Legislation Details

File #: Details 2026-084    Version: 1 Name:
Type: CN - Certificate of Need Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 5/13/2026 In control: PUC Agenda Meeting
On agenda: 6/4/2026 Final action:
Title: ** E015/CN-25-111; Minnesota Power; E015/TL-25-112 American Transmission Company, LLC In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Power and American Transmission Company, LLC for a Certificate of Need and Route Permit for the Iron Range - St. Louis County - Arrowhead 345 kV Transmission Project. 1. Should the Commission issue the draft route permit prepared by Public Utilities Commission Energy Infrastructure Permitting (PUC EIP) staff? 2. Should the Commission find that an Environmental Assessment addendum (EA) is required for the Project? And if so, should the Commission approve the scope of the EA addendum and Environmental Report (ER) recommended by PUC EIP staff? 3. Should the Commission refer the matter to the Court of Administrative Hearings (CAH) and request the appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to preside over public hearings and prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations on the merits of the proposed route permit application and any n...
Attachments: 1. MP & ATC Notice Plan Petition 8-7-25, 2. MP & ATC Request for Exemptions 8-7-25, 3. PUC Order 11-18-25, 4. 1 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 5. 2 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 6. 3 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 7. 4 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 8. 5 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 9. 6 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 10. 7 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 11. 8 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 12. 11 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 13. 12 MP & ATC Combined Application 1-5-26, 14. MP & ATC Notice Plan Filing 1-9-26, 15. PUC EIP Staff Recommendations 1-15-26, 16. PUC Order 1-23-26, 17. MP & ATC Request to Reschedule Mtgs 2-5-26, 18. PUC Notice of Cancellation of Mtgs 2-6-26, 19. St. Louis Cty Land & Minerals Dept Comments 2-24-26, 20. PUC Notice of Complete App & Rescheduled Mtgs 3-12-26, 21. MP & ATC Updated AIMP 3-31-26, 22. MP & ATC Comments to Clarify Project Need 4-2-26, 23. WOLF Comment on MP Google Data Center ESA 4-8-26, 24. PUC Oral Comments from Public Information and Scoping Mtgs 4-15-26, 25. MnDOT Comments 4-22-26, 26. 1 DNR Review Letter & Comments 4-23-26, 27. 2 DNR Review Letter & Comments 4-23-26, 28. 1 CURE Comments & Attachments 4-23-26, 29. 2 CURE Comments & Attachments 4-23-26, 30. 3 CURE Comments & Attachments 4-23-26, 31. MP & ATC Comments 4-23-26, 32. MTERA Comments 4-27-26, 33. WOLF Late-Filed Comment 4-28-26, 34. PUC Written Public Comments Received 4-28-26, 35. MP & ATC Comments on Request to Stay Proceedings 4-30-26, 36. Briefing Papers, 37. CURE Decision Option 2.1 6-2-26, 38. MP and ATC Comments on Staff Briefing Papers 6-2-26, 39. MTERA Comment 6-3-26
Date Ver.Action ByActionAction DetailsMeeting Details
No records to display.

title

**                     E015/CN-25-111;                     Minnesota Power;

                     E015/TL-25-112                     American Transmission Company, LLC

In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Power and American Transmission Company, LLC for a Certificate of Need and Route Permit for the Iron Range - St. Louis County - Arrowhead 345 kV Transmission Project.

 

1.                     Should the Commission issue the draft route permit prepared by Public Utilities Commission Energy Infrastructure Permitting (PUC EIP) staff?

2.                     Should the Commission find that an Environmental Assessment addendum (EA) is required for the Project? And if so, should the Commission approve the scope of the EA addendum and Environmental Report (ER) recommended by PUC EIP staff?

3.                     Should the Commission refer the matter to the Court of Administrative Hearings (CAH) and request the appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to preside over public hearings and prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations on the merits of the proposed route permit application and any necessary route permit conditions?

4.                     Should the Commission extend the 216I statutory timeline from six months to a sufficient amount of time to make a decision on the certificate of need application and route permit application? (PUC: Maxon, Johnson)