1 
 
 
 
 
An Interview with 
CHRIS FLEEGE 
 
 
 
 
 
Conducted by Marta Monti   
On 
January 22, 2016 
Minnesota Power, Duluth, St. Louis County, Minnesota 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Humphrey School of Public Affairs 
Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy 
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 
 
Copyright, 2016 
 
  
2 
 
Marta: Today is January 22, 2016, and I am speaking with Chris Fleege from MN Power. Chis, 
if you could, please tell me what you remember about when you began working on the 
CapX2020 project?  
 
Chris: If I remember right, I kinda was launched right into the Fargo project. The CON 
(Certificate of Need) either had been approved….we were kind of in the permitting process of 
that. The Project Development Agreement...we were functioning under that….a lot of the pieces 
were in place at that point. We were pretty much...we hadn’t committed to build, but we were 
well on our way. The groups had been formed, a lot of the pre-work had been done already with 
planners and the design, so a lot of things were on their way.  
 
The permit was granted in July of 2010. Yeah, I loved your timeline [from the draft of the 
CapX2020 Report], it was really helpful to have because it all begins to run together a little bit. 
So, I came up and things were just beginning to unfold on the Fargo line, which was really the 
first large line that was built. The Bemidji project was started as well, so those were the two...we 
were participants in both, and they were the first under construction.  
 
But we didn’t play the construction management role. Xcel led the Fargo line and Otter Tail took 
the Bemidji line. Our folks, our planners were involved. Our construction managers too. What 
was kinda nice was you did really have a chance to talk about best practices. What are we going 
to build into the lines to make sure that they were reliable and serve the region itself? And of 
course MN Power had been involved very early, with the earliest studies. We were a Vision 
Team member, and really part of the participation agreement, which was one thing I was going 
to mention in here. I saw the footnote and maybe it’s been changed, but I was curious, I don’t 
know if anyone had talked to you. “For instance the Allete was part of the original…” It’s MN 
Power/Allete. It might have been Allete that signed, but at the end of the day we are not a 
holding company. We do business under both MN Power and Allete.  
 
Marta: Thanks for clarifying that for me! The way I think I made that mistake was from sifting 
through project agreements and looking at the signees at the top, and comparing early documents 
to the later ones.  
 
Chris: So that was a good catch. But you are right, that Minnkota came in and so did Dairyland 
later on, so that was a good catch, because that is confusing, even to some of our bankers and 
stuff. Haha, small detail, but anyways. Allete and MN Power is all intertwined. It’s Allete doing 
business as MN Power. It is confusing, every time we do contracts with people we always have 
that issues, but anyways.   
 
Marta: Well thank you, and see, people do read the footnotes! Haha! 
 
3 
Chris: And I can’t say that I’ve read everything in the paper, but I thought it was a really good 
characterization. I think you’ve done a really nice job of pulling out the key nuggets that are 
there. It was about collaboration. For decades we didn’t build, because you were building just for 
what you needed. So in Northeastern Minnesota, we had great transmission for that, but never 
really looking at this overarching, region wide way.  
 
I saw your notes in there from Gordy [Pietsch]. Our planners worked really closely with GRE 
(Great River Energy) planners. What is interesting, which I think you’ll find, is GRE service 
territory is kind of this co-op area. [Goes to map and points to locations] So here’s our service 
territory--we are the purple areas here. So even when you look at our system maps, we’ll show a 
big footprint for it, but really GRE is serving all the way up through here too. So our 
transmission lines are very intertwined. The way we feed our areas, but surrounding us are all the 
coops. So, we’re broken out very regionally. We’ve always been interconnected with folks like 
GRE. Transmission planning had to be collaborative with GRE, so we were always very 
involved. Xcel, I would say, in our footprint, it really is just us and GRE. They were our closest 
partner probably that we worked with.  
 
I think to your point, it became apparent that if you’re going to build anything big, nobody could 
do it by themselves. Xcel might have been able to build it by themselves, but to have cost 
allocation, to be able to have the broader view, you really did need this more regional planning. 
So I think some of the...FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Order 2000 and some 
of the other orders that came...looking to do planning, and then with an RTO (Regional 
Transmission Organization)...it just made sense at that point.  
 
