUC EAP unit filed comments on the briefing papers on August 26,

[32:11] 2025.

[32:11] and PUC EIP staff have created a handout showing the root comparison table from the environmental

[32:16] assessment as a visual aid for participants in today's meetings.

[32:21] Copies of each of those handouts are available at the back of the room on the table, and I

[32:26] have a few copies up front here if anybody needs one.

[32:29] Staff also notes one correction to the briefing papers.

[32:32] In the final recommended decision options from staff, it says staff supports decision options

[32:37] for in 11.

[32:37] There is no decision option at 11, staff meant to say we support decision options for in 10.

[32:44] I have no further remarks, but I'm available for questions.

[32:47] Thank you.

[32:48] Mr. Lobby and Mr. Hicks.

[32:51] Thank you so much for your work on this item to get us to this point.

[32:56] We really appreciate it.

[32:58] I'm going to turn it over to you to begin to step through the DACA here.

[33:04] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[33:05] And Sam did they get the commissioners get that copy of that breakdown of the factors.

[33:13] I don't remember if they got handed out to them.

[33:19] And man, I'm sure I appreciate it.

[33:21] I'm going to spend a little time because there has been a lot of moving parts here.

[33:24] I do want to make sure the city of Victoria, Mr. Hayden.

[33:27] Thank you for coming.

[33:30] And also I think this will go online.

[33:32] so I think to start off with, I want to make sure they are connected and just could introduce

[33:39] themselves so I don't know if Mayor Johnson, if you could introduce yourself so that we

[33:45] know you are connected. Sometimes our our systems don't always work that great so I want

[33:50] to make sure you're out there in the ether world. Yes sir commissioner I am on and I can hear

[33:56] you hopefully you guys can do the same with me. Ms Vogel I assume that is you too. Sorry commissioner

[34:01] to Mayor, can you please state your name for the record, too?

[34:06] Absolutely. My apologies. My name is Courtney Johnson. I'm the mayor of the city of

[34:09] cover. Thank you.

[34:11] Madam Chair, and also, I'm assuming that's you, Ms. Vogel, that I see a camera on, so I just

[34:16] want to make sure you can introduce yourself for the record and you can hear us.

[34:21] Yes, thank you. My name is Trudy Vogel. I have some Steve as here as well. And I'm just

[34:29] concern citizen. Yes, and thank you. We've we've we've we have the record night I want to start off though

[34:36] Venture sorry I don't mean to interrupt but and we don't the commissioners can't control the screen

[34:42] but there was a someone who put in the chat that they couldn't connect their video but they wanted to comment

[34:50] or introduce themselves

[34:53] Um, yeah, I'm here now,

[34:58] uh, my name is Brent Merrick.

[35:02] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I'm not related to the Marick's down by New Preg, are you?

[35:09] No, I

[35:15] heard you. And Ms. Johnson, I know you're a Packers fan. I'll forgive that for you, but I think it'll actually help you with

[35:24] Mr. Sullivan so so that you're you're in good you're in good hands

[35:30] I start with you Mayor Johnson has been a lot of moving parts and I remember the first time I came in from this commission in

[35:38] 1990 as a freshman legislator and I was thinking what the heck is this place and what's going on here

[35:44] And so it can be a little confusing so I want to make sure

[35:48] We are tracking and it is very important to us at the commission to work with early on local units of government

[35:54] Okay, we have preemptive power over your sighting and routing and that's our authority.

[36:00] We have to do that, the legislature recognized that these are important, but that doesn't mean we ignore you or we want to ignore you or try to ignore you.

[36:08] You are very important to us and a lot of our sighting and routing documents, particularly with large wind farms and solar farms.

[36:16] The counties are even named in our permits and our participants and a lot of our processes and so we don't want you to feel that you're being left out

[36:23] And I just want to make sure you kind of understand where things are at today, okay?

[36:29] And I'm sure you saw my decision option that comes through.

[36:33] I want you to be aware that's just my decision option.

[36:37] This is John Tuma, one of the five commissioners who has an idea or path forward.

[36:43] My friends here to the left of me can make an alternative to it.

[36:48] They can suggest it.

[36:49] They're essentially seeing it the same time.

[36:52] everybody else is seeing it. We do not pre-consult these things. Nothing has been pre-worked out.

[36:59] Obviously, I work with my legal staff and Mr. Lobby to help develop it, but we are subject to

[37:06] the same laws that you, county councilists, open meeting laws. And so I can't go and sit down

[37:13] with, you know, Commissioner Partridge and say, here's what I'm thinking and should I put this in

[37:17] should I not, and then also what makes us unusual is we're also subject to

[37:22] exparte limitations, we're like judges. So you can't call a judge up and say

[37:27] judge, when we get together in the hearing tomorrow I want you to do this. We

[37:31] know that's not acceptable. I would love to give you a phone call and say here's

[37:36] what I'm thinking. I'm so sorry how you were treated. I can't do that. So this is

[37:41] my first chance to be able to talk to you and let you know what I'm thinking

[37:45] and why I'm bringing this forward but it's not nothing pre-decided and nothing that I've talked

[37:53] to anybody, I haven't talked to the applicant, I haven't talked to anybody, he's just

[37:55] what I see in the record and I wanted you to be able to at least understand what I was thinking

[38:01] so that you can comment on it, okay? I'll give you first my kind of worldview big picture and

[38:09] then I'll walk through the decision options because I don't want you to be guessing what I'm

[38:14] going okay what I saw when I saw the record and read through it carefully drove through your beautiful

[38:20] city don't tell the mayor of Victoria but if I were to choose to city's to live in I would

[38:24] pick yours okay I loved it downtown it was wonderful I was cute I never bent it downtown

[38:30] carver so it was it was a new thing for me so it was great at a nice cup of coffee and a sandwich

[38:35] there wonderful thing but I have to you know I have to you know I have to make decisions and so as

[38:40] I looked at the decisions, the tough decision I had to made where we're at.

[38:44] I felt that notice was still appropriate to you.

[38:47] I know you feel mistreated because they went and talked to Carver first, okay?

[38:52] I mean, Victoria first, but didn't come to you because you had an ordinary annexation agreement.

[39:01] Okay?

[39:01] And I actually know them.

[39:02] Well, I from Bridgewater Township, Bridgewater Township three decades ago was the first

[39:06] with the City of Northfield to develop an orderly annexation agreement.

[39:11] So I'm very familiar with them, understand how they work and how important they are

[39:14] to future city development. So that was an important thing that was missed by the applicant.

[39:20] So just because they met the minimum standard of notice according to our statutes,

[39:26] I still think there was a failure and you'll see where I think I'm trying to redeem that

[39:30] as we go forward in the decision options.

[39:32] but my world view was legally, they met the notice requirements for the city of Carver.

[39:38] You've had an opportunity to participate and now I have to make a decision that's in front of

[39:43] me and I'm trying to figure out how to best move forward. So that's kind of my world view as I

[39:48] look at it and then also I think is important to understand what I looked at the judges' recommendations,

[39:53] okay? Essentially she's giving me a two-part decision, okay?

[39:58] I'll turn the B.

[40:00] Or the proposed route, and she's kind of eliminated C, okay? And I agree with her. Now, that's a difficult decision. When I first looked at this doc, and I thought C was going to be it. It seemed like the logical way to go, but I also, because I believe it's important for us to work with our applicants to work with local students of government. I don't want to undo what I think was a well reason decision, why not to go on the north side of that 230-kv record set line.

[40:30] that was built there. You can't move to the south of it because we would have to take out at least one

[40:35] house if not two to do that and it's costly to cross over those lines and so I didn't see

[40:41] see getting any better. So I'll turn it to see just seem to me that we're kind of left with two

[40:47] decisions and so that's kind of the the world view I'm working from. I also have some thoughts on

[40:53] alternative to be to make it better. So that's where I'm thinking so just walking through the decision

[40:58] options that I had to modify one, okay? Just so you know what it's saying is legally, I think

[41:07] the ALJ was wrong, we legally have met the notice requirements, okay? What's hidden in that

[41:13] is that I'm essentially not changing any other part of her recommendations and that hidden

[41:20] in with that is that the fact that C is no longer essentially on the table in front of

[41:24] today. The proposed route is because one of the reasons she objected to the

[41:29] proposed route was a lack of notice, okay? I'm moving away from that and saying I have

[41:34] now sitting in front of me a bifurcated decision either alternative to be or the

[41:40] proposed route. You can certainly disagree with me. My friends over here might

[41:44] still want to consider doing having see in some future process if we go down that

[41:49] road. But there's not guarantee that we do, but I just don't think it's going to

[41:53] benefit me to see in the mix. I also want to point out that if we do go forward with future

[42:01] process, I think applicant should be working with the city and the landowners to maybe find

[42:09] a different route and the township. Maybe there's a different route there. I can see it. I'm just

[42:14] working towards what is in the record. Two decision options that I got to pick from the proposed

[42:19] out alternative to be, that doesn't, that doesn't take away your ability to continue to work with

[42:25] the applicant to find a better path forward. I don't know if there is one, I can't see it,

[42:29] and I do look at these very closely, but that's why we have wise landowners who understand

[42:35] their own land better than we do, okay? Tuma modified five, okay? You can, but yeah.

[42:49] I just want

[42:49] I just want to make sure she knows what I'm talking about.

[42:52] And in part of that process, Mayor Johnson,

[42:55] is my friends will start to try to think

[42:57] through what I'm thinking about.

[42:59] So he's thinking through it right now.

[43:01] And so we're trying to process it as we go.

[43:04] But number five, OK, the record is to me lack it.

[43:11] I'm in a difficult position because we

[43:14] handed out this thing on factors here.

[43:17] And when you look at the factors we are subject to under statute, we must consider there's several factors that we must put into place following existing infrastructure is an important one.

[43:28] And so not following C, I have to explain why didn't I follow that existing 230 KV line and I'm happy with what the judge said on that.

[43:37] But when you look at the two alternatives, it's B, which is better for land use and zoning, better for agriculture, better for vegetation.

[43:45] So B is better for following a paralleling existing right-of-ways and it can even be better yet.

[43:53] And using existing infrastructure, the one where the proposed route is better is the reliability question.

[44:02] And the question about how much that costs.

[44:05] And I have to balance those.

[44:08] not any one of them is determinative, but when you're talking about a possible 30% increase in

[44:13] the cost of this project for ratepayers to make it as reliable, that's a concern for me.

[44:20] And so I'm saying, I need more information in the EA, and I'm sure after you've done EA's

[44:26] before and why they're so important, that's a critical piece of evidence in the record for you

[44:31] as a citizen or as the leader of your community to be able to look at to assess and communicate

[44:37] to me what is going on on this landscape. And so if the EA is incomplete, and it doesn't

[44:42] have that information in it, then it's really, I'm starting to get into the arbitrary and

[44:47] deprecious end of things, okay? And I don't want to get there. I want to make sure we make a decision

[44:53] that's solid and so I'm saying I need more information in that EA on how likely it is.

[45:00] This is this reliability concern. And what is its real cost? I don't know if I have that. And just so you know then, leads into two things that are a little bit pushing it to maneuver, okay? To maneuver is basically saying, I don't have enough information.

[45:19] You as a city could hire an expert to look at this data on reliability, okay?

[45:27] And give us evidence in the record, but that's really unfair.

[45:30] I need to know this information.

[45:33] And so what I'm asking in Tomb of B is to hire an independent expert in this area.

[45:40] And I'll go into a little bit more detail with the applicant of why I'm thinking that.

[45:44] But that is pushing it a little bit.

[45:46] This is a short line, okay?

[45:48] It is a pinch point that we're dealing with here that is clearly a concern for your community

[45:53] for several hand owners, and this reliability question of how important that reliability

[45:59] question is, really balances against the alternative B, which looks like a better route

[46:04] on all the other factors.

[46:06] And so I'm asking for a minute, but I want you to know, I am pushing them, although we do

[46:10] higher experts in these situations to do this, but this would be the first time in truly

[46:15] that has ever been done in this short of a line, and in this situation, but I'm feeling

[46:21] need for it and so that's what Tuma New B says, okay, and then find our new, and then also the

[46:29] new B, sorry, the next Tuma 5A, there's 5B, I'm asking it to be remanded to the ALJ, this is also

[46:37] new. The legislature passed the law about a year and a half ago that now allows us to remand a

[46:45] question and we have to be very specific, that's why it's a little bit lengthy, we have to be very

[46:49] specific of what we're amending back to the ALJ and then the administrative

[46:53] law judge, the chief administrative law judge can accept the remand or he can

[46:58] reject it. It's up to him. And then that doesn't end the process. What would happen

[47:03] then is we would have to do some sort of process here at the Commission. Typically

[47:07] what we call notice and comment where we send out notice to all the landowners

[47:12] and affected cities. Here's the record as it stands now. Here's the new EA. Hopefully

[47:17] maybe a new experts opinion on this. Please write us back comments. Now, that puts a lot of

[47:24] owners on our staff to do a lot of extra work because ALJs as a true as you experience,

[47:29] they're good at bringing people together and developing a record. And so what I'm doing in 5B,

[47:35] which by asking it to be remanded to the ALJ, is new. We've never done it before, but it is allowed

[47:41] by statute. And I'm trying to be very clear on what I want to get back from the ALJ. I don't want

[47:46] whole new record, I just want information on this question about reliability and costs and I also

[47:52] want to forward the landowners on alternative B that the route should actually the alignment

[47:57] should actually be on the north side of Augusta Avenue. That's the logical place using our

[48:03] factors where it should have been placed in the first place and the applicant should have helped

[48:08] the items and the vocals and other folks recognize that but they didn't. That's where I'm at

[48:15] I want you to, you're free to give your comments now. If you want, you can certainly wait

[48:19] to later after you hear more comments. You certainly, if you need some time to consult with your staff,

[48:25] you can do that, and we'll take a break. I just want you to make sure you understood this.

[48:29] I don't know if you have any questions about what I'm proposing or what position we're in at this stage.

[48:36] Mayor Johnson, that was a lot, but please feel free to provide comments now.

[48:44] Commissioner,

[48:46] Chair, Commissioner Tuma. Thank you so much. You're right. That was a lot.

[48:51] But I really, really, really appreciate you kind of walking me through step by step.

[48:55] I needed that. I can tell you all about our processes in the city of Carver, but this board is new and foreign to me.

[49:02] Perhaps those demonstrated I don't know how to adjust you correctly.

[49:05] So, I appreciate you walking us through that.

[49:10] You have seen my testimony.

[49:13] The city of Carver has some really strong concerns,

[49:18] because of the lack of notice that we received,

[49:21] which I think has identified in the administrative

[49:23] law judges' findings.

[49:26] With that, I think the direction that you are all going towards

[49:34] or revised option B is something that the city is very much behind.

[49:40] We discuss this at our city council meeting on Tuesday night,

[49:44] and route alternative B seems to really accomplish everything that we're looking to get done.

[49:53] In keeping it out of the city of Carver's future growth area,

[49:57] It doesn't put us.

[50:00] At odds with our neighboring communities with which we have a fantastic relationship with, but I get that portion

[50:08] pull and that tug that you are all in. So I think that's where my head is at. I'm so appreciative

[50:16] of the opportunity today and we support option B.

[50:21] Thank you Madam Chair, Mr. Hayden.

[50:25] My first statement to you right off the get go and my just

[50:28] must surprise my friends here today. I am so sorry. And I mean that from the bottom

[50:35] of my heart. I have been on the land. Okay. I'm no public speaker. And can you

[50:47] state your names? Thank you. Thank you. It's on. It's green. That's good.

[50:56] I'm not a public speaker. I don't want to be here. I shouldn't be here. Great river energy told me farmers like to come and public speak. I don't think so. I'd rather be home right now.

[51:12] And I know not politically correct. So if I say something you guys are going to have to tell me and I'll apologize immediately.

[51:22] I'm beyond hot, they've lied to me, especially that man sitting right there.

[51:28] City of Carver got notified because we went down there and told them.

[51:32] And he told me, we notified the City of Carver.

[51:35] The City Administrator at that main meeting says, they never notified him.

[51:38] And I want to tell you right off the get-go, Mr. Hayden.

[51:41] I've read the record, I saw all your comments along these lines.

[51:45] And so I felt like my fellow commissioners.

[51:47] we are I'm I'm I'm I'm honest I am sorry this this is not the process that this commission

[51:52] I don't want you to be sorry I want you to do something we're gonna we're trying to they're trying to

[51:56] all the same thing the very first meeting they had them shoelays

[52:02] ID tags you know they didn't introduce themselves you know right away who are you where do you live on the

[52:09] You know, and they had these, they didn't say who they were, and they had them shoelace, and their name tag is done by their crotch.

[52:18] I shouldn't have made that stay up here as well.

[52:20] Well, what is the proper procedure?

[52:21] Bend over and look at their crotch to find out who they are.