But I do think that whole nature of being collaborative with your neighbors, and a focus on 
reliability, made it really easy. Tom Ferguson really did know those guys. He had worked with 
Otter Tail Power and GRE. I don’t know if it is the “Minnesota Nice” or whatever, everybody 
recognized the same issue. If we’re going to build large regional backbone transmission, it’s 
gonna take more than individuals to do that, and it was a collective process. I think it was great 
to be part of it. Our companies have a long history of supporting each other, whether it's through 
mutual assistance or things like that. Like if bad things happen to you, you basically send 
linemen out to other areas to support one-another. It just made sense. I think when MISO came 
and the construct was there for cost allocation, it was very natural for us to do this.  
 
There were challenges. When you’ve got that big of a group--and I know one of your questions 
is about the poker chip exercise, which was, “how do you consolidate your interests so you’re 
not in 7 or 8 lines” and I thought, again, pretty creative solution. We protect our customers, but at 
the end of the day we’re only in 2 or 3 lines. And for us, we were only in two lines, which was 
very logical for us. They are generally in our area or help support what we need. So, I thought it 
was a really creative way to get at it. And again, Tom Ferguson who held my role before me was 
the individual that participated in that exercise.  
4 
 
Marta: Yeah, I thought it was a creative exercise as well. It was very collaborative in nature.  
 
Chris: And just great people. You touched on it, great leadership. We have that natural 
inclination, and yet you had Co-op’s with IOUs with Muni’s, which in other areas, can be a 
challenge at times, but I think when you start talking about transmission and the need for it, 
people can get over that and we could find win-wins for everybody.  
 
It’s been a good process, and really one of the big benefits, I would say, even as we were putting 
together the design criteria or how to do construction management, having those individuals 
from all the utilities come together to ask, “What are the things that we would want to build into 
tower design, or foundation design?” You really had the best of all the utilities forming all those 
design specifications, and then execution around projects, how to do contracts….just really good 
thinking. Really what came out of this for everybody is coming away with best practices--and I 
mean real time, because you really had money….it’s not just a theoretical exercise around “hey 
let’s figure out how to have good design specs.” No, we had money on the table, so we’re all 
wanting to be successful, and to be fair.  
 
And, you know, there were things that happened on projects that you didn’t want to happen, but 
you had a governance structure that allowed you to have collaborative decision making and to 
take action when you needed to. Whether it was a contractor that wasn’t performing, or some bad 
event occurred, we were able to intervene very quickly, whereas sometimes you think doing 
things by committee doesn’t work, but I think we created enough efficiency….and of course we 
had all built enough transmission ourselves that we had some sense of the fact that you can’t 
micromanage, you have to use a governance structure to try to move projects forward. So I think 
a lot of good leadership from all the utilities was really very positive.  
 
People like Will [Kaul] and Teresa [Mogensen] have been out on the circuit, and people in other 
parts of the country are so amazed. They wonder how we can all work together, because 
normally you’re all competing. And I don’t know if it’s the Midwest or if it’s that we found 
something that made sense and it’s not a winner take all. 
 
I think having customers is important, to understand that what you build, obviously somebody 
has got to pay for it. All of us were largely fully-integrated utilities, or we certainly had end-use 
customers, so we understood that at the end of the day, the customer gets billed and you have to 
justify that a $5-10 increase--that there’s benefit in that.  
 
And of course, MISO had a role in that too--justifying the projects. Before there was a lot of cost 
allocation in place, we had to make sure that whatever we were doing was prudent for the 
customer. So yeah, I think it was a good set of utilities and folks that we had worked with. 
5 
Although, I should say, some of those southern Muni’s we had never worked with before, so that 
was a bit of a new opportunity. But, we found that people are the same.  
 
Marta: This whole idea of “Minnesota Nice”. It’s great, and I do think that there’s something do 
that, but I think that there is something more than just that. Should the conditions be right in a 
different state or region, I wonder if an initiative like this could be possible, and I think it could 
be.  
 
Chris: I agree, yes.  
 