[52:26] You know, Marcie had just a name tag stack, stabbed on there that said Marcie.

[52:32] You know, and then I asked Marcie that meeting, and my voice in my time,

[52:35] Oh, very seldom does anything get changed.

[52:39] You know, she basically told me I'm wasting my time.

[52:42] And the more I ask these guys questions, the more they lie to me.

[52:46] And that's, that is not acceptable. And I see that I know.

[52:48] And I see that in the record. And they're, they're hearing it, okay?

[52:52] They know that I'm not, they know that I'm not happy right now.

[52:55] And I mean, I'm trying to stay focused on going forward.

[52:58] And that's why I want, that's why I want to kind of get you past the anger.

[53:01] So I don't know if it gets worse that whole line B is my option and that's what I want to talk to you about a little bit

[53:08] And so they're very first me and I said why don't you just come down Kelly Avenue will go straight?

[53:12] It's a straight you know with a farmer like a fence. What are you doing zigzagging crossing all over the place?

[53:18] So let's talk this talk about that because I want I want I'm I'm trying to find a process forward and as you always explain to the mayor

[53:25] This is my idea. I'm trying to get to

[53:28] Where it works

[53:29] And I told you my world view right now is I'm struggling with, I'll turn it to be on the reliability standpoint so I need more information.

[53:37] But also I struggle with it and this was your route that's you suggested and I'm suggesting a change to that route.

[53:43] Okay, now I know the landowners down there, there's a Greg and a Troy.

[53:48] I'm assuming some relationship to you.

[53:52] Yeah.

[53:52] Same last name, distant.

[53:54] So what I see on the land, okay, just what I saw and what I see from the record.

[53:59] in the maps okay and then you can help me out because I'm sure you've driven down a gust

[54:03] to road a few times in your day. Yes. What I'm seeing is the way the alignment is now in

[54:08] alignment, do matter, even though we give an alignment and then several feet on each side

[54:13] of that alignment to give the applicant a chance to adjust. I'm sitting at that corner of Jersey

[54:20] and Augusta and if I were to go west in the alternative it's one landowner on the south,

[54:26] the lingo trust okay it's not it's not homestead but you can tell me they put a lot of

[54:31] they put a lot into that property it's it is it is it's a guy from Minneapolis

[54:36] it's not there and whether it's from in the house I mean he there's a lot there it's fixed up yeah

[54:42] and then on the north side there's the existing distribution line and typically our factors say

[54:48] follow the existing distribution line it makes sense right now it would impact Greg a little bit more

[54:53] Okay, but it makes more sense and so I need Greg to know in the future when we give out

[55:00] Notice that we might be putting it on his side of the road as opposed to wiping out all the trees in front of the ligngrins property.

[55:08] And so that's to me makes more sense. And if you're alternative, I didn't know if there was a specific reason you added it on the south side of the road.

[55:17] Or not.

[55:17] It didn't matter. I mean, I don't, again, I'm not a professional, lines, I don't know how to do this.

[55:22] That's helpful because I, you know, they're telling me what can't be looked. What the hell is looping?

[55:27] I don't know, you know, and they come up with all these excuses, well, if we come up Kelli

[55:32] Avenue, then we can only put two transformers there rather than four and we're going to get to the bottom of that

[55:37] That's what I would like to get to the bottom of when we do some more record development. So I understand why it's a reliability concern

[55:44] But I wanted to make sure by adjusting by adjusting alignment. I wasn't doing anything to offend you.

[55:54] No, no, no

[55:56] And they put me in a terrible spot. I have chased on their lies and find out they're lying to me.

[56:02] They have. And again, I cannot, I cannot tell you how bad I feel.

[56:06] Okay, I mean, but they actually think they're going to pull this off yet.

[56:10] Well, this whole thing, well, we did what was legal.

[56:13] I mean, legally, morally, they should have called Carver.

[56:17] If it's legal or not, it's morally, they shut off.

[56:20] And we need, and we need to work through that. Now we have a decision decision decision decision.

[56:24] He's still going to make a decision, and I think the best alternative before us is your

[56:28] suggestion, alternative B.

[56:29] I withdraw that.

[56:31] Alternative B.

[56:32] Yes.

[56:32] I'm withdrawing it.

[56:33] Well, why would you want to withdraw alternative B?

[56:36] Because they didn't look at going up to an upper.

[56:40] And all the lines that are possible through the city of Victoria, they didn't look at.

[56:44] And I know we're out of time.

[56:45] And again, I don't know how to do this.

[56:47] I'm terrible and comfortable and not in front of all these suits here.

[56:51] I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,

[56:54] I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,

[56:54] and everything else. I got I got I got a farm to run. I'm not watching timelines. And again,

[57:01] and that's what pissed me off when they said, well, you find a better route than. Well, you,

[57:06] you did. I did. And that's, that's, they should be embarrassed. And I'm not going to withdraw.

[57:11] And I want to withdraw. No, the record is what the record is. I have to work out the record. I

[57:16] blew it. And I don't know what I'm doing. I know. Well, you know, you did actually do a pretty good job.

[57:19] Okay, I'm just trying to get to where we're going to go forward and I at least from you you have no objection if I say alternative to be should be on the north side of the road.

[57:30] Miss Vogel.

[57:32] Yeah.

[57:34] You've heard our conversations.

[57:36] And I I want you to understand.

[57:38] I understand according to the record that you were part of the at least your name was attached to alternative be.

[57:44] And I assume you're still support going down

[57:48] alternative to be like the city has recommended.

[57:51] Is that your position?

[57:55] Well, yeah, it makes the ball sense to me to put the line

[58:00] on an existing road instead of tearing through somebody's farmland.

[58:08] There was never a mention of it going down

[58:11] in a grab and it would put that could be a good alternative as well.

[58:15] you know following the votes instead of breaking up farmland.

[58:20] Right now I have two alternatives and I have no problem if the applicant can work something

[58:25] out with you, the city, and doesn't pretty much right and probably not, but there's always

[58:33] an alternative.

[58:33] But I have two in the record that I have to work from.

[58:36] And I think they're doable routes.

[58:38] I have a big concern about reliability, but one of the reasons I suggested moving the alternative

[58:45] B to the north side, the alignment, okay, when I look at impacts on residential properties, okay,

[58:52] and pinch points like this, okay, and I have two options, I look which option has the

[58:58] residents that's the worst impact, okay, or the the developed property that's the worst impact,

[59:04] okay, and so as I look at this record now and what I see, okay, if the route runs on the north side

[59:11] of Augusta Avenue as I think is the appropriate way to do, okay? It takes a whole lot of

[59:18] pressure off of that lingering property because if we were to go on the south side of the road,

[59:24] we would have to basically tear up their whole front yard and put a line within some 50 to 70 feet

[59:29] of their residents. If we follow the existing distribution line, we impact Mr. Greg Vogel a little

[59:36] more, or Greg Iden a little bit more, but it reduces the impact I think overall. And so as I

[59:46] sit here right now, the route that has the most impacted residents on it is alternative to

[59:52] be because of the lingoence. Now if I flip that around, the sad news is if we move it to the

[59:59] impact.

[1:00:00] Residents of all the residents of all the round options that are in front of me now would be your property, the

[1:00:06] Vogel property. I've seen it. I see what you're saying. You're above your above ground. You're looking right across into that field. I see what you're saying.

[1:00:14] And so you would be the most impacted and it's still maybe a decision we have to make down the road. But all of a sudden now if I can move that alternative B to the to the north side of the road, okay, it weighs in the favor of doing alternative B. And so I just want to make sure

[1:00:29] since your name was connected to it,

[1:00:31] and you would be the most impacted property

[1:00:33] on the proposed route and the all the routes.

[1:00:36] If you had any objection,

[1:00:38] if there were some reason why you had alternative

[1:00:40] to be running on the self-site of the road.

[1:00:44] Well, if you were to move alternative,

[1:00:47] you know, the route, and I'm a little unclear,

[1:00:50] I'm sorry, I don't have any handouts here,

[1:00:53] but when you're saying all route is the one

[1:00:58] That one's right and property you're saying, correct?

[1:01:02] Let me be a little clear, alternative B and the proposed route are the only two routes that we're looking at, at least I think we should look at right now.

[1:01:10] My friends haven't said anything yet, okay?

[1:01:13] All the record gives us is those two routes to pick from, okay?

[1:01:17] The concern I have with is the way that alternative B is drawn in the record, right now the one that goes down a gust of avenue and then down Kelly, okay?

[1:01:27] the alignment, which makes a big difference on how we value the impacts in the factors.

[1:01:34] That alignment sits on the south side of the road and it plows right through the front yard of the lingoence.

[1:01:41] And my concern is that it should have been on the north side of the road.

[1:01:47] It would have less impact and I think would way better for alternative B in the long run when we look at the factors if it's on the north side of Augusta Avenue.

[1:01:57] Are we tracking?

[1:01:59] Well, my question to you, then,

[1:02:02] to mention, is that if it was alternative B, then would go

[1:02:07] Kelly Avenue to the North, and then East on Augusta Road to...

[1:02:13] On the North side of the North.

[1:02:15] To Jersey. Is that correct?

[1:02:17] That's correct.

[1:02:19] Then it would not impact us.

[1:02:21] It would not.

[1:02:23] But the way it's drawn up right now in the maps,

[1:02:27] I'm not liking it.

[1:02:29] I actually like the preferred route better because of the impact it has on the

[1:02:33] lingering property.

[1:02:34] That would be the most impacted property, all the properties because we had a tear

[1:02:38] up their whole front yard to put the line in.

[1:02:41] So my suggestion is and what makes more sense to me is that alternative be should be

[1:02:46] aligned on the north side of the road for as it goes west on from Jersey Avenue, right there

[1:02:55] or your crosses between the lingoent cross-property and Mr. Greg Iden.

[1:03:02] Yes.

[1:03:03] We would be in.

[1:03:06] That's, that's, I just wanted to understand that to me, then it weighs more favorably

[1:03:10] from a residential impact to do alternative B. Okay?

[1:03:17] If it's aligned on the north side and you're flying with that, okay?

[1:03:22] And I have going to question.

[1:03:23] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:03:24] I want you to understand what's going on, so.

[1:03:26] Okay, so if it does end up, and if they do end up pushing it through the item arm, and it would then come towards us to the North, would it then be on the North side of the road as well?

[1:03:42] I understand from that the alignment they provided it was is supposed to be on the

[1:03:46] south side of the road when it goes on the proposed route. So it would not go

[1:03:53] through your front yard. That's that is the way the alignment is right now.

[1:03:58] Right,

[1:04:01] but we're to go on the north side. It would be in right in front of our

[1:04:04] So, that's not the way, yep, yep, you're correct.

[1:04:09] Okay,

[1:04:12] yeah.

[1:04:14] The aesthetics of that would be horrible, like I said before, the impact and environmental

[1:04:19] impact would be terrible with all of the wildlife that is in that area now, and you need

[1:04:27] destroying all those sentry old hardwoods that are right by the railroad tracks there and

[1:04:35] going through a big slew which doesn't seem to be the only advantage I can see to that

[1:04:44] is that they are saving money because they are just they're taking the cheaper routes by

[1:04:50] buying farmland versus. And we don't know that for yet and we'll talk about that in a little

[1:04:56] good, but yes, for the prop, propose rough.

[1:05:00] What would be on the south side of Augusta Avenue? As proposed by the applicant, and so it would not go

[1:05:07] through your front yard, it would go in front of your front yard, across the road, but not in your

[1:05:13] front yard. And then my suggestion is alternative B actually travel going away from your property,

[1:05:22] going west along the north side of Augusta Avenue so that we don't tear up the front yard of

[1:05:29] lingering property.

[1:05:42] Yes, I guess if that's my alternative B would be what we would be in favor of.

[1:05:51] However, I like Tim's idea of going up or looking at least what Juniper Avenue would be. Has anybody looked into that?

[1:06:02] You know, we have not have that on the record is a decision that isn't front of us today.

[1:06:09] We have two viable decisions that are very close and so if that's an alternative,

[1:06:15] that can be worked out down the road, I have no problem them coming back asking for an adjustment.

[1:06:20] But I'm not planning towards that.

[1:06:22] We have to make a decision going forward at some point here and we got two viable alternatives.

[1:06:29] But the lack of information, Mr. Hayden, you had something you wanted.

[1:06:32] The most impacted houses are in hamshire, rolled with you.

[1:06:37] Not lung runs, that's not, the houses on hamshire are closer to the road than the lung runs.

[1:06:47] It's fine, it's fine.

[1:06:49] But that's why you see, and there's nothing, but there is.

[1:06:54] The blind is on the other side of the road.

[1:06:57] Okay, if it's in the longer ends of it's going through the front yard, I'm not, I'll be sure

[1:07:02] it cuts to his woods on the west side.

[1:07:04] Just the west side of his woods, yes.

[1:07:05] And that's right next to his house.

[1:07:08] So, we can, we can disagree on an analysis.

[1:07:13] I, I, I, I, I, I just see as I look at it, uh, at longer and

[1:07:16] property, if you would put it on the south side of the road, would tear up their front yard.

[1:07:19] And that was never meant to be there.

[1:07:21] And that, and that's what I, that's what I, that's what I, that's what I, that's what I, that's what I just,

[1:07:22] and I just wanted to confirm that's what we're dealing with and to me.

[1:07:26] and they told me that day they can't put it on the north side of the road because it would impact

[1:07:30] break items host. Well I know that's that's what I want to I want to get facts about that and

[1:07:36] that's what I'm lacking right now. So one way one of the policies impact a little bit the other way

[1:07:41] the other policies impact it and that's that's the factors that's a tough decision I'm going to make

[1:07:46] yeah. Madam chair I would like to go to the applicant but I know I've raised a lot of questions

[1:07:54] And then we need to take a break, at least a short break.

[1:08:01] Ms. Waller-Pitz, please introduce yourself and your other witness.

[1:08:06] And then you're welcome to provide whatever context you'd like right now.

[1:08:15] Thank you, Chair Haley Waller-Pitz with Fredericks and Embyron on behalf of the applicants.

[1:08:20] here and with me is Mike Swenson with Great River Energy.

[1:08:26] We've put a lot of analysis in filings including the filing that was made earlier this week.

[1:08:33] I just want to reiterate understanding the comments that have been made today.

[1:08:39] The applicants here really did make a good faith effort to engage with the public and try to find a workable route for the project.

[1:08:48] We understand this is a tight area.

[1:08:50] It's a transitional area.

[1:08:53] The application proposes a route that the applicants thought was the best route.

[1:08:59] We understand there's a difference of opinion on that.

[1:09:03] And as I think is laid out in the comments that we filed earlier this week.

[1:09:10] The applicants, you know, continue to support the proposed route.

[1:09:13] but understand that that route alternative be is permittable.

[1:09:17] And at this point, given that this is a project

[1:09:20] that's needed to serve local load, what's important

[1:09:24] to the applicants today is that we would like to get a decision

[1:09:28] from the commission, whether that's the proposed route

[1:09:31] or route alternative be.

[1:09:32] We're problem is well, it fits.

[1:09:34] OK, I read the record.

[1:09:36] I got to the record.

[1:09:37] I got to the point where I'm reading the LJ report,

[1:09:40] which is I typically do when I dive into this level.

[1:09:42] I've already looked at it prior, kind of didn't Christian routes.

[1:09:45] I assumed I'll turn it to see what was going to be where we were going to go, but I get

[1:09:49] why you did, and you did the right thing, you went and talked to the city of Victoria,

[1:09:52] and you worked out an understanding of what was going to go on, so I don't want to disrupt that.

[1:09:56] And so I don't see sea as a viable route this way because of actual development.

[1:10:00] I'm going on. We don't want that quick trip. We don't want to affect the other places that they've actually started

[1:10:05] plating and laying things out. So I get that. And I support the ALJ decision on that. And so I'm reading through and I go, okay.

[1:10:12] I'll turn it to be. I'm told that by you, this reliability concern, okay. And the judge cited in there, eight to ten million dollars, cited five million dollars, okay.

[1:10:24] extra cost for alternative B. And I did the math, okay, and the math is, okay, alternative B, the actual construction, the best I can tell, is cheaper, then the proposed route, and she just did her math and made an estimate.

[1:10:41] If you do the math from the record using eight million dollars, it comes out to 5.6.

[1:10:45] She apparently rounded down, so I don't feel a need to change that in the record, okay?

[1:10:49] But when I went to the citation, it cites to something you filed on May 13th, okay?

[1:10:58] I made 13th, you had comments about the EA.

[1:11:02] So none of this information is in the EA, even though Mr. Hicks did the right thing and

[1:11:07] asked you to explain this reliability concern.

[1:11:10] And you sent him a whole bunch of information about, you know, why it needs to be this and

[1:11:15] another thing, another place has been never talked about the likelihood, or the costs, okay?