Marta: I’ve gone back and forth...was it the right place, right time, right people, and like I said, I 
think there was a bit of that. There was a lot of uncharted territory with some of the new FERC 
orders and how they would be applied. There was a need to upgrade the region for reliability, 
and it just so happened that pretty much the whole regional system hadn’t been upgraded in the 
same amount of time. But it’s one thing I’ve been curious about.  
 
Chris: That is a great question. I think it was, because now a lot of it is built, and even for MISO 
with the MVPs (Multi-Value Projects), a lot of it is under construction or will be completed, and 
now that cost is coming to the customers. We built a lot, we created a lot of value. And it was 
decades since large construction had been built, certainly not on the kind of scale that an RTO 
brings to the tables. So, I think it was early moving.  
 
I think it can be done other places, but I think it is about creating the win-win. How do you fairly 
allocate costs to folks, or, there’s a clear benefit. I think MISO’s struggling with that a little bit 
now, too. As they are done, now maybe it is time to pause, with the exception of the Clean 
Power Plan, and what does that mean, but that even gets back to the uncertainty of, “is it going to 
be state-based? RTO solutions?” There are just a lot of factors in play.  
 
But I would say, we did not have certainty around cost allocation initially, so I do think there was 
a realization by the utilities that it needed to be done, and we needed to collaborate. And we 
might not know exactly how it works. And it was very cautious. It wasn’t, “Hey, we’re all in,” it 
was incremental. We thought, “Okay, let’s study it, let’s see if this makes sense. Can we come up 
with a business case for all utilities?” I thought it was a good approach to say incrementally 
“how can we move forward with this.”  
 
That is a good point about the “Minnesota nice.” I agree with you, I think it certainly could be 
replicated, but it takes people being open to a paradigm shift. “How could it be?” So I think it is 
that vision. It may be able to be replicated other places, but people need to check either their 
egos, or their “winner take all” mentality at the door and have everyone sit around the table to 
see if there is something that everybody can win at. That there is a business model that works for 
6 
everybody, and I think that was the spirit that pulled that group together and certainly was a 
guiding principle.  
 
Will [Kaul] referred to it as a “faith-based” organization, and that is a clever...we did use that 
term many times later because we didn’t have certainty. And that is where you have to trust your 
neighbors, that they are all there for the right reasons, and that nobody is going to be left behind 
at the end of the day. So I think it was a very positive approach. There was a lot of trust that was 
built with that group.  
 
Marta: Someone mentioned a term “coopetition”, a combination of cooperation and 
competition, which I thought suits CapX202 well.  
 
Chris: Coopetition. That’s good. Because at the end of the day it did have to make sense. We all 
had boards or councils that they had to go back to. We all had someone that we had to justify that 
the project does make sense, and that it’s not a “winner take all” proposition.  
 
For us, I think CapX has evolved to be other things. It gives us a chance to think about, “are 
there policies or things that we could help either lobbying at MISO or more broadly to 
Commission staff. The three IOUs in the group were us, Otter Tail, and Xcel, but are there things 
that are really best for the region and for our customers that are transmission related, whether it’s 
NERC things, or even Buy the Farm. How do we help shape that so we create a policy that does 
help facilitate transmission, even if it isn’t under a more collaborative nature? If it is transmission 
that we need just within our service territory, well, we’re not going to do every project the way 
we did the larger regional project, so I do think there was a lot of value in that around 
transmission issues, and siting and routing that I think have been really helpful.  
 
Marta: You mentioned that it takes a paradigm shift to work like this. Do you see collaborative 
nature from the CapX project going back into your own company and potentially influencing 
new projects? 
 
Chris: For us, I think we’ve always been very collaborative by nature. I’m speaking for MN 
Power. We’ve always valued strategic partnerships. I think with GRE, because they are so 
intertwined with us, but there’s other folks--Manitoba Hydro--that we’ve done a lot of work 
with. ATC. And then we have large industrial customers, which is unique to MN Power. We’ve 
got the iron-ore industry up here, and the pulp and paper customers. So with those large 
customers, it is about creating win-win situations. How do we help them but still serve our 
shareholders and our ratepayers. It always is a little bit of a challenge, but… We partnered with 
Minnkota to build the DC line 50 years ago which was from Center all the way to Arrowhead, so 
we’ve always looked for partnerships because we are a smaller utility. You look at IOUs, 
probably us and Otter Tail are probably some of the smaller ones that are out there. For us to do 
things, we do need to partner with others.  
7 
 
I don’t know if it’s been a huge influence, because we’ve always been collaborative, so it’s a 
little bit of the chicken or the egg. Would we have been as conducive if we didn’t have that 
predisposition? But I do think in the transmission world, it has been very different. Because 
people don’t always think that way. In some of the areas where they have broken out the vertical 
integration, spun things off. If you’re a true only transmission-play, that is your only business 
model. So it is hard to say, how would I share this is it’s all about building transmission. I think 
being vertically integrated gives you that customer impact so you see it all, and maybe you 
realize you need to give a little bit to get a little bit. So you’ve got a bigger pie to justify some of 
these things with.  
 
I think it’s definitely helped within the transmission world because there are certain areas of the 
country that really are pure play transmission companies, where they have basically broken the 
business apart.  
 
Marta: And I suppose time will tell, the markets are continually evolving.  
 
Chris: Exactly. I know they’ve done a lot of presentations on the CapX model. I know that Will 
Kaul and Terry Grove and others have been on the road show, sharing at conferences, and I think 
people are very interested. And hopefully it has planted some seeds in some areas, because there 
are a lot of win-win opportunities out there.  
 
Marta: Do you think this cooperation could expand beyond transmission projects? 
 
Chris: I would say, certainly in distribution operations, it’s very much...and I do have T&D 
[transmission and distribution], so that is a little bit unique, I’m not just transmission, I’ve got the 
distribution side as well. Like we had talked about--mutual aid when there is a storm, we 
definitely send our folks to help Xcel. Xcel last summer came up to help us in Brainerd. We’ve 
gone to help Otter Tail. We’ve been out to the big East utilities. So there, you really do 
understand that interdependence. But as for investment, which I think is that other question, we 
were certainly there to help one another because we know we are interrelated with each other, 
but there’s not a lot of areas that have done that kind of a thing. That one is a little bit easier, its 
closer to that principle of cost-causation….if it’s going to benefit you, and then you should pay 
for it. So in distribution I think you see that a lot more. 
 
I do think you’re right though, around generation. As we cite generation or large plants, there 
should be more opportunity for that. I would argue that there probably will be...and for us, when 
we build the DC line with Minnkota, we were a part owner in the young three project out there, 
we helped build that lignite plant. It was a mine-mouth operation, so I do think there are 
opportunities for partnerships.  
 
8 
And there will probably be more of that, certainly in transmission facilities, because now you can 
pick the optimum site. Or wind resources, too-- How do you get wind? The wind isn’t where the 
load is, so how do you build systems that allow you to deliver that. I do think there will be more 
opportunity for that.  
 
And there is an economy of scale to building big gas, or wind farms, or things like that. It’s that 
whole scale that’s there, whether it’s transmission lines or generation assets.  
 
Marta: Speaking of generation and renewables, part of the impetus behind CapX is to help get 
more renewables from the Dakota’s and Iowa over to the load going east. I know it’s still 
relatively early, but have you seen an increase in planning of renewables in those corridors?  
 
Chris: For us, because we did purchase the DC line, we’ve got almost 700 MW of wind now out 
there. So we basically took it from what we were pulling across on that line for coal and use it 
for wind. So that’s really helped facilitate a lot of our wind build. But the CapX lines, and 
probably it is more for folks to the south, it really is creating that opportunity for that regional 
transfer across. Because a lot of the load, when you get away from the Twin Cities, it really does 
want to go to the East. You are really facilitating the transfer of wind from west to east. I think as 
the CapX lines come in service, it’s going to become really obvious. I think a lot of that is going 
to get leveraged.  
 
But for MN Power, between our existing hydro assets, and then all the wind that we’ve built 
leveraging the DC line, probably not a direct correlation. That’s probably why we aren’t as 
invested in some of those other lines, at the end of the day. We’ve either met or are very close to 
meeting our targets for the renewables early.  
 