[1:11:24] All that you mentioned in this, your filing, your comments,

[1:11:33] not your clients' comments,

[1:11:34] your comments, that it was $8 to $10 million.

[1:11:38] Subject to the fact that we don't know how much we're going to need maybe 20 acres of greenfield, okay?

[1:11:44] And I'm thinking, okay, that's a concern.

[1:11:48] $8 million or $5.6 million is I did the math from the ALJ.

[1:11:53] That's at over a 30% increase to the cost of this project on to rate players.

[1:11:57] And I'm getting a less reliable system.

[1:11:59] And then you said, well, if we need it, well, okay,

[1:12:03] that's what your comment said.

[1:12:05] What does she cite to say this?

[1:12:07] And I tracked down the sites and it goes nowhere.

[1:12:10] It comes from you.

[1:12:12] Okay, so unless you have some great expertise on this area, I don't know what I can do to rely on this.

[1:12:20] And then I look into the record even further on page 15 of the EA, it says that you're going to build a substation.

[1:12:28] And you're going to build that substation on 8.9 acres, but you're only going to use 1.5 and the equipment only sits on 0.03, a third of an acre.

[1:12:39] Okay, in that substation you are going to put a transformer and two breakers and a whole bunch of other facilities for for almost five million dollars, maybe, okay, and then the transmission assets going in there cost about two million dollars.

[1:12:56] This is in the EA, okay, and then I find out in the EA that a breaker station needs to sit on on an eight by eight concrete pad, okay,

[1:13:07] And now I'm told that do you need to have something between Victoria Station and Augusta Station which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because I'm not an engineer.

[1:13:16] I have no engineering explanation. Why that is other than there is an imbalance that we may have to do at some point in the future.

[1:13:24] That could cost. Why do you need 20 acres? Why couldn't it be an existing Augusta or Victoria substation between those two if that's what you really need? There's no explanation of that.

[1:13:36] Okay, so I have a substation that you can build this distribution station for $4 million.

[1:13:43] I have transmission assets you can put into that substation for $2 million, but all of a sudden now I'm being told in your memo that it's $8 to $10 million and I need to buy 20 acres.

[1:13:54] Oh, happens to be that if I need to 20 acres in this area, it's high demand property.

[1:14:00] It's pretty expensive property, so if I wanted to inflate the value of something, what would I do?

[1:14:04] I would add more acres, I don't need.

[1:14:07] So I'm sitting here now and I try to track it down

[1:14:10] and your late filings just basically repeated the same thing.

[1:14:14] I am left with nothing on the cost.

[1:14:19] So help me out where on Earth to this $8 to $10 million

[1:14:23] because I have a problem.

[1:14:24] If I select alternative B,

[1:14:27] I could be impacting landowners up to $8 million

[1:14:29] or a 30% increase in the cost of this project.

[1:14:34] and giving them maybe a less reliable project or I pick the proposed route, okay?

[1:14:41] I'm looking a little arbitrary and capricious because I really don't know what the actual reliability problem is.

[1:14:48] So did we miss something?

[1:14:49] I asked our staff, find this $8 to $10 million, where is this number coming from?

[1:14:54] Help me out and we can't find anything in the record other than you stating it in one.

[1:15:00] Comment, after the EA.

[1:15:04] Thank

[1:15:07] you, Chair Steven commissioner, commissioner, commissioner, commissioner,

[1:15:11] commissioner, commissioner, commissioner, correct that we provided that information in response to the EA,

[1:15:16] because we thought that that was useful information for the commission to have.

[1:15:22] It was, if I knew where it came from. That's the problem I'm having right now.

[1:15:27] Yep, and that's that's the estimate from from the subject matter experts at the applicants and I think

[1:15:34] No subject matter expert. There is no citation to any subject matter expert

[1:15:40] There's no citation to any breakdown of it. Why it was eight to ten million dollars no citation whatsoever and bringing it at this time

[1:15:49] When it should have been put into the EA when it was asked for by Mr. Hicks is what's causing your problems right now

[1:15:57] Can I ask you a question that is argumentative?

[1:16:05] Is it not what we've been doing?

[1:16:08] As long as it's not about the packers, we don't know.

[1:16:11] They're going to be good.

[1:16:14] That's true statement.

[1:16:19] So, but one of the things that kind of acts as me about the cost thing is they're caught.

[1:16:28] They're not regulated.

[1:16:29] So why is it I mean if they say they can do it they've seems like they have a they've said they can make route B work and there's a cost issue

[1:16:42] But we don't regulate

[1:16:45] They're rate pairs or should we and that's a good point and here's my problem with that is that

[1:16:51] I don't rate regulate them, but the factors specifically say I

[1:16:57] need to consider cost and reliability of the system down the road. So it really is a reliability

[1:17:01] question. I have something along the lines of a reliability concern. I don't know how reliable

[1:17:08] it's going to be because I don't want to have to build some infrastructure on Excel's line

[1:17:13] down the road or some other line because the lack of reliability and so I have to take into account

[1:17:18] the factors specifically says not only the cost of the facility but the cost of operation.

[1:17:23] And so that's where I'm feeling a huge deficit.

[1:17:28] I see with Commissioner Wickwann, he knows better and I do this stuff, so I'll let him.

[1:17:32] He's, he's, and she's a good answer.

[1:17:34] Yeah, thank you, Chair Stephen. I have a question to applicants.

[1:17:38] So in the beginning, when you're waving off EA request from our staff,

[1:17:45] what kind of a nerve reliability requirement did you consider?

[1:17:50] And then what is the potential violation under that?

[1:17:55] Thank you for the question. I am going to bring up some help to answer that question.

[1:18:10] Welcome to the discussion. Please see your name for the record.

[1:18:16] My name is Nick Gotter. I work for Grover Energy, I'm a transmission planning engineer.

[1:18:24] So, your question, Commissioner of NIRC reliability issue, so there was no NIRC reliability issue with any of the proposed routes or route alternatives.

[1:18:39] In this case, there was a slight advantage to our proposed route in terms of the amount of load exposure that we reduced on the transmission circuit.

[1:18:51] So although from a nerf standpoint, all of the routes would be acceptable, local planning criteria that we have and a lot of other transmission owners have sort of look to how much load in terms of megawatts that you serve on a circuit.

[1:19:08] And if you can reduce the amount of megawatts, then it means the impact of an outage on that circuit is going to be less.

[1:19:14] So, the biggest advantage in terms of reliability will be building the new distribution

[1:19:21] succession, because that will provide enhanced reliability to all the end users in the

[1:19:28] Minnesota Valley Electropositive members, but the proposed route allowed us to add that

[1:19:36] Busthy break to split the transmission circuit, and that just was a enhanced reliability

[1:19:41] in terms of, can we, you know, reduce the number of distribution

[1:19:47] endpoints on a circuit by splitting it into and also reduce the amount of megawatt

[1:19:52] loss for an outage.

[1:19:56] Okay, so given what you just said,

[1:20:00] Now, we want to be a no-one with lively violation with alternate route B. At this point, right?

[1:20:08] Okay, good. So, now about an even loading issue with the one contingency.

[1:20:15] Which low the will have that negative impact if you don't build that switch station?

[1:20:23] So I mean, the effect of an outage if we didn't have any sexualisings and Obraco would mean that at any point on that transmission circuit between Westbrookonia and Scott County, which is where the breakers are currently, any fault on that line would trip those breakers and would be an outage of all of the distribution substations.

[1:20:48] By splitting it, I mean it would mean that we'd have to have an in East Outage or a West

[1:20:54] Outage and that would only affect half the number of end users, the Minnesota Department.

[1:21:01] My question is, which companies load will be harmed from it?

[1:21:06] Because we need to know that because if it'll harm Excel energy, load, yes, it's a different issue.

[1:21:13] Yes, all the Excel energy load is on the east side, so the east and circuit, if we

[1:21:22] would just split it at Lake Town, so everything from Lake Town back to the circuit towards

[1:21:28] the locality, that would have the highest impact of an outage because it would lose the

[1:21:34] cell energy loads, as well as half roughly, minus 8 to that.

[1:21:41] So, mean value load will be a harm, potentially,

[1:21:46] under that circumstance, right?

[1:21:50] I mean, it's a second sense of if an outage were to occur.

[1:21:55] So, you know, adding a break, it doesn't reduce the likelihood of an outage.

[1:22:00] It just means the effect will be lessons.

[1:22:02] No, no, that's why I'm trying to say that without that break a station, which Lord will get potential harm, you guys claim when you're waving off that alternate route B.

[1:22:17] Well, without saying to grout B, if we have to add a breaker?

[1:22:24] No, without adding a breaker.

[1:22:26] And then we'd be in the same point as we are today

[1:22:29] in terms of all of the load on that circuit

[1:22:33] is going to be effected by a fault.

[1:22:36] So, are you saying that there will be no incremental harm

[1:22:39] but it will reduce potential benefit

[1:22:43] of building this line?

[1:22:48] So, I mean, the potential increase in harm

[1:22:51] would be more load on the circuit.

[1:22:55] More megawatts.

[1:22:57] Okay.

[1:23:00] Okay, so the reason I'm asking this is, once again, we want to make sure that if this

[1:23:06] alternative route B is selected, Excel energy customers should be incrementally harmed from

[1:23:13] it, but based on your conversation, there will be no incremental harm to the Excel energy

[1:23:19] customer.

[1:23:21] Yeah, I would say Excel energy customers would be in pretty much the same position they are today.

[1:23:25] Okay, so thank you, along the line of a question, I'll discuss a little bit of a cause issue, so under your proposed route, preferred route, what is your current cause allocation agreement between GRE and in Valley, in Valley will own that new substation, and GRE will own and operate that transmission line.

[1:23:52] On the desk circumstances, who's paying what and who is going to pay later to the others?

[1:24:05] Chair Steven Kushner, thank you for the question.

[1:24:08] We have the cost break down in the application and I'll find it here in a second.

[1:24:13] I'm going to need to ask someone from the company about the going forward piece.

[1:24:18] I don't need the exact number.

[1:24:19] I want to compare that with if you go with alternate route B, what will be a potential change in the cost allocation?

[1:24:29] We may need a minute to discuss that if we could.

[1:24:34] Yeah.

[1:24:35] In that case, we'll the Excel energy customer will bear any cost of it.

[1:24:51] Sure, Steven Commissioner.

[1:24:53] I don't think any of us at the table know, but we have folks in the room that I can talk to here in a minute.

[1:25:00] Thank you. We're going to take a break. The Commission will stand and recess for 10 minutes and come back at 11 and 40.

[1:36:34] The commission will come back from its recess and Commissioner Tuma were going to keep moving towards a resolution here.

[1:36:45] So I know there are other people that want to speak to, but can you give us like a sense of what you think where we're headed and kind of like who we need to hear from your estimation to continue to make a decision today on next steps.

[1:37:03] Yeah, I'm going to share, I think we're in a bad position because the EA, which is a document that we rely on, heavily in our decisions,

[1:37:13] and it's no fault of Mr. Hicks by any means. I think your EA was very good. You asked the right question.

[1:37:20] It's up to the applicant to provide the right information for us to make a decision, and when they throw it in a reliability concern that could be a 30% increase

[1:37:28] at the last minute without giving a satisfactory explanation so that we as commissioners can make a decision

[1:37:36] is problematic.

[1:37:38] So I think at this stage, Madam Chair, we cannot make a decision between alternative BS suggested by the ALJ,

[1:37:47] or the proposed route without getting a supplement to the EA.

[1:37:51] And then I feel that it's best because as we've seen, there is a lot of desire to give input here,

[1:38:00] and that's what ALJs do, and they do well.

[1:38:03] And my feeling is that we should remand it to the ALJ.

[1:38:08] We have that authority now, and that let the ALJ put the record together as opposed to noticing comment,

[1:38:14] because we have lots of applications that are coming in front of us and to slow our staff down

[1:38:22] to do a notice and comment and try to get the record together with this kind of input that we're getting so far

[1:38:28] is going to be really hard and that's what ALJs do well and I think we can narrow the question down

[1:38:34] to these two routes and narrow it down so that we're talking about these reliability questions

[1:38:40] And we can ask the SKL, that's one of the questions I ask the ALJ and my thing is ask Excel what's going on here so that we can hear from them and we understand the complexity of this decision and understand a better what is an estimate of the cost of this reliability concern and how likely could is it is a data center comes in there, it's going to kick on or is it going to be five townhouses above what the city of Carver was planning.

[1:39:10] Okay, I don't know that and the record doesn't tell me that and I can't make a decision.

[1:39:16] I think unless the EA is supplemented to do that.

[1:39:19] So that's what I'm trying to think through.

[1:39:21] That's why I put the decision option together the way I did was to get more information.

[1:39:26] I think it's valuable to have an independent expert.

[1:39:29] I'm willing to hear what your guys' feeling is on that.

[1:39:34] I certainly think it would be beneficial for us.

[1:39:36] So I think the decision option I've put together accomplishes what we need to do, so that the citizens have a chance to still get input in.

[1:39:46] And we also can let the people who are on alternative B, we saw this, remember the Potter situation in the XL line, where we picked the alternative that the landowners suggested, and then the other landowners had no clue. They're probably sitting there. It's all turned.

[1:40:00] There's an alternative A ahead of me and the proposed route. I think they need to be forewarned. This is serious. It's these two routes.

[1:40:09] That's why I put the decision option together. I think it allows a better record to be developed. It allows the EA to be supplemented.

[1:40:18] That's my thinking. The only question I would have for the applicant is, as I think we can get that done by January through the ALJ.

[1:40:27] we can ask them, I put it in my decision option, to get a report back from the ALJ by

[1:40:34] I would think January 31, given the fact that you're not starting this project until 2027,

[1:40:41] I would think having a decision from an ALJ by end of January, and a decision from us earlier

[1:40:49] winter would be more than enough time. I know that it's not what you want, but it would seem

[1:40:55] to me that if that is the time frame, you could do that, giving our chance, a self-auchance

[1:40:59] to get some more input.

[1:41:02] That's a little bit,

[1:41:06] thank you, Chair Seven, if I just wanted to circle back to the question

[1:41:11] that we ended on before the break and make sure that I can answer Commissioner Homes question

[1:41:16] if I may and then turn to the schedule piece if that's all right.

[1:41:23] So, conferred with the folks at Great River Energy and bear with me on my terminology here,

[1:41:30] but as I understand it both the proposed route and route alternative B are in a joint pricing zone with Excel.

[1:41:36] So both projects will have some cost to excel incremental incremental costs right in the cost to excel will be based on the final cost of the project.

[1:41:46] So where was it today with Route Alternative B being a lesser cost right now than the proposed route that would be how that's shared with Excel?

[1:42:04] And then with respect to the timing and the records supplementation,

[1:42:15] We address this in our filing earlier this week and in the applicant's view, the EA does accurately represent the costs of the proposal.

[1:42:26] I don't think it does.

[1:42:29] Okay, so my question was, if I ask for more EA information, okay, and I ask it to be done by an ALJ.

[1:42:36] If we get an ALJ report by Jan, end of January, is that more than enough time for your client to get their job done,

[1:42:43] if they're not going to start construction until 2027.

[1:42:48] Chair, Stephen Kushner, Tuma, thank you for the question.

[1:42:51] We did talk about this.

[1:42:55] And as our comments noted, there is some flexibility in the schedule with respect to the

[1:42:59] proposed route right now.

[1:43:01] The same is not true for route alternative B because route alternative B requires interconnection

[1:43:06] to excel, right?

[1:43:07] And that process takes time.

[1:43:09] And so we have some real concerns if we're going to have more

[1:43:14] process, if there's an ALJ report at the end of January,

[1:43:18] then probably we're looking at a decision in March or April, right?

[1:43:25] That's five or six months from today, right?

[1:43:29] That's pushing that off.

[1:43:31] I can't say if you ask Excel now.

[1:43:32] I mean, that's part of the problem.

[1:43:34] That's why I asked you to put in there and you said,

[1:43:36] you didn't need to ask them.

[1:43:38] That's what your response said.

[1:43:39] You didn't need to ask them.

[1:43:40] Okay, that's what I read, maybe I'm reading it wrong, you said you didn't need to ask them.

[1:43:45] Now you're telling me it's a problem.

[1:43:47] Okay, this is a little exasperating, that's what I wanted to process to include Excel,

[1:43:53] so that we get the question out to them right away,

[1:43:56] and we know what it, when we get to the decision, it is set,

[1:43:59] so that we can actually make a logical decision between alternative B,

[1:44:04] knowing the reliability concerns, knowing Excel's concerns versus the proposed route.

[1:44:11] Chair, Stephen, Commissioner Chuma, thank you, yes, with respect to the commission's process

[1:44:16] understand the interconnection process I was referencing is the separate process right

[1:44:21] to formally request to interconnect to excel facilities that occurs separately from the

[1:44:26] commission process.

[1:44:28] We would know more about that in the EA, which we don't have right now, because you didn't

[1:44:32] put it in the EA.

[1:44:38] Madam Chair, I see where the discussion is going, I don't know what your feelings are.

[1:44:43] I think we need more process and I think it's best that an ALJ do it just because it is

[1:44:52] already coming to be problematic and it's going to end up looking a lot like the Potter

[1:44:57] Rosa situation if we don't get the AL.

[1:45:00] I'll get the ALJ out there and have a process to get input. That's how I was thinking.

[1:45:07] Commissioner or Commissioner Partridge.

[1:45:12] Thank you, Chair Sivan.

[1:45:14] So I want to just take us to a higher level, which is that there is an extreme amount of controversy around four miles of transmission.

[1:45:24] And it seems like the level of controversy and the issues that are before us are just proportional to the size of this line.

[1:45:38] And it is something that I think needs to be worked out that I don't think that there's enough in the record.

[1:45:45] I know Commissioner Tuma has done the math on it.

[1:45:49] We're talking about an estimate.

[1:45:51] I don't know if this is public.

[1:45:53] I can't remember if any of this is trade secret.

[1:45:55] But $10 million different on either side of your estimated cost for B is very significant.

[1:46:05] And while you are not rate regulated, it could have implications for other rate pairs.

[1:46:09] And I think that there needs to be more record development about it and about the reliability implications.

[1:46:14] locations. In my opinion, the most important thing in Commissioner Tuma's proposed decision options

[1:46:21] is 5BE, which is that I think you need to work more closely with landowners and local

[1:46:29] units of government to come up with four miles that will work for everyone.

[1:46:37] That's all I'll

[1:46:38] say is that I understand that you can't make everybody happy and I want landowners to understand

[1:46:42] that. These are critical pieces of infrastructure that serve your community with reliable

[1:46:49] electricity. So it is not, you know, there are trade-offs we want to accommodate your needs

[1:46:57] as much as possible, but we also have to have these pieces of infrastructure so that you have

[1:47:03] lights and air conditioning in stores. And so we want everybody to work together to find

[1:47:10] workable solution. And I don't see that here. And I think there are too many unknowns.

[1:47:19] I don't agree that we have the information we need to go with alternative B. So I support

[1:47:26] additional record development and I really encourage the applicant to work closely with landowners.

[1:47:32] And I encourage landowners to please work collaboratively. I understand that you're frustrated about

[1:47:38] the process that came before, but I really ask that we all work together now going forward

[1:47:45] to come up with a solution that everybody can live with and to ensure that we are serving

[1:47:53] customers with reliable adequate electricity in your community.

[1:47:58] And so I support Commissioner Tuma as a proposal.

[1:48:03] And just to be clear, I know there are other people online that want to speak and address

[1:48:07] a matter, but if we move forward with the process or the further record development that

[1:48:13] Commissioner and Tuma is outlining, then there will be further time and consideration for folks

[1:48:22] who are concerned to weigh in with the OAH or the CH, as it's now decided.

[1:48:31] So thank you for the final decision. That's made it. Right. There's not a final decision. That's being made. And so we could spend another couple hours listening to folks talk about the different alternatives, but if we're moving forward with Commissioner Tuma's new five B, which

[1:48:50] make sense to me based on what we've heard today and review of the record, like I think we can keep moving forward at this time.

[1:49:01] Commissioner Ham.

[1:49:03] Thank you.

[1:49:04] Chair, Stephen, I agree that I think we need to develop the records.

[1:49:09] Can I ask a couple of questions to the applicants for the facts?

[1:49:14] Is this project in the 2023 by annual transmission line report or will it be in the 2025?

[1:49:23] I'm sorry, I'm just giving me one moment please.

[1:49:26] Along the line, or so, is it in the MISOM tab?

[1:49:32] Yes, it is in M tab and in the 2025.

[1:49:36] So, it will be in the 2025,

[1:49:39] if I any old transmission line project report,

[1:49:42] which will be filed in November first.

[1:49:46] Yes, I believe so.

[1:49:47] Is it going to be in the M tab 2025,

[1:49:50] or is it led in the M tab in 2024?

[1:49:53] I believe that is in M.T.P. 2024, it is already in M.T.P.

[1:49:58] Okay.

[1:49:59] So.

[1:50:00] Certain record is already developed in the M-Tectony 24, then. Can you supplement that in when we are developing

[1:50:07] these records?

[1:50:11] Whatever you provide to the MISO, engineering study and everything, because as Commissioner

[1:50:16] Tuma is frustrated with, we have a claim, but we do not have evidence here. So if you have

[1:50:24] provide any engineering information to MISO for M-Tect 2024.

[1:50:29] Why can't you just provide that information in your upcoming record development?

[1:50:38] The information provided as this part of M-Tect was the addition of the load.

[1:50:46] You cannot just give a MISO with the picture.

[1:50:48] You have to have engineering information given to them so they can incorporate into their M-Tect 2024 evaluation, right?

[1:50:57] Yes, we provided them with the model data, the addition of the load, the amount of

[1:51:03] mevel watts, and the reporting, stating there's no circuit issues.

[1:51:08] Yes, that's what I meant.

[1:51:10] Can you provide that as evidence?

[1:51:18] I think I'm a little out of sync with where things are going, I'm not going to die in the

[1:51:24] hill, but I just want to ask the company.

[1:51:29] Is there a reliability issue with alternative B?

[1:51:36] Sure, Steven Commissioner Sullivan.

[1:51:38] I think you heard Mr. Gauder say that not both, both

[1:51:41] route alternatives are reliable.

[1:51:43] The proposed route presents some reliability benefits as compared to

[1:51:47] route alternative B, but both alternatives are reliable.

[1:51:51] So like, I did hear it and that's why I just want to be really clear.

[1:51:56] Like I don't.

[1:51:58] I think their record is sufficient right now to make a decision to order alternative

[1:52:04] to be.

[1:52:06] I don't think that the cost issue,

[1:52:11] we don't regulate, gerry, and it's not our right

[1:52:15] pairs that are going to be impacted if there is a cost increase or there is cost.

[1:52:21] So, you know, but I just want, let me finish the point.

[1:52:25] So, from my perspective, I think, you know, the environmental assessment, you know, said this is a viable alternative.

[1:52:34] And I think we could do it, but I'm not going to, I'm not going to die in the hill, but I think it's imperative that we get infrastructure built.

[1:52:41] And that's where my head is at, but I'm not going to die in the hill.

[1:52:45] Commissioner, how am I?

[1:52:48] Commissioner, how?

[1:52:49] Thank you, Chair Steven.

[1:52:50] I think according to applicant, it will be Excel energy generated, joint pricing zone.

[1:52:56] So Excel energy customer will bear any incremental cost.

[1:53:01] And that's, they're for me they just don't have, Commissioner Solomon.

[1:53:04] I just don't have it and to make a decision I think right now and selecting either one

[1:53:09] of the two routes puts me clearly an arbitrary capricious.

[1:53:13] So if you're wanting to get this built quickly, okay, it's not going to get built quickly

[1:53:18] it ends up in district corps and in the court of appeals. And that's the part that really

[1:53:22] bothers me about how we got to where we're at is that they had an opportunity to supplement

[1:53:27] the record. They didn't do it. They didn't answer the question. They should have answered. It's not

[1:53:32] our fault that this is not going forward. It's their fault for trying to bring up $8 million and

[1:53:38] out of the blue credit or substitute towards the preferred route. Okay, and that's the problem that I have

[1:53:44] right now is it's not a record that I feel confident it would hold up if, I mean, I've

[1:53:51] seen this with several times where the courts have sent it back and say, oh, you should

[1:53:55] have this in EA. It's not in EA. That's what the courts will look for right now. It's

[1:54:00] not in the EA.

[1:54:01] And to further bolster that point, if we send it back to the CAH now to correct this

[1:54:07] efficiency, hopefully it will provide clarity to the applicants and to the public, the

[1:54:15] participating townships and cities, and then hopefully the record will come back to us

[1:54:22] with more support and will feel more confident than selecting the route.

[1:54:27] So that's why I'm supportive of Commissioner Tuma's direction that he's headed as well.

[1:54:34] I know that Dalgrin Township really wants to comment, you're welcome to say something briefly,

[1:54:44] but we're trying to move forward on a decision here, which will give you more opportunity

[1:54:49] I think to weigh in, but please state your name for the record and briefly provide your comments.

[1:54:57] My name is Jeff Thompson, I'm an adult.

[1:55:01] I guess it's a little frustration at this point that there is a public comment period,

[1:55:12] more appropriate.

[1:55:16] I'm trying to keep

[1:55:28] all of your township has not been notified of any of these

[1:55:38] kind of equipment kept in the dark after the original deal.

[1:55:41] We weren't even really aware

[1:55:49] that we're kind of been in the dark on this whole thing and feel a little frustrated.

[1:55:55] I appreciate your comments and we will make sure that our staff, Mr. Lobby, will has your contact information.

[1:56:04] I know you've been emailing him and in touch with him.

[1:56:07] He'll send you an explanation of next steps for the townships involvement and help get you in touch with any other party that you want to.

[1:56:18] So, thank you for providing your comments here today, and we appreciate you participating in our process here.

[1:56:28] Commissioner Tuma, would you make a motion?

[1:56:31] Madam Chair, I would move the decision option.

[1:56:36] Good to come in front of me.

[1:56:38] I've got all my notes all over the place.

[1:56:44] To mortified one.

[1:56:51] To mortified five.

[1:57:00] to the new five,

[1:57:03] A,

[1:57:06] and to my new five,

[1:57:08] B can I put in there to request that the mindset.

[1:57:15] January 31.

[1:57:17] Commissioner to my,

[1:57:19] I think we need to hear from the applicant about the

[1:57:24] dependent engineering consultant, or did we, did we hear?

[1:57:29] Yeah, I'm going to talk to you, but I don't, I just, I'm sorry about the timing of having

[1:57:34] the independent engineering consultant and still meeting that timeframe that was laid out

[1:57:39] in B, so not that in five B.

[1:57:44] I would look, Madam Chair, first EIP, whether they think it is of value, because they're going

[1:57:50] want to supplement the record. We're putting you on the spot. Sorry. I did it so that our

[1:57:58] staff didn't have to play engineer. And the idea is again, sorry, because we're just, I mean,

[1:58:04] I know we got it a little bit, but because I'm trying to, we don't normally do this. Tell us

[1:58:11] what the independent engineering consultant would analyze the reliability concerns of the different

[1:58:20] alternative. So the record will be supplemented with information provided by them in the

[1:58:24] E.A. And I just want to have an inquiry in the E.A.

[1:58:30] And then I just want an independent engineer there. They exist. They're not a complicated task.

[1:58:36] Just to do a check and look at it because I'm not an engineer. And to say yes, this is a concern.

[1:58:42] And this is a fair reasonable estimated cost. I just don't have that in the record.

[1:58:47] and who hires the independent engineer?

[1:58:50] They would hire it.

[1:58:51] DRE does.

[1:58:52] And for us, but the executive secretary would be the one

[1:58:58] that would approve it.

[1:59:02] OK.

[1:59:02] Record would be supplemented with that information.

[1:59:06] Yes, thank you.

[1:59:08] Madam Chair, Commissioner Tuma.

[1:59:09] Logan Hicks, I did the environmental assessment.

[1:59:14] As you guys know, yeah.

[1:59:17] So I would prefer not to do any engineering analysis.

[1:59:23] So if I had my brothers, I would say that I would prefer somebody, you know, I don't

[1:59:29] know if we have anyone else to do it or if we have to hire a third party, then yeah, I would

[1:59:33] prefer a third party engineer to do that analysis and then we could have them put that

[1:59:39] in the record because I'm not an electrical engineer.

[1:59:43] Yeah, I'm not either, but just wanted to make sure that this wouldn't slow anything down

[1:59:50] any more than necessary and that those timelines are pretty, the judge can help figure

[1:59:58] out the timeline.

[2:00:02] I would hope that the applicant would do that in that just presents something to the ALJ in the executive secretary and then the executive secretary goes sign off on it. These people exist, okay, they don't, they're not not a known to them. And so I just want someone to know that we're asking an opinion of them regarding whether the information is accurate.

[2:00:27] And Ms. Wallerpitz, your opinion or support of Tuma 5A.

[2:00:36] Thank you, Chair Sivan.

[2:00:37] We put in our comments earlier this week.

[2:00:41] Not supportive of that option.

[2:00:44] Because of the timeline issue,

[2:00:46] I think we have very qualified people in

[2:00:49] House who have already looked at this.

[2:00:52] If the commission is going to require supplementation of the record,

[2:00:57] We have qualified people that can do that and stick to the time frame.

[2:01:03] But answer the question.

[2:01:04] There are qualified people out there that can do an independent result.

[2:01:07] And they can get us information because it's not that complicated.

[2:01:10] And they could get it to us well before the end of January.

[2:01:17] Commissioner Chuma, I don't know.

[2:01:20] We haven't looked into that.

[2:01:21] I can't speak to who that might be or what the timeline might be.

[2:01:24] You've been around this enough to know the exist, but that's okay.

[2:01:30] Okay.

[2:01:34] Any other concern or questions about 5A? Commissioner or something else?

[2:01:41] Commissioner Ham?

[2:01:43] Is there something else?

[2:01:44] Please go ahead.

[2:01:46] Thank you, Chair Steven.

[2:01:48] I think I repeatedly told many developers and applicants and I think other commission too.

[2:01:54] I think applicants, you should treat people who is potentially hosting these infrastructure with respect.

[2:02:04] And we request you to be a community member when you're showing up at the meeting, not as somebody showing up from the town and nothing to do with it.

[2:02:16] You have to treat these potential folks as your neighbors.

[2:02:23] I am very disappointed with how come on this issue because what I heard based on record, I don't

[2:02:31] think people in that area was not respected.

[2:02:35] So I hope this second chance you hopefully fixing that and then develop the good records

[2:02:42] so we can make a good decision on it.

[2:02:49] Okay, Commissioner Tuma. Is the motion clear? Any further discussion on the motion?

[2:02:58] All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? The motion prevails.

[2:03:07] Thank you, everyone,

[2:03:09] for your participation in that and we'll see it back here later. Why don't we need a quick break

[2:03:19] before we do Sympath?

[2:03:20] Yes.

[2:03:21] Item four.

[2:03:23] All right.

[2:03:25] What could you want to lunch?

[2:03:30] It sounds like we're going to.

[2:03:35] Third.

[2:03:37] Well, we're going to take a lunch break before we take up the next item.

[2:03:41] I apologize to the Sympath folks who are probably waiting.

[2:03:47] So we'll be come back at quarter to one.

[2:03:51] The Commission stands in recess.

[2:51:41] Apologies for the delay. The commission will come back from its recess and take up item number 4. Mr. Stulfis, please introduce the item.

[2:51:51] Thank you, Chair. Item 4 is dock at number 189 slash rp-24-356. In the matter of southern Minnesota municipal power agencies 2025 to 2039 integrated resource plan.

[2:52:05] The issues before the commission, or should the commission accept Simples 2025 to 2039

[2:52:12] IRP, and should the commission adopt the Department of Commerce's June 2625 recommendations.

[2:52:20] Parties have been informed that they'll have three minutes to address the decision options

[2:52:24] or make any clarifying remarks if they would like to.

[2:52:29] The parties in this case are Simpa and the Department of Commerce.

[2:52:32] And that's all I have, but I'm available for questions.

[2:52:36] Well, the parties please come forward.

[2:52:55] Welcome, please see your name for the record.

[2:52:57] And then go ahead and provide comments.

[2:53:02] I am Joe Hoffman, Chief External Affairs Officer for Southern Minnesota Municipal Power.

[2:53:11] Faculty Schmitz, with Sympa Manager of Planning and Analysis.

[2:53:18] Good afternoon, Jeremy Sutton, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency.

[2:53:27] This is the open-up chair of commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to be here, thank you for the staff.

[2:53:33] It's been a great opportunity to have this, the flexibility we appreciate as well.

[2:53:39] We had some key retirements that I came in as well, I've been there year and a half now.

[2:53:43] We had some pregnancies and it was great to work with staff to be able to move around and understand our limitations as a small organization, so it's much appreciated.

[2:53:52] And with that, I can just jump right in with a few, probably 30 seconds opening comments.

[2:53:59] We did have some uniqueness with this IRP iteration.

[2:54:03] We had a member that was still deciding where they wanted to stay or not and doing their

[2:54:06] due diligence with their studies.

[2:54:08] Fortunately, they did come online, but it was too late in the process with key members out as

[2:54:13] well.

[2:54:14] So we did try to put that in there and put a placeholder with our 25% large load addition.

[2:54:19] And then since then, knowing that this is a snapshot in time of a document, we continually

[2:54:24] update it and we've run those and appreciate the opportunity to provide those updates.

[2:54:30] And the other thing that I think is unique with CRP is choosing a plan.