Marta: And the same is true for some of the other projects. I think that’s one of the interesting 
aspects of why the projects ended up with the utilities that they did on them. I’m not sure if it 
was entirely by happenstance, but having five utilities on each project, who knew that would be 
the magic number. But this ability to talk through and figure out what is right for your company 
within the mix of the 11 was probably one of the keys to the project’s success.  
 
Let’s shift a little over towards some of the permitting process and engaging with the public. One 
of the things we talked about earlier was that nobody but Xcel could have maybe done this by 
themselves. But even then, they wouldn’t have had the same buy-in that was created by having 
all of these partners.  
 
Chris: I think that was very powerful, having a coalition being the entity building it, realizing 
it’s made up of five distinct entities, but again, a lot of study work was done by the 11. 
Especially some of the master planning. So having that broader group was very effective and 
really helped create some alignment as we were moving projects forward. You had not only, as I 
9 
mentioned earlier, the best permitting folks. We had expertise in Northeastern Minnesota with 
the agencies and the folks that we have interacted with all the time, so with the Bemidji project, 
even though we weren’t project managers, we certainly brought people to the table that could be 
really effective. Especially as you came into the Boswell station, and areas up there. We 
leveraged the folks that really did have the local relationships, and I think that really made a 
difference.  
 
I think having the municipals along gave that perspective, because they helped us too! In 
understanding the concerns that you have with other muni’s along the route. Just that whole 
sensitivity, I think we have just gotten a lot better at understanding how best to do routing and 
public outreach.  
 
With public outreach, doing it early and often with folks. We’ve actually used a lot of 
that...we’re building a project with Manitoba outside of the CapX projects, but basically it will 
be built in Northeastern Minnesota, and a lot of the things that we saw with the open houses, and 
the early engagement with all stakeholders, we used that. Some of those best practices that we 
really came away with because it was done well.  
 
And the Commission [PUC] and the folks we interacted with saw that too, because they don’t 
like going to meetings where there’s a whole room full of people that are angry and upset. So, 
the more that can be worked out, the better. It really helps us out too, with routing. Learning 
what places to stay away from, dealing with the counties….local people do know where lines 
should go, or where they would recommend. I mean, nobody ultimately really wants it in their 
backyard, but they have some real thoughts of definitely where not to go, for all sorts of reasons. 
So, I think it was very positive as we got into both the engagement best practices, and the whole 
communication thing too. CapX had a website. We’ve since seen that evolve. And how you 
interact with people on the routes, so how to let them know when you’re going to be working in 
that area with them. There are a lot of ways of communicating with people that evolved as we 
moved along with the CapX projects. We were on some of the earliest ones, so some of that was 
still being developed.  
 
But people want to know what’s happening, especially if it’s going to impact them. Ultimately, 
there are a lot more ways to do that, and we’ve become much more effective in doing that. 
We’ve learned a lot from each other, because quite frankly, even Xcel hadn’t built large 
transmission outside of the metro area for some time. So we all learned, which was a very 
positive thing.  
 
Marta: What were some of the challenges that cropped up with your lines?  
 
10 
Chris: I think the two...the construction managers can probably give you the blow-by-blow, but 
we certainly had issues with Buy the Farm and some of the ways we were acquiring real estate, 
or the easements with folks evolved. That was certainly an issue.  
 
Crossing pipelines, and dealing with railroads, and the other major players to get the properties 
set. Working with matting across swamps. One of the construction pieces….phasing things at the 
right time so that we were sensitive to farmers when we were impacting crops. Could we build at 
different times, and just the logistics of working with the people who are ultimately going to be 
impacted. For those folks, they may not have liked having us come through...I know on the 
Fargo line we ended up having to make some changes to the route, because it’s kind of micro-
siting as you get into it.  
 
So I think there were just the normal things that come up as you’re dealing with any sort of a 
project. Some issues with some welding with some plates. Just, things that came along that were 
quality control things, and labor. We didn’t have any fatalities on our line, but I know that other 
lines were not as fortunate, so I think dealing with those kinds of things, which are always just 
tragic… So yeah, lots of things like that, when you’re dealing with that scale of a project, that 
especially with the folks that hadn’t built in decades. And even the people who had been around 
for some of our earliest projects had retired, because yeah, it had been three decades since we 
build transmission to that scale.  
 
Marta: You mentioned crossing pipelines. What are some of the challenges there? 
 
Chris: You can put induction on their pipeline, so you have to mitigate for that. So dealing with 
what the needs to look like, and what’s fair...so there is a bunch of study work, and getting them 
comfortable with it. With some of the higher-voltage, there is just some more stuff like that with 
it. That was more of the Bemidji project, that we dealt with that.  
 
Marta: Are there more permits associated with that? 
 
Chris: Yeah, it’s like anything, you’ve got to work with them, notify them. It’s a real issue that 
gets flagged that needs some solution. It’s just a matter of how bulletproof does it need to be. But 
you certainly create issues with crossing their lines.  
 
There was that, and then we had issues with Bemidji with First Nation folks, and how best to 
manage that, finding a fair resolution.  
 
With any transmission project, there’s always going to be those kinds of challenges. But working 
with the individuals, and having enough time to have those discussions, is important. As we’re 
working on our new line, there is the long-eared bat, and there is just all the environmental 
impacts and lots of challenges that will still be there for every project as we move through.  
11 
 
They are usually all solvable, though. We think, “How do we find the right mix, or work with 
landowners, or agencies to say if there is some other way to do this.” I think we had some issues 
with the bald eagle on the Bemidji job.  
 
I know that there were challenges also with finding enough talent. As the lineworkers are 
beginning to retire...the boomers are leaving. There was a lot of build-out going on at the same 
time, so having enough folks to actually do the construction was a challenge. But, everything is 
solvable. It might take a little bit longer, but generally our projects have been pretty much on 
budget or under budget, and on schedule.  
 
Again, I think that speaks to that pre-planning and having the best minds of the business out of 
all the utilities come together to collectively develop a realistic approach. Identifying the risks, 
and mitigating them ahead of time. Having that larger group coming together, I think you did get 
the best product. It’s like any group, right? That’s why individuals making decisions versus 
group decisions are always better.  
 
Marta: I made a note to myself earlier about MISO and the MVP’s because the last time I 
looked at the status of the other MVP projects, and there are quite a few that are over budget and 
not on time. So I thought it was interesting to compare the two--because the CapX projects being 
on-time and on-budget has been mentioned a few times before. I can’t speak to what is going on 
with the other MVP projects, but it says something about the benefits of working collaborative, I 
think.  
 
Chris: I would agree with you.  
 
Marta: Maybe some of it comes from having 11 utilities, or for each project, 5 utilities, who are 
able to pool best practices and think it through.  
 
Chris: Right. Plus I think with the poker chips, the five that did settle in, they had local stakes, 
generally. So you really did have people close to the risks who thought about what would happen 
if this were to go poorly, or how they could do it in such a way that we could mitigate it 
beforehand.  
 
I think they knew as we went in to Collegeville that were going to have to do something 
different, because we knew that the shortest distance is not a straight line here. So, being 
practical, and realizing we needed to come up with a different solution influenced us. Whereas if 
you are just a transmission developer, sitting in some remote location, thinking “we’re just gonna 
build”....and they do draw straight lines without really understanding that there’s going to be 
some changes.  
 
12 
I think it also helps that we had realistic schedules and estimates that were put together of what’s 
really achievable to do. I’m sure you’ve heard that, because that is something to be proud of. 
And that helped us when we went back to our boards, to say “we did what we said we were 
going to do” with no major surprises.  
 
Marta: How has that evolved--going back to the board? Has it been easier as the project has 
gone on to quell apprehension? 
 
Chris: Yeah, because we really had to educate them, too. Explaining how we would own certain 
percentages in different lines, what it means to be “tenants in common” versus owning discrete 
segments of the line. They needed to understand the concepts and why it was good deal for us, 
you know, as all good boards should. I think as it went along, and we were executing what we 
said and we had in-service dates that were being met on time, it just gave them a lot of 
confidence. For us, I think it helped set us up for working on the Great Northern now. I think 
being able to show them is a key element.  
 
Marta: That makes me think about one thing we haven’t talked about yet, which is the 
challenges that come with crossing borders.  
 
Chris: Yes, with the Fargo project we crossed state lines. What if North Dakota says one thing 
and Minnesota says another. I think the states, they don’t really want to relinquish that control. 
They want to be able to say that they having routing authority--and they do! There’s no question 
that they do, but it is difficult when you have an international project. In fairness, we were 
concerned about that [with the Great Northern Line] because Manitoba has a process….they are 
a separate country, for cripes sakes, so it’s really hard for us to say that they have to agree with 
what we decide first.  
 
I think that’s why FERC put together some of their Orders, to get us to think about how do we 
facilitate….especially when we are moving wind resources all the way across through one state 
to another state, how do you give routing authority. I think that is one thing that was good about 
Capx, is that we could show benefit locally. And as we think about the market, it creates 
opportunities to integrate renewables and to improve reliability. And those are the biggest things, 
really, that transmission does. We don’t really create anything, we facilitate it. Which is different 
from the generation side where you are creating the product.  
 
Marta: CapX knew what they wanted to accomplish, and part of that was getting the laws to 
change within Minnesota, and part of that was writing into the language was that transmission 
can benefit the region, not just the state. The idea has to be there as well, but sometimes 
solidifying it in law, be it state law or FERC Orders...I think it needs to be a little bit of both, 
where one has to nudge the other.  
 
13 
Chris:  I will say, I think Minnesota has been very progressive about looking at policy questions. 
We kinda of blazed a trail with Pawlenty with some of the renewable standards, so that has been 
positive. And be able to think bigger. Because if you stop your thinking at the state border, it’s 
tough to make big decisions. You’re just like a utility from the old days, where you can’t look 
more broadly to find the right solutions for not just Minnesotans, but the entire Midwest. I do 
think there have been a lot of good things that have been created.  
 
And you’re right, back to policy. Having that vision.  Not all of us have lobbyists, but we have 
one, GRE had one, certainly Xcel has them. So we were really able to collaborate that way, so 
once there was a vision set, we were able to identify the things that we needed educate people 
on….why is this important and what does it bring. I think there was a lot more collaboration, 
even on that level. There had always been some of that, but having this broader view of what 
might bring benefit to the region was really helpful. To be able to have all of them on the same 
page, on the same talking points, it was positive. But that’s not really my bag. I’m not a lobbyist.  
 
Marta: Well, we are getting close to our time. We’ve covered a lot, but I’m wondering if there is 
something we haven’t talked about that you think is important I know? 
 
Chris: I think it has been a very positive thing. Certainly to get the transmission built, but I think 
it is, like you had touched on earlier, this broader concept of collaboration, which I think can be 
used in other areas. As I’ve been sitting here thinking about generation, I think partnering makes 
a lot of sense, because there is that scaling piece that is really important. And I do think within 
the organizations, I think sharing the best practices has been really positive. I know we’ve taken 
our experiences and what we’ve learned from CapX and been able to apply it to another project 
with another partner. So it is transferable, and it doesn’t mean you’re always going to do things 
with CapX, but certainly know those guys and gals that are a part of that….I can pick up the 
phone and talk to Teresa [Mogensen] or any of the folks that we worked on projects with.  
 
And, quite frankly, CapX is still in play. Even though we’re not in the second round of 
investment, so we are not building anything more. I guess they just energized the Fargo line, but 
we’ve been largely out, but we are still a Vision Team member, we are still involved, we are still 
doing study work….hopefully to find better solutions. And then policy too. I think there is 
benefit to CapX. Even if it doesn’t result in building lines, it’s building relationships, building 
policy. And then really looking for opportunities, for when we do need to do something different. 
So I think it’s a coalition that does create value on other fronts other than just getting steel in the 
ground and lines in the air.  
 
Marta: Well this seems like a good place to stop. Thank you for speaking with me today.  
 
Chris: My pleasure, thank you.