[2:54:34] We have our internal goals and our board is very proud of those goals as well to be 80% renewable

[2:54:40] by 2030.

[2:54:42] And we thought that it was prudent to, there's so many things moving in the industry right

[2:54:46] with micro-regulations that we're trying to wrap our arms around with the carbon-free

[2:54:51] standard that's come out now as well as pricing inputs that we're seeing now in

[2:54:56] pricing pressure that we maintain that goal.

[2:55:00] And there will be time with our next iteration of our IRP to address those. Thank you.

[2:55:07] Okay, thank you. And for the department.

[2:55:12] Thank you, Chair Steven, this Peter Tagland for the Department. Dr. Leib intends to deliver some opening remarks,

[2:55:19] but unfortunately was pulled away by a family emergency that may take a few minutes to resolve.

[2:55:24] Okay, so did you, are you comfortable with the comments that were submitted in the record, though?

[2:55:29] And we can go ahead. We are comfortable with the comments submitted in the record. Thank you, Chair.

[2:55:33] Okay, questions for the parties from commissioners.

[2:55:41] Commissioner Sullivan.

[2:55:43] Thank you, Chair Steven.

[2:55:44] I mean, first of all, I've reviewed the record,

[2:55:47] and I appreciate the work that Simpa has done.

[2:55:49] I'm putting together a thoughtful resource plan.

[2:55:53] You know, I had two questions.

[2:55:56] One is that the least cost I'll turn it of is quite a bit.

[2:56:01] I mean, it's pretty significant delta and price between that and the company's preferred

[2:56:07] plan.

[2:56:08] I've just wondered if you could just speak to that a little bit.

[2:56:10] I think that would be helpful.

[2:56:13] Yes, thank you, Chair Zeeb and commissioners.

[2:56:16] The least cost alternative plan did have is purchasing a large portion of racks, and that's

[2:56:23] why the base line is so cheap and then going forward, the next base case to our

[2:56:31] shows in case, it really is the price of renewables right now and the pressure that we're getting

[2:56:36] from my so on looking forward in 2032.

[2:56:41] Their report has just basically 0% to 2% capacity credit for

[2:56:47] solar. So that's what really pushed that for us to have. And then the with the direct loss of load

[2:56:52] that we see coming in 2027 and 2028 really put price pressure on those items. Okay. Thank you. Yeah,

[2:57:00] appreciate that concern. Another question I had is that, I mean, I don't know all, I know

[2:57:09] that initially Rochester and Austin were going to pull out of Simpa. It's nice to see

[2:57:17] that Austin has wanted to be back a part of the joint action agency and the value that

[2:57:23] that brings. I mean, I don't know all the any of the story or not, but I'm curious as there

[2:57:28] any discussion that Rochester would also.

[2:57:33] Thank you for the question chair, commissioners.

[2:57:37] Right now, there has been no talks of Rochester rejoining, they're doing a very similar process

[2:57:43] that we're doing now identifying their renewables they need.

[2:57:46] They have an internal goal to be 100% renewable by 2030 and they're going a lot path and

[2:57:51] I know that they've been in the paper recently for looking to see if it now is the right

[2:57:56] time because of those same cost pressures that we're seeing, so the reevaluating that

[2:58:00] now and actually putting a survey out. So I think they're a little further down the path. Austin

[2:58:05] was in a different space that they don't do any of their power supply on their own. So they

[2:58:10] went out, looked at other joint action agencies, they looked at doing it on their own, and the

[2:58:15] analysis came back that simple was the best decision. So to answer the question, we have no

[2:58:20] indication that Rochester is going to move on that at this time. Okay. Those were the major questions I

[2:58:29] Thank you, Chair Steven. So I think it's a familiar topic. Do you have any contact from data center developer in your members area and do you have any concerns serving those if anybody contact you?

[2:58:46] Chair, commissioners, yes, we have had our members, they've been contacted by not just data centers, we've had some large load additions, green hydrogen for fertilizer.

[2:58:59] We've had all those, we have not had one come to fruition yet, but we've got to the point of actually starting to study those items.

[2:59:06] And I think the concerns for us are really about that security for those large projects were used to as utilities of

[2:59:15] of putting iron in the ground or signing long-term,

[2:59:18] as we said, a 35 to 35 year PPAs with organizations.

[2:59:23] And we want that security, that security for ourselves.

[2:59:27] A little easier when it's a member community or a town.

[2:59:30] A little more difficult when it is a subsidiary of a Google

[2:59:33] or a meta.

[2:59:34] So those are really our concerns

[2:59:36] about protecting our other members.

[2:59:38] OK, thank you.

[2:59:38] In case there is any significant development in that area,

[2:59:43] I think you understand that you will have to inform commission as under the change of circumstance.

[2:59:50] We understand that.

[2:59:51] Okay.

[2:59:51] Thank you.

[2:59:52] And the next question is about, are you familiar with the Greens tab series Initiative

[2:59:57] Among many Minnesota series?

[3:00:00] PCA, minutes, or additional commerce, leading state agency, helping our city to be sustainable cities, and among those best practice, the best practice, number six, is about having energy plan and climate change plan.

[3:00:22] If you are familiar with how are you guys incorporating that into your resource plan?

[3:00:28] Because your members should be addressing that issue through you guys.

[3:00:38] Chair Commissioner, I am familiar with that program partly for my time as a city administrator

[3:00:42] in the previous life.

[3:00:45] You raise an interesting challenge for all joint action agencies, each of our members

[3:00:49] as their own mobile priorities.

[3:00:52] However, they recognize the benefit of coming together to build generation transmission.

[3:00:57] And so each member has some flexibility, I'm making their own decisions that are relates

[3:01:01] to their own sustainability goals, but I guess the short answer would be if there's a way

[3:01:05] that we could help a member with a green-step process, we certainly would, but they do have

[3:01:10] some flexibility in deciding where they go based on, you know, percent renewable or sustainability

[3:01:18] or other investments in that area.

[3:01:21] Okay, thank you.

[3:01:23] I'm going to share some of it.

[3:01:26] Thank you, Chair Seben.

[3:01:27] I did have a question for the Department regarding,

[3:01:30] I Dr. Leigh, I had a question for the Department regarding

[3:01:36] the decision options that they were interested in,

[3:01:38] in particular, a decision option for.

[3:01:40] I'm, I, that seems very reasonable, you know,

[3:01:44] have the simple, you know, do more analysis of energy storage, good flexibility. I'm curious

[3:01:54] if there's anything more that if you want to put it any more kind of color around that

[3:01:59] and flesh that out a little bit. Sure. I just think that might be helpful too for the

[3:02:07] record. I mean, I think that simple already does a pretty significant amount of demand.

[3:02:12] I mean, you do a lot of DR and very do a good job with their DSM programs and I think you're

[3:02:21] probably watching storage as well. So if there's anything more in particular, I think that could be

[3:02:26] helpful for the future. Sure. Sydney Lee for the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Thank you for the

[3:02:32] question. Chair, Stephen Commissioner Sullivan.

[3:02:36] So the department is supporting one through five as

[3:02:39] in the briefing papers, decision option 4 specifically to look at as the companies moving towards

[3:02:48] CFS compliance, we appreciate that they put together a plan that brings on more renewables

[3:02:54] as Shorko is retiring, but we want to ensure that they're also making sure that they're building

[3:03:00] into their modeling, medium and long duration storage. Partially because as they noted, there's

[3:03:07] not as much capacity accreditation on the solar resources from MISO, so we want to make sure

[3:03:12] that we're getting also looking at these medium and long duration storage resources.

[3:03:18] When they're modeled, they need to be modeled appropriately, making sure that their useful

[3:03:22] life is not just using lithium ion battery assumptions, but using whatever the technology

[3:03:27] vendor is assuming for a useful life.

[3:03:30] for charging behavior and I think we also want to see an addition to the really like traditional demand flexibility

[3:03:40] looking at coordinated distributed resources and just looking at more solar and storage, more good enhancing technologies.

[3:03:51] This is in Southern Minnesota where we may not be getting the full value out of our renewables if they are curtailed or congested

[3:03:59] So making sure that we're getting the full value out of those things.

[3:04:03] And I think this is going to be a theme you'll see from the Department across all of

[3:04:06] our resource plan analyses that as we're looking at driving towards compliance with the

[3:04:12] CFS as an additional constraint, we want to make sure that we're looking at all the resource

[3:04:17] types that could potentially drive towards that as opposed to just looking at traditional

[3:04:21] renewables.

[3:04:24] Well, that's helpful for me.

[3:04:25] I appreciate it that that's what the department is looking at.

[3:04:28] I hope that's helpful for the company too to hear what additional thinking that the department has around that.

[3:04:36] So that's, I don't have anything further in.

[3:04:38] You're Stephen.

[3:04:39] Mr. Partridge.

[3:04:40] Thank you.

[3:04:41] I guess I'm still somewhat confused about what I think that decision option number four is perfectly fine.

[3:04:49] And I assume that some boat would be happy to continue to follow technological advancements.

[3:04:53] but I did see that scenario P5 through 7 did look at battery storage technology.

[3:05:00] So, I wasn't sure if you had more specific guidance, if those scenarios weren't capturing something that you felt like needed to be studied, I wasn't quite clear on what the additional recommendation was.

[3:05:16] And maybe if you all are clear on it, it's okay for me to continue to be confused.

[3:05:21] But,

[3:05:40] Chair commissioners, we are looking into that and I think one of the things that we look at as well that we're trying to grasp as we don't own a battery storage project yet.

[3:05:50] We've partnered with Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and they're actually running a bit of study for us.

[3:05:55] They're going to present to us September 11th and they're looking at all of not just the LMP value of it, but they're looking at dispatches.

[3:06:04] they've placed it in Grand Marais and said, okay, well, how does this impact reliability and more of those intrinsic things than just the LMP so we're looking forward to the results of that study and looking how a battery could better fit into our system.

[3:06:20] chair Steven commissioner partridge i think that's the type of thing we want to see we just want to have it

[3:06:27] Written down as a requirement for the next plan that as they're learning more about those resources that the assumptions and the modeling constraints are changing over time

[3:06:37] To make sure that because these are evolving resources the assumptions for how they interact in the overall generation profile are going to change as we learn more about how they're

[3:06:48] batch how they store what their useful life is, what the cost curves look like, and then I think we want to see, again, I think looking at storage is important, but other emerging resources as they're coming on.

[3:07:04] We also want to make sure that there's clear direction to consider something beyond traditional renewables.

[3:07:11] I'm going to question your home.

[3:07:12] Thank you, Chair Sevent.

[3:07:15] So this is just a fruitful thought for the next round of your IRP.

[3:07:19] I think you have some of the backup where the small

[3:07:23] natural gas unit or the diesel unit.

[3:07:26] Diesel unit also has a fuel supply constraint,

[3:07:29] which is very similar to full-out battery.

[3:07:32] So I think that even a little more thought on the considering battery

[3:07:36] in hybrid form, battery plus renewable in the

[3:07:41] location or even the, I probably might so improve this accreditation process. So I think those

[3:07:49] hybrid unit or collocation unit can get them of benefit. But I think you may need to give

[3:07:55] a little more thought because in terms of economics, there's a renewable plus battery

[3:08:00] still cheaper, even without PTC based on what I saw in the 2025 report. So I think hopefully

[3:08:07] You can give a lot of thought on that to make sure that diesel is not necessarily reliable

[3:08:15] backup because you have to provide back-up fuel, plus also, I don't know whether this

[3:08:21] object to air-pumped limits because we have seen this kind of significant concern in many

[3:08:29] parts of the US when they are hosting data center, they're using back-up diesel, they are facing

[3:08:34] this challenge. So I think in next round of the ILP, you may want to give them what thought

[3:08:40] or what creative, bad ideas, stories, devise, including hybrid and collocations.

[3:08:53] Thank you. First of all, I wanted to say that thank you for sharing this plan and I really

[3:09:00] appreciated your explanation for how you selected your preferred plan and the way that you

[3:09:06] balanced some of the risks associated with, I can't remember what the P1, the base case

[3:09:15] there and then the one you ultimately selected P3. And I think that this is a really important

[3:09:22] point, you say, of course you're looking at your 80% carbon free goal, but you're also looking

[3:09:28] at the REC market and I think that's so important that we all understand that the REC market

[3:09:34] will move and that we need to consider that a risk and any overreliance can put repairs at risk.

[3:09:41] So I think you did an excellent job and you also focused on providing that physical asset

[3:09:48] to hedge against LMP prices. So overall I thought this was really great. I have a couple

[3:09:55] and it pick you questions for you, but want it to first say, you know, I hate it.

[3:10:00] I just have nitpicky questions.

[3:10:04] But, but substantively and overall generally, this is excellent. So thank you. One of the questions I had for you is on the base case assumption for the externalities.

[3:10:15] I saw that you all were still using the Commission's values from 2017.

[3:10:23] I'm guessing that's just a matter of timing and regulatory lags around when you started planning versus when the new values were approved.

[3:10:32] But maybe you could speak to that and whether you'll be using updated values for the next IRP.

[3:10:40] Thank you for the question, Chair and commissioners.

[3:10:43] That is absolutely the case.

[3:10:44] Yes, it was more of a timing issue to gather that data and, like I said, with the retirements and some of our absences within the organization, it was just best for us to use that data and we fully will use the updated data in the next one.

[3:11:01] Thanks. The other question I had is around energy efficiency and I saw the forecast in

[3:11:09] understand that as codes change and those baselines change, the potential per measure of the

[3:11:18] different measures that you deploy through your DSM programs. The savings will go down. I am wondering

[3:11:24] And if you looked at increasing electrification of heat and heat pump deployment, if that was

[3:11:34] embedded within these numbers to see what the savings potential will be as you deploy

[3:11:41] heat pumps, as your members deploy heat pumps for you all to start claiming additional

[3:11:48] savings for perhaps some weatherization work, and we'll just note that that's an area

[3:11:54] interest for me and we've talked about it in multiple

[3:11:57] documents where to date,

[3:12:00] elector cutilities really haven't been able to go

[3:12:02] all in on weatherization because you haven't traditionally

[3:12:06] been the primary heating provider.

[3:12:09] And it has left some customers in our state

[3:12:13] without the access to

[3:12:16] rebates and weatherization services.

[3:12:20] And so one of the opportunities I see as

[3:12:23] keep pumps are deployed across the state is for electric utilities to really take on a greater

[3:12:29] role in helping to insulate people's homes to provide them and crease comfort and bring

[3:12:36] their utility bills down and so I just wanted to make that point and know if you had kind

[3:12:42] of worked that into these numbers and if not if you would consider doing that for the next

[3:12:48] IRP.

[3:12:52] Sure, Steven.

[3:12:53] Commissioner, as you know, SEMPA is very proud of our DSM program.

[3:12:58] We think we were out there doing it.

[3:13:01] Just last year, we received Energy Stars Partner of the Year Award, which we were very happy

[3:13:07] about.

[3:13:08] We have a ESR's Energy Service representatives that are deployed in our member communities,

[3:13:13] which is a huge benefit for our very small members as well, to have energy professionals

[3:13:18] come out and work with residents and businesses.

[3:13:20] We're very excited about your source heat pumps.

[3:13:23] We are working directly with contractors and those member communities, we're part of the

[3:13:27] collaborative here in Minnesota as well.

[3:13:30] I can't speak specifically to what kind of projections we have in our DSM numbers for air

[3:13:35] source heat pumps, but we are expecting that to be a growing opportunity and we're definitely

[3:13:40] encouraging our members and their customers to take advantage of that and I'll just

[3:13:44] mention personally.

[3:13:45] I mean, that crux right now is I need to replace their conditioning on my house and

[3:13:48] running the numbers on AirCersy pumps and I think we can do better to notify the public about

[3:13:54] what those opportunities are. Great. Well thank you and yeah I also like I said I hope that

[3:14:01] as you do more heat pump deployment you'll also consider you know taking on a greater role in

[3:14:08] weatherization as well because like I said you know we think I do think that you run good programs

[3:14:13] and I know that that's been an area where you really haven't been able to to play a greater role

[3:14:18] So I'm hoping that this is really a win-win for customers and for

[3:14:24] SEMPA to be able to kind of stop in in a bigger way and help customers to

[3:14:31] Insulate their seal their home. So I don't think I had any additional questions

[3:14:37] and I can turn it over to anyone who had questions before I can make a motion.

[3:14:44] Why don't you go ahead with a motion commissioner partridge?

[3:14:47] Excellent. So I move decision option. Let me just take my highlighted version, so I don't

[3:14:56] see there on things, sorry.

[3:14:59] Okay.

[3:15:00] I am a decision option 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Is there any discussion of commissioner partridge's motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

[3:15:16] Opposed, the motion prevails. Thank you very much.

[3:15:52] Ms. Brown, welcome. Please introduce item number 5 for us.

[3:15:59] The afternoon chair of Stephen and commissioners, item number 5 is

[3:16:02] stock at E002 M24389, and the matter of the petition of Northern

[3:16:08] State's power, doing business as a six-year-old energy to revise its

[3:16:11] net-meetering tariffs to apply to qualifying facilities up to five

[3:16:15] megawatts. The question before the commission is should the

[3:16:18] Grant Hennepin County's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's June 25th, 2025 order.

[3:16:25] If no further remarks, but I am available for questions. Thank you.

[3:16:30] Thank you, Ms. Brown, us commissioners. We've all reviewed this record, the order that was

[3:16:36] established by the or that was issued by the Commission and the petitioner's comments. I'll just

[3:16:43] note that in my review of the record, you know, I think it's pretty clear that the commission

[3:16:50] did not formally adopt the one-mile rule in determining eligibility for net-matering

[3:16:56] programs in its order and that the dispute between Hennemann County and Excel that was raised

[3:17:02] in the recon was an dispute predating and unaffected by the order.

[3:17:09] I'd also point out that in our order, which was issued on June 25th, the Commission

[3:17:18] approved Excel's proposed tariff for five megawatts as a qualifying facilities PPA, which

[3:17:28] Which made 15 minute net metering a fax under the A51 and A52 rate codes available for facilities

[3:17:42] up to the 5 megawatt capacity level and we didn't make changes to the monthly or annual net

[3:17:52] during rate offerings under the A53 or A54 rate codes.

[3:18:00] And so for these considerations, as well as others that were raised in the staff

[3:18:10] briefing papers, I would move decision options 4 and 6.

[3:18:16] and point out to Hennepink County that they're free to file a complaint under 216B .17 and would ask

[3:18:31] commissioners if they have any questions on my motion or any discussion of my motion

[3:18:40] to move decision option 4 and 6.

[3:18:44] Hearing none then, I move decision options for in six. All in favor, please say aye.

[3:18:49] I oppose the motion prevails.

[3:18:55] Thank you.

[3:19:02] Next, we'll take up the agenda item number six.

[3:19:07] Parties are free to come forward and we'll start with opening comments after we introduce the item.

[3:20:22] Mr. Rose or Mr. Trudeau, please introduce item number 6.

[3:20:33] I think you're sorry, your microphone is in on.

[3:20:40] Good afternoon, Chair, Stephen. Commissioners, item number 6 relates to the socket number E9999 PR2521 for all the electric utilities.

[3:20:50] And this is a matter of Minnesota PUC filings to the federal energy regulatory commission about the Minnesota PUC response to complaints of the North Dakota Public Service Commission and others.

[3:21:02] versus the Minnesota or Mid-Content Independent System Operator,

[3:21:06] Myso, in FERC Docket, EL 25-109.

[3:21:12] And the question before the Commission is,

[3:21:14] should the Commission authorize submission of comments

[3:21:16] to FERC in opposition to the complaints

[3:21:18] of North Dakota Public Service Commission at all?

[3:21:21] Versus Myso, in FERC Docket, EL 25-109.

[3:21:27] We have representatives of several of the utilities,

[3:21:31] The Department of Commerce, Audertail Power, Minnesota Power, Great River Energy, Excel Energy,

[3:21:39] and ITC Midwest, available to speak, and Commission staff are also available to answer any questions.

[3:21:48] Thank you very much.

[3:21:50] We'll begin with myself.

[3:21:52] Please introduce yourself who's speaking and provide your comments.

[3:22:01] All right, this is Brian Tullo, Executive Director of External Affairs for Myself.

[3:22:08] Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners, and I feel off this on behalf of Myself.

[3:22:13] And good afternoon, Kerry Valley, Senior Director for State Policy for Myself.

[3:22:23] Go ahead.

[3:22:24] Thank you.

[3:22:27] Myself is currently finalizing its answer to respond to the complaint that was filed in 1st

[3:22:35] The complaint challenges the cost allocation for the long-range transmission plan tronch 2.1.

[3:22:45] And specifically, the complaint alleges that MISO has overestimated the benefits of that tronch 2.1.

[3:22:54] And consequently, the portfolio projects should not move forward.

[3:22:57] As a commission is aware, LRTP is a part of my son's reliability imperative and develops

[3:23:06] backbone regional transmission projects to ensure that the transmission system is reliable,

[3:23:12] economic, and compliant based upon state and utility plans, forecasts of conditions, and

[3:23:19] industry trends.

[3:23:21] This is accomplished while demonstrating that the benefits of the portfolio of transmission

[3:23:27] projects exceed the cost and is consistent with months of its tariff. The LRTP takes a long-range

[3:23:35] view roughly 20 to 40 years of the transmission system and addresses future issues and is

[3:23:43] conducted as the factors that affect the region's transmission needs continually change.

[3:23:53] For

[3:23:53] 24 transmission projects, 323 transmission facilities across the MISO Midwest sub region.

[3:24:03] And those projects are targeted to go into service between 2032 and 2034.

[3:24:09] Tronch 2.1 builds a 3,631 mile 765KV and 345KV backbone that ensures future reliability while demonstrating that the benefits exceed the costs.

[3:24:28] Tronch 2.1 is a significant step towards enabling future generation as envisioned by miceau's members, utilities, and miceau's states.

[3:24:36] Trans2.1 is primarily a reliability base portfolio, but also provides significant economic value.

[3:24:47] Specifically in response to the complaint, LISO's answer will demonstrate, excuse me,

[3:24:53] that LISO followed its tariff in developing Trans2.1.

[3:24:58] We will review how LISO...

[3:25:00] Followed a comprehensive 7-step process to develop Trunch 2.1, which importantly includes extensive and significant stakeholder input.

[3:25:10] And that input was used to review, analyze, refine, and finalize Trunch 2.1.

[3:25:20] Mysoil will also demonstrate it in the answer that it followed its tariff when it calculated the benefit, the cost ratio of Trunch 2.1.

[3:25:29] Specifically, MISO used nine benefit metrics, which were also fully

[3:25:34] vetted and reviewed by stakeholders.

[3:25:37] The results of that analysis demonstrates that Tronch 2.1 will provide a range

[3:25:43] of benefits of 1.8 to 3.5, which means that for every dollar spent on Tronch 2.1,

[3:25:51] benefits of a dollar eighty to three dollars and fifty cents will result.

[3:25:57] Our answer will also explain how Tronch 2.1 is a portfolio of projects, which is urgently needed to strengthen myso's high voltage back boom, and that it also provides multiple benefits and excess of the costs to the myso midwest sub region.

[3:26:16] Again, primarily supporting reliability, but also reducing

[3:26:20] generator production costs and enabling more efficient resource

[3:26:26] and transmission investments.

[3:26:29] Trunch 2.1 is an investment in economic development as new

[3:26:33] expanding economies require reliable power and has a potential

[3:26:37] to attract new businesses and support connections to promising

[3:26:41] high growth industries such as data centers.

[3:26:44] Our answer will also explain how there will be significant consequences if the FERC upholds this complaint.

[3:26:53] The consequences will not only evolve the elimination of the reliability and economic benefits that I've discussed,

[3:27:01] but the consequences will be farther reaching into other processes at MISO.

[3:27:06] This is because remember that the Trots 2.1 was approved by the MISO Board in December.

[3:27:13] This complaint was filed approximately eight months later.

[3:27:17] So, Tronch 2.1 has already been included in base cases for studies that Myso is undertaking

[3:27:23] to date.

[3:27:25] And Myso has reasonably anticipated including Tronch 2.1 in future studies that it intends

[3:27:32] to undertake in the near future.

[3:27:34] The types of studies I'm talking about are interconnection related studies as well as

[3:27:38] the recently approved Eris study process.

[3:27:43] So the consequences will be far reaching in that.

[3:27:46] It will delay, new generation coming online,

[3:27:50] it will delay the facilitation of the economic development

[3:27:53] opportunities that I've discussed in the United States.

[3:27:59] With that, I'm happy to answer or try to answer any questions

[3:28:03] that the commission they have.

[3:28:05] Thank you.

[3:28:06] I'll hold off on questions until we hear from the other parties, if that's okay.

[3:28:11] Dr. Whitekoff, I see you're here.

[3:28:13] I think we have you next if you're ready.

[3:28:20] Someone's going to have to make room for Dr. Whitekoff.

[3:28:32] Thank you.

[3:28:34] Good afternoon, Chair Steven and Commissioners.

[3:28:36] My name is Pete Whitekoff, and I'm Deputy Commissioner for Energy at the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

[3:28:41] I appreciate the commission giving me the opportunity to speak today, and my comments will be brief.

[3:28:47] I am here to convey the department's emphatic endorsement of the MISO Tronch 2.1 projects

[3:28:53] and the need to keep the vital expansion and modernization of our electric grid moving forward.

[3:28:59] Furc must reject the petition brought by North Dakota and others the only delay projects that have been through a robust decision making process already.

[3:29:07] We at Commerce stand ready to work with the Commission and others to convey this message.

[3:29:13] To briefly elaborate, the Department has a commitment to ensuring that Minissons are provided with affordable and reliable electricity.

[3:29:21] The proposed projects will advance both of those goals.

[3:29:25] We partnered with the Commission and other state entities and consumer advocates to participate in a robust process to develop the mid-continent independent system operator,

[3:29:39] This transmission portfolio, and the corresponding cost allocation method, is the result of a robust, multi-year process with input and negotiation from all states within the mice of footprint, including those now challenging the decision.

[3:29:55] These transmission projects are essential to maintaining a reliable grid and a

[3:30:01] In addition to maintaining reliability and resilience for existing customers, these projects are necessary to support economic growth in our region in a time-expanding electric demand.

[3:30:14] If Burke accepts the complaint, it will substantially delay projects, including those in the recently announced e-res program. This will delay projects of their not able to obtain expiring federal tax credits, a result that will further increase electric rates.

[3:30:28] Department supports decision option one. Thank you for our time and

[3:30:34] consideration. Thank you very much Dr. Whitecoff. Next is Audertill Power. Please identify

[3:30:42] yourself and go ahead. Good afternoon. Good afternoon chair Cibon and

[3:30:48] commissioners. My name is Stacey Abert and I am the manager of Firk RTO

[3:30:52] policy for Audertill Power Company. I appreciate the opportunity to provide

[3:30:57] comments on this matter today.

[3:31:00] As a utility with customers in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, we are following

[3:31:05] this complaint activity very closely.

[3:31:09] Ottertop power has had a high degree of engagement in the MVP and LRTP transmission planning

[3:31:16] process and cost allocation for 15 years.

[3:31:19] Our engineers have worked with my so's engineers and we've worked with our state commissions.

[3:31:24] We stand behind and support how Tronch 2.1 was developed and is allocated and believe that it

[3:31:31] provides the best outcome for the customers we serve and the areas we operate in. Mr.

[3:31:38] Loughdes and the ISOMTEP report do a good job of covering the broad regional benefits that

[3:31:44] Tronch 2.1 portfolio provides. I would like to take a more focused look at the benefits

[3:31:51] that Autotopower Company has observed.

[3:31:55] Specific to tranche 2.1, you may recall that when the initial tranche 2.0 was released

[3:32:01] in March of 2024, Autotopower Company and others believed it failed to resolve severe regional

[3:32:08] reliability issues within Minnesota and along the eastern borders of North Dakota and South Dakota.

[3:32:15] Beyond the obvious reliability risk to our customers, these unresolved reliability issues also

[3:32:22] constrained the transfer capability of Northwest, the Northwest region of Mysore.

[3:32:28] This impedes access to some of the lowest cost generation in the Mysore footprint.

[3:32:34] After observing these shortfalls, we believe Trots 2.1 needed to do more.

[3:32:39] Audertail and others submitted additional projects for consideration into what ultimately became

[3:32:45] Tronch 2.1.

[3:32:47] That collaboration highlights the beauty of my SOS top-down bottom-up transmission planning process.

[3:32:54] Utilities with the best knowledge of the needs in their area can submit solutions for consideration.

[3:33:00] One of the projects that was added to the final Tronch 2.1 portfolio was the Maple River

[3:33:05] Kayuna 345KV project.

[3:33:08] Just for reference, Maple River is north of Fargo

[3:33:11] and Kayuna is northeast of Braynard.

[3:33:14] In addition to providing reliability benefits by resolving

[3:33:17] about 60% of the significant voltage constraints,

[3:33:22] this project effectively forms a bridge across

[3:33:24] the constrained areas on the eastern side of North Dakota

[3:33:27] and the northwestern portion of Minnesota.

[3:33:31] allowing access to low cost power and offloading the existing system facilities, as well as creating a thousand megawatts of transfer capability in the local resource zone number one.

[3:33:44] Providing access to low cost generation benefits the MISO region as a whole and brings economic opportunities to the northwest region of MISO.

[3:33:54] Trump's two-point-one builds off the Trump's one-portfolio, which was built off the original MVP portfolio.

[3:34:02] Individually and collectively, these three portfolios provide tremendous value to our region and to the Myself footprint.

[3:34:10] Thank you so much, Ms. Abert. Next, I just shut my list, is GRE, please, or no, sorry, Minnesota power, and they may be online.

[3:34:23] Good afternoon, Chair C. Benick-Mrs.

[3:34:26] I thank Jack Senevins, Kurt Council, and I'm here on behalf of Minnesota Power.

[3:34:30] To discuss the critical importance of my SO's LRTP process and the Tronch 2.1 portfolio of transmission projects.

[3:34:38] Minnesota Power strongly supports the Tronch 2.1 portfolio, which represents a proactive collaborative effort to ensure a grid of reliability and resiliency across Minnesota and the broader Midwest region.

[3:34:50] These projects are essential to addressing grid stability challenges during periods of high demand, extreme weather, and other systems stresses, ensuring that electricity

[3:35:00] Emergency Remains available when it is needed most. Accordingly, minutes out of power intends to sign on to a joint filing with other

[3:35:07] ISO transmission owners to oppose the complaint in the FERC. The Toronto 2.1 portfolio was designed to align with the

[3:35:15] generation plans of utilities in Minnesota and other other MISO states, including the integrated resources plans that have been approved by this commission.

[3:35:23] By increasing regional transferability, transfer capability, these projects enable utilities to access the diverse mix of reliable energy resources, reducing the need for redundant generation, and enhancing overall resource adequacy.

[3:35:40] Myso estimates the benefits of charge 2.1 are between 2.2 to 2.2 to 4.9 times greater than the costs in the myso zone 1, which includes Minnesota, North Dakota,

[3:35:52] parts of Wisconsin, and South Dakota. These benefits included avoid avoided capacity costs, mitigation of reliability issues, and increased access to competitive energy resources.

[3:36:04] Importantly, this enhanced transfer capability will improve resiliency, mitigate outages and provide access to available resources during times of grid constraint and high wholesale electricity costs.

[3:36:17] The Tronch 2.1 portfolio is the product of a multi-year intent of stakeholder process, which included contributions from utilities, public interest organizations and state agencies.

[3:36:28] This transparent and an inclusive process is sure that the projects were well aligned with the broader liability needs of the region.

[3:36:36] By sharing the cost and benefits across the region, these projects ensure that the grid remains reliable, resilient, and capable of meeting the demands of the future.

[3:36:45] Minister of Power also recognizes the risks posed by delays or changes so that John

[3:36:50] 2.1 portfolio as proposed by the complaint.

[3:36:54] If John 2.1 were removed from the relevant MISO models, Minister of Power anticipates

[3:36:59] substantial delays, res studies, and potential increased costs across multiple MISO planning

[3:37:05] activities.

[3:37:06] This disruption would include generator interconnection studies, transmission planning, load

[3:37:13] interconnection studies and the evaluation of the areas projects which Microsoft has recently

[3:37:18] approved.

[3:37:22] Quarterly, Minnesota Power is committed to working with the Microsoft Transmission Owners

[3:37:27] and other stakeholders to oppose this complaint and ensure the timely development of

[3:37:31] these critical, tronch-to-point-one projects.

[3:37:34] I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today, Minnesota Power looks forward to continue

[3:37:37] to work with the Commission and other stakeholders to advance these critical projects and support

[3:37:44] the region's energy future.

[3:37:49] Thank you very much, Mr. Evans.

[3:37:51] Next is GRE, Mr. Ellis.

[3:37:54] You're going to have to swap in again, apologies, or.

[3:38:07] Welcome.

[3:38:08] Thank you.

[3:38:09] Good afternoon, Chair C. Ben, Commissioners.

[3:38:11] My name is Matt Ellis.

[3:38:12] I'm the Director of Transmission Planning

[3:38:14] and Compliance from Great River Energy.

[3:38:16] And we very much appreciate the opportunity

[3:38:19] to provide some brief perspectives regarding the complaint.

[3:38:22] Great River Energy opposes the complaints.

[3:38:25] we will submit comments, the first jointly with other miso utilities and support of the

[3:38:29] my support Volio. We participated extensively through the multi-year stakeholder process

[3:38:35] that led to the approval. We also independently throughout the process and subsequent subsequent

[3:38:42] have evaluated the necessity of the individual Trunch 2.1 projects for which we're involved.

[3:38:48] For each, we confirm that these projects are essential and represent the most cost-effective

[3:38:52] solutions for ensuring system reliability.

[3:38:56] Several key points deserve emphasis.

[3:38:59] While the complaint primarily highlights the economic analysis

[3:39:03] supporting the portfolio, specifically a challenge that

[3:39:06] few of the benefits metrics use to calculate the benefit to cost

[3:39:09] ratio.

[3:39:10] From our perspective, reliability is the principle driver of need.

[3:39:15] And if according to my social analysis, the

[3:39:16] branch 2.1 portfolio addresses 961 reliability constraints. Bringing this closer to home,

[3:39:25] 372 of those are mitigated by the Tronch 2.1765 KV line across the other Minnesota that

[3:39:32] connect South Dakota. I can you say that again. The the number. Three. Three hundred

[3:39:40] and seventy-two. One more time. Three hundred and seventy-two. All right. About a third. So

[3:39:48] nine hundred and six. So Tronch 2.1 mitigates nine hundred and sixty-one reliability

[3:39:54] issues. The 765 KV line across Southern Minnesota Connecting.

[3:40:28] ALOVES they're ready to vote.

[3:40:31] and so absent resolution through the Trunch 2.1 portfolio these constraints would likely be resolved through a more fragmented solution to ultimately resulting in a higher cost.

[3:40:43] Now mitigating these 961 reliability constraints not only accommodates a new and expanding load growth but it also helps facilitate the interconnection of a

[3:41:01] Specifically, bringing this closer to home, we have projects that are in Mysore's expedited

[3:41:06] resource addition study.

[3:41:08] We also have pending generation interconnection requests necessary to fulfill our state-approved

[3:41:13] integrated resource plan, all of which are contingent upon Toronto 2.1 being operational.

[3:41:19] Should grant the complaints, these studies would all require re-evaluation.

[3:41:23] A re-evaluation of these studies would affect both network upgrades and overall

[3:41:27] project economics within the MISOQ, the ERAS process, as well as internally for great

[3:41:32] reverendurgy.

[3:41:33] Each utility does their own due diligence before we even submit these to MISO.

[3:41:38] And so a reevaluation would go back to the start even within each of the utilities.

[3:41:43] Timelines for commercial operations would likely be delayed in dangering realization

[3:41:46] of federal tax credits that are already on a challenging timeline.

[3:41:50] This would necessitate reconsideration of project viability, possibly impending Minnesota's

[3:41:56] potential to capitalize on federal tax instead of to benefit our members and control total

[3:42:00] cost of service.

[3:42:02] So we support the commission filing comments opposing the first complaint and very much

[3:42:07] appreciate the opportunity to provide comments.

[3:42:12] Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis.

[3:42:15] Next is Excel.

[3:42:21] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:42:22] Commissioners, E.M. Devson.

[3:42:23] I'm the lead assistant general counsel at Excel Energy.

[3:42:25] I also have Jason standing the director of our Transmission Planning Group.

[3:42:31] in case you guys have questions. I just I can't give up the table for this part of it.

[3:42:38] I think I'll start by saying we at Excel we agree with basically everything that has been

[3:42:42] said here by the other parties. We very much support Toronto 2.1. We will also be filing a

[3:42:50] protests against the complaint next week. I think we see this as a critical for both reliability,

[3:42:59] the economic growth and economic benefits to our customers. In focusing just solely on reliability

[3:43:07] which obviously is one part of this, it's a very important part but to focus on that I think

[3:43:14] what was compelling to us in looking through our documents for this hearing today is that when

[3:43:26] in its future's process from the start, and obviously have had a lot of comment from all

[3:43:33] these other parties on it. But when my, you know, projected those futures and these are

[3:43:38] obviously investments over the next 20 years. Just looking at what we would need to spend

[3:43:44] in zone one to mitigate the reliability impacts if the system were to grow naturally as they project.

[3:43:51] That alone is going to take up half on the low end or maybe more than the cost of that LRTP 2.1 will offset.

[3:44:02] That's before you get to the many other benefits of congestion relief, capacity, lowering capacity, cost, lowering energy costs.

[3:44:11] So we think that in and of itself is incredibly compelling information.

[3:44:17] So, I think that, you know, I think every other point I wanted to make has been made, so I won't, I won't repeat them.

[3:44:24] I think the one thing that is coming to mind that I want to say is, you know, what we, what I think we also saw in the light reliability standpoint and Jason can talk more about this, but when we're talking about resiliency of the system.

[3:44:42] These projects are going to produce what we call the thermal overloads of the system by 60% in an N-1 scenario or when one major transmission line goes down.

[3:44:55] The ability to respond to that and I believe it's 70% in N-1-1.

[3:45:00] So we think this is both very cost effective way of making sure that we can plan for the growth of the system and the reliability constraints that would be inevitable, but also in making sure that the system as it grows remains resilient to potential disruptions.

[3:45:17] So like I said, we're going to be filing a protest and we very much support.

[3:45:27] It's not your turn yet.

[3:45:32] Thank you, was that that concludes your comments and use your support of the decision option that's outlined in that briefing page.

[3:45:39] Thank you, Madam Chair, didn't make the clear yes we are.

[3:45:41] and ITC is next on the list.

[3:45:48] Ms. Rupiah, are you, I understood,

[3:45:51] you were just available for questions,

[3:45:53] but I wanted to just know that you're online

[3:45:57] if there's anything ITC wanted to provide

[3:46:01] for opening comments.

[3:46:03] You're welcome to hearing, I don't hear anything.

[3:46:08] Can you hear me?

[3:46:10] Yes. My apologies. I am operating from a phone and so I do have my colleague here, but I will just say,

[3:46:18] thank you, Jennifer Rupia with ITC Midwest. I have my colleague here,

[3:46:23] Phil Zilvenowski, who can get into a little more detail, but I do want to express appreciation

[3:46:28] to the commission for taking up comments and allowing us to offer comments on this.

[3:46:35] Phil, are you going to spot where you can offer comments?

[3:46:42] Can everyone hear me?

[3:46:44] Okay.

[3:46:45] Yes.

[3:46:46] Please state your name for the record.

[3:46:47] Okay. Great.

[3:46:50] Philip Jovenowski.

[3:46:52] I'm an analyst on the for regulatory team with ITC.

[3:46:57] So, good afternoon.

[3:46:58] Chair Steven and commissioners.

[3:47:01] ITC is fully supportive of

[3:47:04] launch 2.1 as well as as taken to both plan the portfolio and everything that they've

[3:47:13] sort of as their plans to respond to the complaint the the gentleman from excel had

[3:47:20] had mentioned that he just

[3:47:23] touched on so going last I can say everything I was planning on saying

[3:47:27] his position but I see his planning on filing a

[3:47:58] viability metrics to

[3:48:07] mitigation relief as well

[3:48:08] as well as

[3:48:14] I'll just

[3:48:18] sit to inject any sort of regulatory uncertainty it's already

[3:48:21] Okay,

[3:48:40] thank you very much for all of those comments. Is there anybody else who, this is a

[3:48:45] docket that we open, you know, not that long ago, but is there anybody else that wants to

[3:48:52] provide comments on the issue that's before the commission right now? Okay, hearing no one

[3:49:00] and then we'll turn to commissioner questions

[3:49:02] and our, my so-designee and OMS President,

[3:49:08] Commissioner Sullivan, please start us off.

[3:49:11] Thank you, Chair Sivan.

[3:49:12] And I want to thank Chair Sivan and colleagues

[3:49:18] for having this put on the agenda today.

[3:49:21] I think it's really important.

[3:49:23] I want to thank the utilities for being here.

[3:49:26] I think that, you know, as it's been said, we've put everything out and I think every,

[3:49:35] I got something to value from every single one of the testifiers today and I really appreciate that.

[3:49:42] There's a couple things I wanted to focus on, and by no means if I leave you off the list, it doesn't mean I didn't hear it.

[3:49:51] I'm just like, I'm keyed in on a couple things, but, you know,

[3:49:55] otter tail you talked about the reliability issues that this is,

[3:50:00] This addresses between North Dakota and Minnesota power. I mean, in Minnesota, the Maple River,

[3:50:06] Kailuna transmission system that will allow outlet from the Northwestern segments of my so into the rest of my so.

[3:50:20] Jerry mentioning 961 known reliability issues that would be mitigated by these lines.

[3:50:28] Excel mentioning that just to fix the known issues and I'm assuming on your system,

[3:50:34] not all of the known issues, but just the reliability issues that you're aware of,

[3:50:38] that that covers more than 60% or that covers more than half of the costs of

[3:50:44] to point one. I got that right. I want to make sure that that's not a check

[3:50:48] for yourself and that was for zone one for zone one and it's it's about half or

[3:50:56] up depending on the low and growth we see over the next 20 years. Yeah, half would

[3:51:01] be the low end the baseline. I mean I think that this is from this is exactly what

[3:51:07] the myso process is designed to address the myso process as somebody who's been

[3:51:12] I wouldn't say I've been to 300 of those meetings, but there were more than 300 meetings on

[3:51:16] Trump's two-point one, but I've been to a sizable percentage of them, same with Commissioner

[3:51:23] Ham.

[3:51:24] What did you want to remember?

[3:51:25] Yeah.

[3:51:26] I mean, we've been to a lot.

[3:51:27] I mean, these issues are vetted, and this is what this is to address.

[3:51:31] The reliability issues, this is what the stakeholder processes there to address for us

[3:51:36] all to do this together, because it costs less for us to do it together than it does

[3:51:40] if we do adhaki one-offie approaches, which somebody

[3:51:44] mentioned that same thing, it's going to cost more

[3:51:47] if we do it independently.

[3:51:49] And that's why we have an RTO.

[3:51:52] Is that we share these costs that cost our lower for everybody.

[3:51:57] And that, that redowns to almost everything

[3:52:01] that the RTO does for us.

[3:52:04] And where we see this reflected as in fuel class,

[3:52:07] we see this reflected in the fuel class

[3:52:09] When, I mean, just this last year, Excel, you are fuel clause reduced by $200 million last year.

[3:52:16] For a number of reasons, actually, I think it was a little bit more than that.

[3:52:19] But for a number of reasons, there's no $200 million prudency review out there.

[3:52:25] This is the value of my cell.

[3:52:27] And this is the value of why are you smoking?

[3:52:38] I think I really appreciate the points that have been made here on reliability.

[3:52:45] I think that is really, really important.

[3:52:49] One of the process that my SOU uses, we have agreed to this process through the organization

[3:52:56] on my so states, the states have agreed to a process and this is the end result of it.

[3:53:05] I've, you know, that this is the end result of it and this is why, for quarter 1920,

[3:53:12] is modeled on my so-process, is that if we need to get this stuff done and this is why

[3:53:18] focusing the rest of the country should look more like myself.

[3:53:26] So, I think that it's really important that it is known that this is fundamentally about reliability,

[3:53:33] that this was a sound, strong process.

[3:53:37] I want to focus in on some of the knock-on consequences that are what I'm really concerned about.

[3:53:47] As my so Mr. Loftus is testified to that,

[3:53:52] now this has been in the model now for since December.

[3:53:56] This is baked into the analysis

[3:53:57] that my so uses going forward.

[3:54:01] And for anybody out there who is in need of power,

[3:54:08] if that is what you need,

[3:54:10] then the power that you need to serve your data center

[3:54:16] or you're on short industry, or whatever,

[3:54:20] you're needing it for is reliant on these transmission lines.

[3:54:25] And if you pull them out of the model,

[3:54:29] like as Mr. Loughthas said,

[3:54:31] that is going to mean it's going to be harder for you to get that power,

[3:54:35] much harder, and it's going to cost more.

[3:54:37] And I want people to pay, if anybody's listening,

[3:54:40] I want people to pay attention to this point,

[3:54:42] it's going to cost you more,

[3:54:44] and you're going to have to wait longer, and in the AI race that we're in, and the moment that we're in, everything that we hear about is we need this now, now, now, now, well, this is going to take longer.

[3:55:00] ARAZ is a process that my so developed, that we through stakeholder process developed, Minnesota has 11 ARAZ projects that have been approved by my so-to move forward through ARAZ modeling, just some numbers that I had staff pull, those 11 projects and all of the utilities have projects in there, 2,470 megawatts.

[3:55:28] That's two thousand four hundred and seventy megawatts that Minnesota's economy needs in the next in the immediate future.

[3:55:36] We need that our our economic growth of people of the state are depending on that showing up for their jobs for their livelihood.

[3:55:46] That two thousand four hundred seventy megawatts if this trans two point one is pulled is going to wait longer.

[3:55:50] And I guess my question to my so is and you can answer this in weeks, months, years.

[3:55:55] How long would you expect that it would delay an era's process if you pulled 2.1 out and you don't have to be specific, but that's why I said weeks, months, years.

[3:56:07] I think it's probably years, but I'm not trying to lead you. Wow, leading you.

[3:56:18] Madam Chair, I don't think we have a specific timetable in mind, it would certainly involve

[3:56:24] having to update the base case and in part that would, the time period would be dictated

[3:56:31] by how long this complaint proceedings can it take. So that alone could take months.

[3:56:37] But in terms of actually updating it and then running the studies, if we don't have a specific

[3:56:41] time frame, but certainly something we can get back to you on.

[3:56:43] I didn't interpret that as many months to years.

[3:56:50] I think the utilities, that's just with arrows.

[3:56:55] In the definitive planning phase, the 2022 cycle,

[3:57:00] Minnesota has 4,988 megawatts in DPP.

[3:57:04] So just so people are paying attention.

[3:57:07] If you pull, transfer 2.1 out of the base case,

[3:57:11] what it will most immediately affect, it will affect the DPP-22, it will affect the DPP-23,

[3:57:20] and these are the cycles that lead ultimately to a generator interconnection agreement.

[3:57:26] It will affect expedited projects and it will affect eras.

[3:57:31] But in Minnesota we have 4,988 megawatts in DPP-22,

[3:57:36] and we have 8,465 megawatts in the DPP-23.

[3:57:43] So that together is about 13,400 megawatts.

[3:57:47] If you assume that 70% of that drops off because that's what happens in the definitive planning phases that drops off.

[3:57:53] That still leaves us with 6,500 and 5 megawatts that is very likely going to be delayed.

[3:57:59] And we can, I just verify those numbers with you. Does that sound right, Mr. Loftus?

[3:58:07] Not a mature commissioner, yes. That sounds accurate.

[3:58:10] So between DPP-22 and 23 and Eras, we're looking at 9,000 megawatts of power that is to serve

[3:58:18] minisotans that will be delayed. So all the stuff that we want to do is, that's why I view

[3:58:27] this as an attack.

[3:58:31] And I would be interested if my so-called chair, what are those numbers for like the

[3:58:37] era's numbers for the entire footprint?

[3:58:39] Because I wouldn't anticipate that all of those era's projects throughout the entire

[3:58:45] footprint would also be delayed.

[3:58:48] And how many megawatts, Mr. Tullo, or Mr. Loughtis, is that?

[3:58:52] Madam Chair, Commissioner Salad, I can tell you that so in August 26,

[3:58:57] I received 47 eras applications across 12 states, accounted for 26,500 megawatts of new

[3:59:07] generation capacity to come on on.

[3:59:10] Almost all of that I would assume would have to be restarted at a minimum.

[3:59:14] I think that's right.

[3:59:15] It would be restarted, so with that include projects that are also in the south.

[3:59:23] So projects in the south would, the era's projects in the south would have to study.

[3:59:28] Yeah.

[3:59:28] Thank you.

[3:59:31] I think if you, now that's just era's projects.

[3:59:34] If you look at DPP22 and DPP23, that's over 100,000.

[3:59:41] That's 100, some gigawatts of projects that are in there,

[3:59:46] same applying the same filter of 70%, 30 gigawatts.

[3:59:49] I mean, the consequences are significant.

[3:59:54] I'm just beating a dead horse now, but the consequences are significant.

[4:00:00] I think this is what happens when you can't do big things. That's what happens. As you, you know,

[4:00:10] you nickel and dime something or you keep picking at it until it dies. And I really am hopeful that

[4:00:18] Perk is going to reject the filing, and we're also most hopeful that we will support

[4:00:31] doing a filing, but I mean that's all I had to say right now, I really appreciate

[4:00:37] everybody coming and speaking to this, and yeah, that's all I have to say.

[4:00:46] Thank you, chair Sevent.

[4:00:49] Yeah, I don't have much question.

[4:00:52] I'll just make some statement.

[4:00:54] I think I start my work in energy in 2003.

[4:00:59] I start my job at the department.

[4:01:02] And since 2005, I start to cover my resources adequacy

[4:01:06] and my transmission planning.

[4:01:10] Since I moved to commission in 2012,

[4:01:13] I was becoming full-time covering my issue.

[4:01:16] So as Commissioner Sullivan said, I participated in every Mysore LRTP meeting until I became

[4:01:25] Commissioner.

[4:01:27] So I saw what's going on and then I had a lot of discussion with the Mysore staff,

[4:01:36] other state staff regarding this long-term transmission planning.

[4:01:42] Not engaging in the merit of the individual project because potentially we have to approve

[4:01:46] this project that we can assure that there was a proper process, states are monitoring.

[4:01:54] I think a miceau is providing funding to the organization of miceau state to monitor its

[4:02:00] own planning process.

[4:02:03] So Minnesota is one of the active state, really engaging in even engineering analysis,

[4:02:09] assistance from the Mysore, and then also way that funding, we were able to access the software,

[4:02:19] technical expertise.

[4:02:22] Even that wasn't good enough, organized as one of my state asked for

[4:02:26] additional funding to hire independent engineering company to monitor this process during the

[4:02:38] process, probably people may not see it, who didn't follow this issue very closely.

[4:02:46] Being said, my so-ambient P project was approved in 2010-2011, but Minnesota utility has

[4:02:57] a long history of a collaborative transition planning from the U.M.T.D.I. upon the rest

[4:03:05] transmission development initiative.

[4:03:08] At the time, our neighboring state, including Dakoras

[4:03:11] and Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, everybody, we

[4:03:15] worked together.

[4:03:17] I'm very disappointed at this point that we are getting

[4:03:21] becoming like in this situation, because our

[4:03:25] opomidvest tradition is being attacked, not just Minnesota,

[4:03:30] but our way of lifestyle at the opomidvest,

[4:03:34] including Dakotas, we were working together, we already addressed a lot of issue and concern of other states through this process behind the scene as OMS.

[4:03:46] If somebody think it's not fair to the state, OMS was always addressing that issue to Mysore and Mysore as a proactively reacting to it.

[4:03:56] So, that's why I was very surprised and disappointed that plus I don't know why Southern 3 states are initiating this, then I'm going to pay any time on this project.

[4:04:10] They clearly reject not to do this one.

[4:04:13] So, my thoughts had to go long distance to revising this type to separate them from this LRTB process until 3 and 4 becomes the real project.

[4:04:26] Being said, only economic speculation I can make in their behavior is that they are initiating

[4:04:33] another and take competitive process.

[4:04:38] Originally, ENTAGY was forced to join Mysore or any RTO on the DOJ investigation, and now

[4:04:45] I see similar pattern here, they are trying to create this and take competitive environment,

[4:04:52] not building transmission line so they can corner their market so even though we

[4:05:00] They are building trans 1 and 2.1, 2.2, they are not going to pay any time, even if we have a

[4:05:06] trans 4, that will open the gate to the energy to the south, because miles of tarp can not go back and

[4:05:13] rat to actively charge them. Even though we are charging PJM and SPP, if they are getting benefit

[4:05:19] from these lines under the MVP tab, they are paying for it.

[4:05:25] So that's why only economic rationale for me

[4:05:30] is they are trying to do this and pay competitive behavior

[4:05:35] by hurting everybody to protect their economic interest.

[4:05:40] That's why I was very disappointed

[4:05:41] because we went through this process for more than five years.

[4:05:45] We created long-range transfigure planning principle,

[4:05:50] and we went to a trench one and 2.1 process.

[4:05:55] And we tried to address everybody's concern as much as possible.

[4:05:59] And I think a lot of people doesn't see that

[4:06:01] because we're less working behind the scene and trying to address

[4:06:05] every state's concern if they had a concern.

[4:06:09] But now it become the federal energy regulatory commission proceeding.

[4:06:14] we have to go against some of our neighboring states interests and their opinion, but it is not

[4:06:22] about personal attack on other states. We have to defend this process because it is good for

[4:06:29] everybody. Based on the Myself process, this project will benefit a lot of all Myself state

[4:06:37] in addition to that. Based on what we saw during the Wintosum Yuri and Elliot, Myself and BP

[4:06:44] project enable the mice to play the critical role providing energy to the mice's east and

[4:06:51] west neighboring RTO so they can be saved from the blackout and potentially saving people's life.

[4:07:00] So not only this is a tack on the Minnesota or Midwest, it can potentially really harm the whole

[4:07:07] nation because mice is in the middle of the nation not having enough transport capability

[4:07:13] can potentially harm our eastern and western neighbor. So hopefully the challenge party

[4:07:21] understand this overall consequence and they withdraw their filing as soon as they can.

[4:07:30] Yeah, if I could build off of that, I am also disappointed in our neighbors to the north. I appreciate

[4:07:36] the hard work that they do and I don't want to belittle that. But when I look at the map on page four of

[4:07:43] We've got to go through the hard work of permitting two major lines to help serve their

[4:07:48] low and up and far go, okay, to help them have stable a service.

[4:07:54] It's a lot of work.

[4:07:55] You just saw it's a fight in their butts off to try to get a line figured out, just one

[4:07:58] 15 KV light.

[4:08:00] Can you imagine some of these 765s?

[4:08:05] It's not going to be easy work and we're doing it to help make the whole system reliable.

[4:08:09] Mr. Dolan, I was sitting on a meeting yesterday at SPP because they're starting to build

[4:08:15] a backbone of 765s and we found something very interesting and provided this to Mr.

[4:08:21] Commissioner Sullivan and to Mr. Witt and Commissioner Haam, is that they're building

[4:08:27] a backbone up to the pocket.

[4:08:30] Their future, their future backbone is going to go to the pocket.

[4:08:33] Okay. It's also going to go out to the oil fields of new Mexico. Okay. To serve what they think is their future energy all above. Okay. Go for it.

[4:08:44] Mago way. Okay. But let me tell you one of the keys that we found out yesterday is they see one of the important things is to link that backbone with the 765 KV line going into the Brookings Big Stone area to help us transfer power

[4:09:02] and those emergencies, like you said,

[4:09:04] Commissioner Ham, when the lights are going out in Chicago

[4:09:07] and bringing us down, who's gonna save our butts, okay?

[4:09:11] It's those guys out in Oklahoma and Kansas and Nebraska.

[4:09:19] It's those power plants that we need

[4:09:20] and they're thinking already of interlinking those, okay?

[4:09:25] This makes sense and I appreciate

[4:09:27] we join SPP just to make sure you guys are talking together

[4:09:30] and I have to tell you,

[4:09:31] you've been doing a great job. I appreciate what I've been seeing from Miso and SPP working together to

[4:09:37] feel out to make that inner transfer of those power happen and that's directly going to benefit

[4:09:43] North Dakota and Montana. So I am extremely disappointed in my friends up in the Dakotas and Montana

[4:09:49] for not seeing the bigger picture that's going on here and that how Miso has been working hard to

[4:09:55] make that happen to make our region on that scene more reliable.

[4:10:00] So, I appreciate that work. I'm going to continue to force it at SPP. I would hope they would see that the benefits that they're tripping up right now.

[4:10:14] Thank you, Chair Sivan. I, like, several of the parties would say that many of the points I would make have been made.

[4:10:22] I will just say coming up to a higher level the way I'm thinking about this is that reliable

[4:10:30] adequate and abundant electricity is the foundation of our economy across the country.

[4:10:36] It is the foundation of our society, it is what allows us to live on the Tundra.

[4:10:42] It is what allows our small businesses to become big businesses, it is what allows our local

[4:10:48] communities to grow. And this complaint threatens that for our region. I am also very disappointed

[4:10:59] that the complaining states brought this complaint. I appreciate the long-term planning and

[4:11:08] the deep engagement that Myso does with all of our states to make sure that our needs are being met

[4:11:14] And that our utilities are able to provide information to you all about some of the reliability issues and the weaknesses that they see on the system.

[4:11:25] It is just a true testament to shared knowledge and having a long-term vision for our region to make sure that we can continue to operate as a healthy economy and society.

[4:11:40] I absolutely support the joint comments and I am really heartened to hear about the transmission

[4:11:47] owners and the work that you all will be doing to oppose this complaint.

[4:11:53] I really appreciate you doing that and I don't really have a whole lot to add that that's

[4:12:01] all I have to say about that.

[4:12:03] Thank you, Commissioner Partridge, and fellow commissioners.

[4:12:07] First, I'd just like to also, like, set the stage a little bit.

[4:12:11] This is an unusual matter.

[4:12:12] Normally, we don't open a DACA specific about a FERC complaint.

[4:12:18] And so I just want to reiterate that the point of opening the DACA and then the commission

[4:12:25] support of authorizing Commissioner Sullivan as our designated lead commissioner to sign

[4:12:32] And the joint comments is to comply with the state's open meeting law.

[4:12:37] And so we wanted to have this hearing to be transparent about the Commission's support

[4:12:45] of joining the joint comments.

[4:12:48] And that is a high level view to attempt, for me, to express gratitude to Commissioner Sullivan

[4:12:56] for his leadership as the OMS president and not only like leading our efforts from the Minnesota

[4:13:05] perspective, but also all he's done on behalf of OMS to help advance transmission planning

[4:13:14] in the upper Midwest and throughout the country. So first of all, thank you Commissioner Salvin

[4:13:19] for all your work that you do, and also to our staff, Commissioner Ham, and others who have

[4:13:29] worked really hard on getting the briefing papers ready today in a very short time frame.

[4:13:36] I know it was difficult over the holiday weekend, and it has been a little bit tricky just

[4:13:44] to continue to work on the joint comments that are being drafted right now, that are still

[4:13:53] a work in progress because the submission deadline has noted in the briefing papers

[4:14:00] isn't until next week, but by having this discussion, by hearing from my so-and the utilities

[4:14:08] and other stakeholders, we, I think, as a commission, are comfortable moving forward with,

[4:14:15] or at least I certainly am, with authorizing commission or Sullivan to sign those comments,

[4:14:22] even though we don't have them exactly in front of us, to help highlight the overall importance

[4:14:29] of this complaint. But I think what's been expressed today, and also, I just want to spend

[4:14:36] minute highlighting is that it really is unusual to have a complaint like this come at this

[4:14:42] stage and the threat it all poses to our joint planning and coordination we do as state commissions

[4:14:50] with entities that are here. So, one thing that I've talked to staff about that I haven't shared

[4:14:57] with commissioners or other

[4:15:00] Members yet is what else we can do as a commission to enhance and support the filing to the

[4:15:12] FERC in our own capacity. And so one thing I wanted to ask, commissioners, if they'd be supportive

[4:15:20] of, and particularly Dr. Weikoff, is if it would be helpful to also have, so assuming that

[4:15:29] the Commission approves decision option one, which is as everyone knows having the Commission

[4:15:37] sign on to the joint comments to the FERC. Should we also submit a filing that is more

[4:15:47] Minnesota specific on behalf of the public entities that have been wane in on this? So I'm envisioning

[4:15:55] here, Dr. Weikoff, that it would be relatively short letter that is somehow indicating

[4:16:03] that it's consistent with measures that were discussed here today that were laid out

[4:16:10] in the briefing papers consistent with the joint comments where the Minnesota Department

[4:16:17] of commerce would then have a venue and an avenue to sign a joint letter with the commission

[4:16:25] and perhaps other entities to the firm.

[4:16:28] Is that something you think you'd be supportive of and it's a good idea?

[4:16:33] Thank you, Chair Sivan, and yes, as we discussed, as the cabinet agency and on speaking

[4:16:39] on behalf of the Walls Administration, we would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with

[4:16:43] commission on a joint statement from the public entities in Minnesota.

[4:16:48] And because this is all like coming together in a very short time frame as we know, the

[4:16:55] states didn't want to even give us an extension to work this out a little better.

[4:17:01] The utilities I know you mentioned, you are already filing as the Minnesota utilities or

[4:17:08] joining other entities in filing comments, as well, would the Minnesota utilities welcome

[4:17:16] signing on to a short letter like Dr. Wycoff and I just discussed or are you covered for

[4:17:24] your own, like all of the Minnesota utilities are going to file. I'm not wording this question

[4:17:31] correctly or easily. Does any ministerial utility want to join a letter with the Commission

[4:17:41] and Dr. Wycoff, which we don't have fully written yet, but would be consistent with

[4:17:48] the discussion today. So we are signing as Minnesota entities solely. Mr. Ellis, you seem

[4:17:57] to be nodding along like you're understanding my confusing question or you can also certainly

[4:18:04] say that you're already working together or individually to answer the complaint and you

[4:18:12] don't want to join. That's perfectly fine, because I understand you're already filing anyway.

[4:18:17] So, chair Stephen, commissioners know very much appreciate to ask you. I understand what you're

[4:18:20] saying, we are, so a greater of energy, we are filing with other, with other, my so wide

[4:18:27] transmission owners, as far as submitting an additional letter from greater of energy.

[4:18:33] Can we take that back, discuss it, and then get back to you?

[4:18:37] And I think that nature of what we're likely to do, because, again, the comments are do,

[4:18:42] shortly is the Commission Executive Secretary and will work with Dr. Wikoff. We'll have the draft

[4:18:54] submitted or then circulate it and then folks could sign on if they want to. So I don't know

[4:19:02] if anyone, if I should put other utilities on the spot, if that's something you'd want to consider or not,

[4:19:10] Mr. Dobson.

[4:19:12] Sure, Madam Chair. I think we're in line with Jerry. We'll have you to take it back.

[4:19:16] Obviously, we're filing our own and we're covered there, but we're certainly happy to take a look at a letter and talk about it internally.

[4:19:26] Okay. It's probably consistent. Well, do that or attempt to do that at the very least, though, if the commissioners support it,

[4:19:35] will have the Minnesota Commissioners and the Minnesota Department of Commerce submit a brief statement

[4:19:43] or a brief letter stating the support. And that OIG isn't here but I would suggest that we

[4:19:51] reach out to the OIG if perhaps they're watching and want to join this as another public entity

[4:19:58] where this is of.

[4:20:00] Significant importance. Then the other thing I'd just like to, I don't think we need a specific motion on it, but I would just like to state, is that, because, again, this is an unusual complaint, as somewhat unusual docket, the commission, maybe we should have a vote on it, that we're directing our executive secretary to work on legal matters related to the complaint, with the exception that approval.

[4:20:30] of litigation, filings will continue to be approved by the Commission.

[4:20:34] And the rationale and the reason for having a public discussion of this is that, you

[4:20:40] know, should the Commission or should the Minnesota lose, or should the FERC complaint

[4:20:47] move forward and the FERC not side on our side that we're advocating for?

[4:20:54] They likely will be more significant legal expenses for the commission to continue to argue

[4:21:02] the case. And so I don't think we need to, I don't know if we have to have more of a discussion

[4:21:09] about it or not. But as the chair, I just wanted to raise that commissioners are aware that we would

[4:21:16] authorize our executive secretary to continue to pursue legal options and, you know, there

[4:21:25] may need to be budgetary requests or other things that are made should the complaint

[4:21:30] go forward in a way, you know, that we're all familiar with.

[4:21:36] So do any commissioners have any questions about either of those, those two topics that

[4:21:41] just raised,

[4:21:46] then anything else that we, if we moved to authorize Commissioner at Sullivan

[4:21:55] to sign the joint comments, we authorize our executive secretary to work on joint

[4:22:09] and direct the executive secretary to work on legal matters related to the complaint.

[4:22:17] That seems to be like kind of where we're at right now.

[4:22:22] And just to be clear, there's not going to be an order that come, a formal order that comes out of the stocket here today,

[4:22:30] just a motion. And so that's sort of my loose motion overall.

[4:22:38] Commissioner Han.

[4:22:40] Thank you, Chair Sevent.

[4:22:41] As long as we understand,

[4:22:42] I think I probably all

[4:22:44] Commission already understood

[4:22:46] but I think for the public.

[4:22:47] We are not advocating the project itself

[4:22:50] because we are going to be

[4:22:52] evaluating individual project

[4:22:54] as it comes to the commission.

[4:22:56] So we are trying to protect

[4:22:57] the planning process that

[4:22:59] Miso is doing so.

[4:23:01] Making sure that we are

[4:23:03] and evaluating these projects in the MISO wide plan and then in the visual project will be evaluated with its own merit at the commission.

[4:23:12] No, that's a really good point and thank you for emphasizing that commissioner.

[4:23:20] Any other discussion or questions from the parties or commissioners?

[4:23:25] Otherwise it's my very loose motion that I made clear enough.

[4:23:31] Commissioners, then all in favor of my motion, please say aye.

[4:23:36] Aye.

[4:23:37] Opposed.

[4:23:38] The motion prevails five to zero.

[4:23:40] Thank you very much, everyone.

[4:23:43] And thanks for your good work.

[4:23:45] There's no other business before the Commission so we're adjourned for the day.

PUC Agenda Meeting on 2025-09-04 10:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript