7-1000-19158-2
ET2, E015/TL-07-76
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
|
In the Matter of the
Application for a |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION |
This matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard C. Luis,
acting as a Hearing Examiner for the Minnesota Department of Commerce
(Department). A public hearing was held at
7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at the
Appearances: Jim Atkinson, Environmental
Services for Minnesota Power,
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On January 12, 2007 a letter was submitted to the Commission by GRE and MP noticing their intent to submit a Route Permit Application under the Alternative Permitting Process. On March 14, 2007, GRE and MP jointly filed a Route Permit Application for a 115 kV HVTL to be located in the Badoura area (Badoura Project).[1] The Application sought issuance of a routing permit (RP) using the alternative permitting process. The Commission accepted the filing as complete on April 3, 2007.[2]
2.
MP and GRE propose to
construct approximately 63 miles of overhead 115 kV transmission line and
associated substation modifications to meet the growing electrical load of the
Badoura project area. The entire permit
application, maps, appendices, and other documents were made available to the
public through the Energy Facility website.[3] The
3.
In order to maintain and improve the electric
power service in the Badoura to
· Rebuild an existing Badoura (MP)-Long Lake (GRE) 34.5 kV line to 115 kV with some 34.5 kV underbuild in the Park Rapids area.
· Add a 115 kV line exit and associated facilities at the Badoura Substation.
· Install a second 115 kV line exit and second 115/34.5 kV transformer and associated facilities at the Long Lake Substation.
·
Move Itasca-Mantrap's Park Rapids Substation to
the Long
4.
Facilities proposed to maintain and improve the
electric power service in the
· Rebuild an existing 34.5 kV Badoura - Birch Lake Tap line to 115 kV.
· Build a Birch Lake Tap to Birch Lake Substation 115 kV line (with possible 34.5 kV distribution underbuild in some sections).
· Add a 115 kV line exit and associated facilities at the Badoura Substation.
· Add 115/69 kV transformer and associated facilities at the Birch Lake Substation.
· Convert the Tripp Lake Distribution Substation to 115 kV service.[6]
5.
Facilities proposed to maintain and improve
electric power service in the
·
Build a
· Add a 115 kV line exit and associated facilities at the Pequot Lakes Substation.
· Convert the Pine River Distribution Substation to 115/34.5 and 115/12.5 kV service.
·
Build a
· Add 115 kV line exits and associated facilities at the Badoura Substation.[7]
Background on the Certificate of Need
Process
6.
Prior the request for a route permit, on
November 29, 2005, the Utilities made a joint application to the Commission for
Certification of two High-Voltage Transmission Line (HVTL) projects pursuant to
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 216B.2425 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter
7848, through the Biennial Transmission Projects Report proceeding. One is the Badoura Project and the other was referred
to as the "Tower project." The Tower project is for approximately 14
or 15 miles of new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, a new Embarrass
switching station, and a new Tower substation located in
7. As part of the PUC review when a Certificate of Need (CN) for an HVTL is requested, an Environmental Report (ER) must be prepared.[8] The Department’s Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) staff prepared an ER on the Commission’s behalf. The Department based its analyses on the information and data supplied in each utility’s Biennial Projects Report and several other relevant sources. The Department’s ER evaluated the general potential impacts from construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed HVTL along the broad corridor(s) proposed by the applicant and discussed ways to mitigate these potential impacts. The public was given an opportunity to participate in the development of the environmental report.
8. The Department’s EFP staff held a public meeting in the Badoura area. The public meeting provided the public with information about the project, afforded the public an opportunity to ask questions and present comments, and solicited input on the content of the ER. The comment period was held open until 5:00 p.m. January 10, 2006. On January 11, 2006, after consideration of the public comments, the Commissioner of Commerce issued an Order outlining the content of the ER in conjunction with the Commission's review procedures. On February 14, 2006, the Department issued and distributed the ER for both the Badoura and Tower projects.
9.
On March 28, 2006, Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ)
Routing Permit Process
10.
On April 3, 2007, the Commission ordered that Badoura
project proceed under the six month alternate review process and directed the
Department’s Energy Facility Permitting staff (EFP) to conduct the necessary
steps in the process.[11]
The EFP staff then directed ALJ
11.
As part of the routing process, the Department
prepares an Environmental Assessment (EA) which includes a public hearing to
determine the scope of the EA and a later public hearing to discuss the
results. On April 17, 2007, Department
EFP staff held the initial public information/scoping meeting in the
Description of the Applicants
12.
GRE is a
not-for-profit generation and transmission cooperative based in
13.
GRE’s 2,679-megawatt (MW) generation system
includes a mix of baseload and peaking plants, including coal-fired,
refuse-derived fuel, and oil plants as well as new wind generators. GRE owns approximately 4,550 miles of
transmission line in
14.
Minnesota Power (MP) is an investor-owned
utility headquartered in
Description of the Project
15.
The proposed 115 kV
transmission line is intended to provide more reliable electric service to the
residents of the project area. Minn.
Stat. § 216B.243, subd. 2, states that no large energy facility shall be sited
or constructed in
16. MP and GRE will each own specific segments of the proposed HVTL project, which is divided into a total of five segments. In addition, there will be upgrades at specific substations as described below:
15.1 Segment 1:
The line will
exit the Pequot Lakes Substation to the north and then will turn west and
parallel existing MP 34.5 kV and GRE 69 kV lines for approximately 2300 feet.
It will then turn northerly paralleling the MP 34.5 kV line for approximately
2200 feet to the intersection with an existing 230 kV line (identified as the
91 Line and owned by MP). It will then share right-of-way with the 91 Line to
near the intersection with Cass County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 1. At this
point the line will proceed due north on the east side of CSAH 1 to the Pine
River Substation.
15.2 Segment 2:
The new line
will exit the Pine River Substation and travel south along the east side of
CSAH 1 (115 kV double circuit with Pequot to Pine River 115 kV Line) for
approximately 0.5 mile. It will then turn west to the south side of County Road
(CR) 171 to its intersection with the 91 Line. It then proceeds northwesterly
and again shares right-of-way with the 91 Line to its termination at the
Badoura 115 kV Substation. MP owns the
15.3 Segment 3:
Badoura Substation to TH 371 (
GRE will own
this segment of the 115 kV transmission line east out of the Badoura
Substation. It will follow and replace an existing MP 34.5 kV line to a point
(referred to as the 507/516 tie switch) east of TH 371.
15.4 Segment 4:
TH 371 to
This segment proceeds
northerly paralleling TH 371 to its termination at the Birch Lake Substation in
15.5 Segment 5:
Badoura Substation to Long
GRE will own
this segment of the 115 kV transmission line north and west out of the Badoura
Substation. It will follow and replace an existing MP 34.5 kV line to its
termination at the Long Lake Substation near Park Rapids. In the immediate
vicinity of Park Rapids, there will be approximately two miles of 115 kV
transmission line with a 34.5 kV distribution underbuild. The Long Lake
Substation and the common facilities (land, fence, etc.) are owned by GRE. MP
will operate all of the high side equipment within this substation. The
proposed transmission line will be designed to meet or surpass all relevant
local and state codes, and North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
and MP and GRE standards. Appropriate standards will be met for construction
and installation, and all applicable safety procedures will be followed during
and after installation.
15.6
Modifications to
the Pequot Lakes Substation will include a new 115 kV line entrance and
modification of the existing 115 kV bus to improve reliability. This will
include the addition of two 115 kV line breakers, a 115 kV bus tie breaker and
associated controls. No new land will be required for these additions; however,
the fenced area will be expanded by less than one acre.
15.7
Two sites are
under consideration for the project’s connections to the
15.8 Badoura Substation
Additions at the
existing Badoura 115 kV substation would include three new 115 kV line exits,
associated bus work, circuit breakers and control facilities. In addition,
existing line entrances would be reconfigured to improve area reliability and a
115 kV tie breaker will be added. No additional land would be required for the
substation upgrades; however, the fenced area would be expanded by less than
one acre.
15.9
Additions at the
Birch Lake Substation include one 115 kV line exit and 115/69 kV, 60 MVA
transformer and associated circuit breakers, protection and controls. To
accommodate the new transformer addition and line entrance, a new 115 kV bus
structure will be built and the existing transformer and 34.5 kV line exits
will also have to be modified. The existing fenced-in area may be expanded by
less than one acre to provide room for new 115 kV structure, transformer and
34.5 kV modifications.
15.9
When GRE
constructed the Long Lake Substation, it was designed to accommodate a second
115 kV line exit and transformer. Additions as part of this Project include
bringing the proposed 115 kV line into the substation, and a second 115/34.5
kV, 50 MVA transformer and associated circuit breaker and controls. The
Itasca-Mantrap Park Rapids Distribution Substation will also be relocated to
the Long Lake Substation. These substation additions will not require
additional land and the fenced area is not expected to be expanded.[16]
17.
The right-of-way (easement) width requirement
for this 115 kV transmission HVTL project will range from 75 to 100 feet
depending on structure design types. Single pole right-of-way requirements
could be reduced in certain higher density, developed areas. The required
right-of-way width may also be less in areas where the new transmission line
follows an existing linear corridor such as a road or trail. MP and GRE would
seek a permanent easement, providing the right to construct, operate and
maintain the transmission line, for the full width and length of the
right-of-way. In some select areas, additional right-of-way may be needed to
accommodate longer spans or other special design requirements identified during
the final survey. Right-of-way width depends on conductor blowout and the
recommended clearances to obstructions along the
18. The two pole wood H-frame structure design proposed by the Utilities is suited for areas with rugged topography and/or for areas requiring longer spans to avoid or minimize placement of structures in wetlands or waterways. The average span would be 600–700 feet, with 1,000-foot spans achievable with certain topography. The structure height would average 60–80 feet with taller structures required for the exceptionally long spans and in circumstances requiring additional vertical clearance. Figure 7-1 in the Application shows a cross section drawing of a typical MP 115 kV single pole and H-Frame structures being considered for this Project. Figure 7-2 in the Application shows a cross section drawing of a typical GRE 115 kV H-Frame structure being considered for this Project. The single pole design (GRE-THP or THP-B) is suited for areas where available right-of-way is limited, such as where rights-of-way are shared along roads in developed areas. Two insulator types could be used depending on requirements: a standard post insulator (THP design) and a braced post insulator (THP-B design). The advantage of the THP-B braced post insulator design is that longer span lengths can be achieved, however structure cost is increased. Average structure height would be 65–90 feet to achieve average span lengths of 300–400 feet. Specific structure heights and span lengths may exceed the average due to land use requirements and topography. Figures 7-2 in the Application show cross section drawings of a typical GRE 115 kV single pole THP and a THP-B structure being considered for this Project. In addition to the two main structures under consideration for the Project, there may be limited use of a single pole structure with low voltage single phase or three phase distribution underbuild that directly supplies area electric customers. This single pole design is used in areas where existing land use development restricts the placement of two separate power line circuits; a high voltage circuit and a lower voltage (distribution line) circuit. The advantage of this design is less right-of-way requirement; however, there are significant operating, maintenance, and cost factors to consider. The higher voltage circuit is “stacked” on top of the lower voltage distribution circuit, resulting in a taller pole (averaging 75–90 feet in height) and shorter spans (250–350 feet). Another alternative would be to place the distribution line underground in specific areas.[18]
19. For Segment 5, the transmission line would utilize 795 aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) Drake conductors, which have an ampacity of 982 amps at 100 degrees C. This will limit maximum continuous electric power capacity of the line to 196 (MVA), provided there is not a more restrictive limit associated with the substation terminal equipment or transformation capacity. The line would use three single conductors (not bundled). Depending on structure type (single pole or H-frame), there would also be one or two shield wires (3/8″ high strength 7-strand steel) to protect the conductors from lightning. It is likely that one shield wire would be an optical shield wire (64mm2/528 OPGW 24 fiber), to be used for communications.[19]
20. The right-of-way (easement area) width requirement for the 115 kV transmission project would be 100 feet for both structure design types, understanding that the width of the right-of-way cleared for the single pole designs could be reduced in certain higher density, developed areas. The width of the right-of-way cleared may also be less in areas where the new transmission line follows an existing linear corridor, such as an existing transmission line or road. MP or GRE would seek a permanent easement, providing the right to construct, operate and maintain the transmission line, for the full width and length of the right-of-way. Additional right-of-way may be required for longer spans or special design requirements based on a final survey. Right-of-way width depends on conductor blowout and the recommended clearances to obstructions along the route. Upon completion of construction activities, landowners will be contacted to determine whether or not construction damages have occurred. Areas that sustain construction damage will be restored to their pre-construction condition to the extent possible. Landowners will be notified of the completion of the Project, and asked to report any outstanding construction damage that has not been remedied or any other issue related to the construction of the transmission line. Once transmission line construction cleanup is complete and construction damages have been successfully mitigated, landowners will be sent a final contact letter signaling the close of the project and requesting notification of any outstanding issues related to the project.[20]
Routes Analyzed in the
Environmental Assessment
21. In its EA, the Department evaluated the MP and GRE Proposed Routes and the proposed substations additions. No party proposed an alternative to the proposed substation additions.
22. In the Peysenske Lake area (western portion of proposed HVTL Segment 5, several miles east of the Long Lake Substation in Henrietta Township), the Applicants proposed to utilize MP’s existing 34.5 line corridor along 178th Street and CSAH 20 for the new transmission line.[21] An approximately half mile portion of this proposed route segment, along with the existing 34.5 kV line, follows CSAH 20 along the western shore of Peysenske Lake.[22] The EA did not find any significant difference between the shoreland side of CSAH 20 and the western side of CSAH 20.[23]
23.
Both during the Biennial Transmission Projects
Report certification process and the public informational/scoping meeting for
the current docket, opposition to this portion of the proposed HVTL route
(Segment 5) was raised by landowners around
24.
Due to the close geographic proximity and the
fact the two routes follow existing road right-of-ways, both the proposed HVTL
Segment 5 (
25. Minnesota Rules 7849.5530 requires an applicant for a HVTL to identify any routes that were considered and the reasons for rejecting them. The Utilities discussed routes considered and rejected in Section 4 of the Application.
Comparison
Matrix
26.
As requested by the ALJ at the public hearing in
this matter, a comparison was prepared of the
|
Segment |
Length (in miles) |
Trees in ROW (%) |
Clearing Costs |
GRE Design Cost |
Total Route Cost |
|
PR |
3.47 |
40 |
$34,700 |
$34,700 |
$1,182,681 |
|
ALT 9 N |
4.13 |
58 |
$59,885 |
$41,300 |
$1,751,445 |
|
ALT 9 S |
4.08 |
69 |
$70,380 |
$40,800 |
$1,477,818 |
|
PR UB |
3.51 |
36 |
$31,590 |
$35,100 |
$1,283,015 |
|
PR UG |
3.51 |
36 |
$31,590 |
$35,100 |
$1,249,554 |
Hearing Notices
27.
Notice of the August 29, 2007 public hearing on the
route permit was published in the Brainerd Dispatch,
and the Park Rapids
28.
The Commission will issue an Order on the
Applicants’ request for a Route Permit after examining the hearing transcripts,
all written filings submitted by the public and all filings and arguments
submitted by the Applicants, the Minnesota Department of Commerce and other
persons and entities interested in this matter.
Under
Department’s Environmental
Assessment
29.
As part of the Environmental Assessment development
process, a public meeting was held on April 17, 2007 in
30. The EA detailed the work needed to be performed for the Project, potential impacts and mitigation measures. No significant impacts requiring extraordinary mitigation measures were identified in the EA. Mitigation measures were detailed for the limited impacts (and potential impacts) caused by the Project.[28]
31. The EA was exceptionally thorough and detailed. Many of the Findings in this Report are drawn directly from that document. As with the companion routing proceeding for the Tower Project, the Department staff should be commended for their efforts in preparing the EA.
Summary of Public Hearing
Testimony
32. Approximately 35 persons attended the public hearing in this matter. Bill Storm, Planning Director with the Department of Commerce's Energy Facilities Permitting Group made a presentation regarding the Department's environmental review process for the Badoura Project.[29] Representatives of MP and GRE attended the hearing to address issues raised by the public. Robert Cupit, Routing Supervisor for the Commission, explained the Commission’s role in the routing application process.
33.
Gordon Kramer of
34. Raymond Peterson of Backus noted that the description of a portion of Segment 3 in the Application did not accurately reflect the street names. There is no dispute regarding the route at that location, since it follows the existing MP 507 line. Peterson also urged GRE to consider existing trees and irrigation systems when revising the existing easement to allow for an upgrade of the power line.[32]
35.
Perry Melbo of Park Rapids expressed his
opposition to the alternative routes proposed by a homeowner’s group in the
36.
Steve Kopkie of Park Rapids (and a near neighbor
of Mr. Melbo), expressed his opposition to the alternative route along Highway
34 in the
37.
Les Hagemeyer, President of the Peysenske Lake Association
(comprised of land owners with access rights to that lake), noted that the
existing 34.5 kV power line has been in place since 1952. The concerns of riparian owners on that lake
is that the creation of a new right of way will establish a public access to
38. The ALJ noted that the creation of a right of access to public waters was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission or the ALJ.[37] However, the Commission can properly consider the concerns of landowners that a particular route may result in consequences outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction when determining whether to approve a particular route or impose conditions on that approval.
39.
GRE offered to accommodate the affected
landowners by moving the 115 kV line across CSAH 20, which would remove the
HVTL from the lakeshore side of the road and prevent the power line from
crossing
40. Jerry Ellsworth, Electrical Engineer for GRE, noted that either underbuilding or trenching was possible for placement of the 115 kV line on the west (non-lake) side of CSAH 20, but that trenching of transmission lines was typically five to seven times more expensive than overhead lines. Most of that cost lies in termination structures, which can cost between $100,000 and $150,000.[41] Since the cost information was not available at the hearing, the ALJ directed that GRE provide that information, which is set out in the Cost Matrix in an earlier Finding.
41.
Robert Cupit, Routing Supervisor for the
Commission, sought clarification of the reasons for the Utilities’ proposal to
place the new 115 kV line off of the centerline of the existing 34.5 kV line,
at several points along the
Summary of Written Comments
42.
The only written comment was submitted by email
by Henry and Mary Buerkley. The
commentators expressed agreement with Segment 5 of the
Regulatory Considerations in Route
Permitting
43. When issuing a route permit, the Commission has been directed to consider specific impacts and make particular evaluations of the potential effect of the proposed HVTL. Under Minn. Stat. § 216E.02, the Commission must be guided by the following responsibilities, procedures, and considerations:
(a) Evaluation of research and investigations relating to the effects on land, water and air resources of large electric power generating plants and high voltage transmission lines and the effects of water and air discharges and electric and magnetic fields resulting from such facilities on public health and welfare, vegetation, animals, materials and aesthetic values, including baseline studies, predictive modeling, and evaluation of new or improved methods for minimizing adverse impacts of water and air discharges and other matters pertaining to the effects of power plants on the water and air environment;
(b) Environmental evaluation of sites and routes proposed for future development and expansion and their relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the state;
(c) Evaluation of the effects of new electric power generation and transmission technologies and systems related to power plants designed to minimize adverse environmental effects;
(d) Evaluation of the potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed large electric power generating plants;
(e) Analysis of the direct and indirect economic impact of proposed sites and routes including, but not limited to, productive agricultural land lost or impaired;
(f) Evaluation of adverse direct and indirect environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed site and route be accepted;
(g) Evaluation of alternatives to the applicant’s proposed site or route proposed pursuant to subdivisions 1 and 2;
(h) Evaluation of potential routes that would use or parallel existing railroad and highway rights-of-way;
(i) Evaluation of governmental survey lines and other natural division lines of agricultural land so as to minimize interference with agricultural operations;
(j) Evaluation of the future needs for additional high voltage transmission lines in the same general area as any proposed route, and the advisability of ordering the construction of structures capable of expansion in transmission capacity through multiple circuiting or design modifications;
(k) Evaluation of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should the proposed site or route be approved;
(l) When appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other state and federal agencies and local entities;
(m) If the board’s rules are substantially similar to existing regulations of a federal agency to which the utility in the state is subject, the federal regulations must be applied by the board;
(n) No site or route shall be designated which violates state agency rules.[44]
44. In addition to the foregoing considerations, the Commission is governed by Minn. Rule 7849.5910, which requires that the Commission be guided by the following specified siting and routing considerations:
(a) Effects on human settlement, including, but not limited to, displacement, noise, aesthetics, cultural values, recreation, and public services;
(b) Effects on public health and safety;
(c) Effects on land-based economies, including, but not limited to, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and mining;
(d) Effects on archaeological and historic resources;
(e) Effects on the natural environment, including effects on air and water quality resources and flora and fauna;
(f) Effects on rare and unique natural resources;
(g) Application of design options that maximize energy efficiencies, mitigate adverse environmental effects, and could accommodate expansion of transmission or generating capacity;
(h) Use or paralleling of existing rights-of-way, survey lines, natural division lines, and agricultural field boundaries;
(i) Use of existing large electric power generating plant sites;
(j) Use of existing transportation, pipeline, and electrical transmission systems or rights-of-way;
(k) Electrical system reliability;
(l) Costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the facility which are dependent on design and route;
(m) Adverse human and natural environmental effects which cannot be avoided; and
(n) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
45. The Application and the EA provide sufficient information for the Commission to assess the proposed route and alternatives using the criteria set out above. Specific considerations that merit more attention in determining a particular route are discussed below.
Impact on Human Uses
46.
The Applicants described their estimate of the effects
of the proposed Project on human settlement in Section 6.2 of the Application. The EA has a similar discussion in Section 4.6
of the EA. Neither the
47.
Visual impacts are discussed in Section 4.3 of
the EA. The Department noted that 91
percent of the HVTL will follow existing right-of-way and therefore will not create
a significant new visual impact. The EA
included comparisons of the existing visual impact and renditions of how the
upgraded line will appear. From
communities near the
There are three communities within one
mile of the proposed route:
48. For areas away from those communities along the PR, the Department concluded:
The project is not expected to impact
viewers within the Badoura and
49. The Utilities undertook to determine specific location of structures, right-of-way and other disturbed areas along the authorized route to reduce the visual impact on landowners. The Department listed measures that will minimize or eliminate the modest visual impacts. No mitigation was deemed needed for recreational uses.[48]
Impacts on Public Health and
Safety
50. The Utilities have proposed that the Badoura Project will be constructed to comply with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).[49] The issue of electromagnetic fields (EMF) was discussed in the EA in Section 4.13. EMF, which are present around any electrical device, have been the subject of much discussion regarding potential human health effects. The intensity of the electric field is related to the voltage of the line and the intensity of the magnetic field is related to the current flow through the conductors. Both magnetic and electric fields decrease in intensity with increasing distance from the source.
51.
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to
demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health
effects. On the basis of the most
current information available and expert advice of the Interagency Workgroup on
EMF led by the Minnesota Department of Health, no
52.
Normal construction noise can be expected during
the installation of transmission line structures. The Department concluded that these
operations will be of short duration and will be conducted during the daylight
hours to minimize any residential impact.
The noise impacts are the same regardless of the route selected. (EA. Section 4.3) During operation, audible noise from the power
line occurs due to point source corona.
The noise level is not expected to approach the limits established under
the
53. The Birch Lake Substation was determined to pose the most significant increase in noise among the substation changes in the Badoura Project. While the Birch Lake Substation will experience a noticeable increase in audible noise, the noise levels will remain below the Minnesota NAC Area 1 standards at locations beyond 225 feet from the transformers. The closest home to that substation is located over 300 feet away. For this reason, the Department concluded that no significant adverse impacts will be associated with the increase in audible noise from the substation and that no noise mitigation was needed.[52]
54. The Department concluded that interference with existing television or radio is typically not a problem with 115 kV transmission lines. The proposed transmission facilities will be designed to industry standards to avoid interference with reception. If a new interference occurs outside of the right-of-way the Department recommended that the Applicants be required to resolve the problem as a condition of the HVTL Route Permit.[53]
55. Limited lengths of new right-of-way will be required for the Badoura Project. Needed right-of-way that is not already in the possession of the Utilities will either be obtained through individual negotiations between the particular Utility and the landowner, or through eminent domain.
Impacts on Land-based Economies
56.
The impacts on land-based economies arising from
the proposed HVTL are discussed in Section 4.6 of the EA. The Department assessed the proposed route
for the HVTL and new substation siting for potential effects on agriculture,
forestry, and mining. No impacts were
found regarding mining. The Department
estimated that 18 percent of the
57. The Department noted that the Applicants will compensate landowners for any crop damage or soil compaction that may occur during construction. The Department recommended that a condition of the HVTL Route Permit should require the Applicants to work with landowners to minimize impacts to farming operations along the proposed route. Those impacts are minimized by aligning the transmission line along existing transmission and roadway corridors.[55]
58.
The Department noted that
59.
The Department concluded that the proposed route
will not impact the Badoura Nursery. The proposed route will be built within
existing right-of-way through the Badoura and
60. The Department recommended that mitigation of the impacts be accomplished by conditioning the HVTL Route Permit on locating and arranging construction staging areas to preserve trees and vegetation to the maximum practicable extent. The preferred locations are previously disturbed sites such as abandoned parking lots. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the landowner, all storage and construction buildings, including concrete footings and slabs, and all construction materials and debris will be removed from the site once construction is complete. The area will be graded as required so that all surfaces drain naturally, blend with the natural terrain, and are left in a condition that will facilitate natural revegetation, provide for proper drainage, and prevent erosion. Clearing for access should be limited to only those trees necessary to permit the passage of equipment, and will generally correspond to the transmission right-of-way corridors. If temporary access roads outside of the right-of-way corridors are necessary, they should be restored to native vegetation. Native shrubs that will not interfere with the safe operation of the transmission line should be allowed to reestablish in the right-of-way. The Department also recommended that the Applicants, as a condition of the HVTL Route Permit, coordinate with the MDNR to determine the best avoidance and minimization measures to use in state-owned forested parcels along the proposed route.[56]
Impacts
on Archaeological and Historic Resources
61.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
provided database search results of all known or reported archaeological sites
and historic architectural structures in the sections that are within
one-quarter mile of the
62.
Because the SHPO database is organized by
county, the database search results of nearby historic and archaeological sites
are similarly presented in the EA at Table 4-4 and Table 4-5, which show
cultural resources within one-quarter mile of the Proposed Route. It is important to note that most of the
sites shown have not been evaluated as to their historical significance and
that there may be other resources within the sections along the
63.
Because the
64. In a letter dated November 29, 2006, and in previous correspondence related to the Certificate of Need Application, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that cultural resource surveys of the proposed project area would be needed.[57] The Utilities have agreed that this requirement should be imposed as a condition of the HVTL Route Permit if granted by the Commission.
65. The Utilities have undertaken to avoid impacts to identified archaeological and historic resources. In the event that an impact would occur, the Applicants will consult with SHPO and invited consulting parties (particularly Native American Tribes and other state and federal permitting or land management agencies) on whether or not the resource is currently listed on or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). While avoidance of the resource would be a preferred action, mitigation for project-related impacts on NRHP eligible archaeological and historic resources may be required. In consultation with SHPO and other consulting parties, treatment plans will be developed that may include an effort to minimize project impacts on the resource, and/or additional documentation through data recovery.
Impacts on the Natural Environment
66.
The
67.
The project lies within the Pine Moraines and
Outwash Plains subsection of the Northern Minnesota Drift and Lake Plains
section. This subsection is characterized by end moraines, outwash plains, till
plains and drumlin fields. Sands and sandy loam soils overlay Quaternary drift
materials that are approximately 200 to 600 feet thick. Precambrian bedrock is
generally granite, gneiss and slate (USGS, 1968 and 1972). The soils found in
the project area are generally moderately well-drained to excessively well
drained sandy loams or loamy sands, with poorly-drained muck soils found in the
large wetland depressions. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil Survey data were reviewed to describe the soil resources along the
68. The Utilities have undertaken to perform mitigative measures to address known impacts arising from the Project. Disturbed areas will be graded to existing conditions. No impacts to regional topography will result from the Project. The project will not impact the geology of the project area. Potential impacts of construction are soil compaction and exposing the soils to wind and water erosion. Impacts to physiographic features should be minimal during and after installation of the transmission line structures and the substation and switching station, and these impacts will be short term. There should be no long-term impacts resulting from the project. Soils will naturally re-vegetate following construction disturbance. In areas subject to erosion, seeding/mulching of the right-of-way may be required to minimize that impact. Areas of larger disturbance (one acre or more), particularly at the substation and switching station sites, will be addressed in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project. Mitigation under the NPDES includes implementation of the SWPPP with the appropriate erosion control methods developed specifically for the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Stormwater Program is designed to reduce the pollution and damage caused by stormwater runoff. MPCA has three stormwater programs for regulating stormwater runoff from three main sources: construction, industrial and municipal. The MPCA issues combined NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS) permits for construction sites, industrial facilities and municipal separate storm sewer systems. Compliance with the MPCA stormwater program will be a condition of the HVTL Route Permit.
69. Vegetative communities within and surrounding the proposed HVTL routes and substation sites are primarily comprised of forested uplands, forested wetlands, and herbaceous wetland communities common to north central Minnesota. Nearly all of the forest cover is second growth and much of it is subject to timber management including clear-cutting, plantings, and growth management practices. MP and GRE have indicated that they will work with affected residents to minimize the need to remove or trim nearby vegetation, although the company will have to do what is necessary to safely construct and maintain the line regardless of the route selected. In other places, vegetation may be planted to alleviate some of the loss of mature tree growth.
70.
Water resources along the
71.
The
72.
No navigable water of the
73.
Wetlands are defined by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) as “Waters of the
74.
Wetland resources for the
75.
USACE Section 404 approvals are not expected to
be required for this project. Some minor impacts to surface water resources
could occur to wetlands or Public Waters due to construction of the project.
However, the Applicants anticipate that most wetland areas and surface water
features, such as rivers and streams, will be avoided by spanning the
transmission line over the water bodies. There are 11 NWI basins (two of which
are also PWI basins) that are wider than the maximum span along the
76. Rebuilding in-place or paralleling the existing transmission lines that currently skirt the majority of the hydrologic features will minimize any new impacts to wetlands and water bodies. Construction of the transmission line is not expected to alter existing water drainage patterns or floodplain elevations due to the small cross section per pole and the relatively wide spacing of the poles. Although construction of the proposed substations will involve a small increase in impermeable surfaces (from the control houses and structure footings), the change to local surface drainage patterns from this and any necessary grading is expected to be negligible. The small area of impermeable surfaces created by the pole structures and substation outbuildings will not cause an increase in susceptibility to flooding in the region.
77.
The MPCA lists several impaired waters in the
project area on its 2006 Impaired Waters List. The
78. The Utilities have committed to mitigative measures to assure minimal impact to groundwater. If dewatering is necessary, dewatered groundwater will be properly stored and sediments will be settled out and removed before the water is discharged. As a condition of the HVTL Route Permit, standard erosion control measures and best management practices (BMP) will be required to minimize potential impacts.
79. If the Pine River Substation is relocated, proposed construction activities at the site would result in the disturbance of one acre or more of soils and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit would be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared that would include erosion control plans and BMPs that would be implemented. To minimize contamination of water due to accidental spilling of fuels or other hazardous substances, all construction equipment would be equipped with spill cleanup kits.
80. Impacts to floodplains, in particular the placement of power poles or structures, will be avoided to the maximum extent by placing these structures above the floodplain contours outside of the designated floodplain, and by spanning the floodplain with the transmission line. Because proposed construction activities at the substation and switching station will result in the disturbance of one acre or more of soils, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit will be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared that will include erosion control plans and BMPs that will be implemented. To minimize contamination of water due to accidental spilling of fuels or other hazardous substances, all construction equipment would be equipped with spill cleanup kits. The wood poles used for this Project will be pretreated with pentachlorophenol or creosote to increase the wood durability and life expectancy of the poles. Degradation of these wood preservatives occurs through aerobic soil degradation, aerobic and anaerobic aquatic degradation, and photolysis. However, the respective half-life for these processes range from less than 20 minutes to 63 days, the preservatives are not very mobile in soil or water, and are subject to biodegradation to its elemental state near the pole. Therefore, there will be no long-term impacts from the use of these preservatives.
81. The Badoura Project will have no significant adverse air quality impacts.[59] During construction of the Project, there will be emissions from vehicles and other construction equipment and fugitive dust from the right-of-way clearing. Temporary air quality impacts caused by the proposed construction-related emissions are expected to occur during this phase of activity. There will be no impact on air quality during operation of the lines. No mitigative measures for air quality are necessary for the construction of the transmission line.[60]
Impacts on Rare and Unique Natural
Resources
82. The Department reviewed the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for potential occurrences of state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species and sensitive natural resources within the proposed HVTL route and substation sites. The proposed route is within one mile of rare or unique resources including three recorded occurrences of bald eagles, a federally threatened, state special status species; four recorded occurrences of Blanding’s turtles, a state threatened species; and nine occurrences of greater prairie chickens, two occurrences of least darter minnows and one occurrence of a yellow rail, all state special status species. Two occurrences of currently not listed species for which the MDNR is gathering more data are within a mile of the proposed route. One is a great blue heron rookery and the other is a Jack Pine – (Yarrow) Woodland natural community.[61]
83. The Department concluded that no impacts to special status species are expected as a result of this project since the vast majority of the project is along or parallel to existing transmission line and/or roadway right-of-way. The only measures in mitigation deemed needed were conditions of the HVTL Route Permit requiring the Applicants to maintain sound water and soil conservation practices during construction, operation of the project to protect topsoil and adjacent water resources, and to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Maximizing spans through wetlands would minimizing the number of poles placed in the wetlands, thereby avoiding or minimizing disturbance to terrestrial and aquatic habitats for special status species. Where construction of the transmission line requires access outside of the existing right of way, that access should be conditioned on avoiding the vicinity of the great blue heron colony.
Application
of Design Options to Maximize Energy Efficiencies, Mitigate Adverse Environmental
Effects, and Accommodate Expansion of Transmission Capacity
84.
The Utilities indicated that there are no plans
to add additional transmission capacity along the
85. The proposed design is appropriate to this project, maximizes energy efficiency, and accommodates future expansion. MP and GRE have undertaken to work with the affected landowners to use a design that mitigates the impact on the affected landowners and the right-of-way.
Using
or Paralleling Existing Rights-of-Way and Other Boundaries
86.
As noted in foregoing Findings, the Applicants’
Electrical
System Reliability
87.
The Badoura Project will increase distribution
reliability by providing new substation capacity in the vicinity of the load
growth. This increased capacity will
provide needed voltage support and ensure that voltage can be maintained within
acceptable levels. The Project will
result in shorter distribution feeders, thereby improving reliability by
reducing exposure. This also provides back
up capacity for other substations in the event of outages, both planned and unplanned. The Project will also provide a much needed
second 115 kV transmission source to the
Design and Route Dependent Costs
88.
The Applicants estimated that the cost of
constructing, operating, and maintaining the facility along the Proposed Route
is no higher, and is likely to be lower than along alternative routes. The
Unavoidable
Adverse Human and Natural Environmental Effects
89. The Applicants indicated that the only identified environmental effects that cannot be avoided occur during the construction of the line and substation. Where any archeological sites are identified during placement of the poles along the proposed route or construction of the substation, the particular site will be avoided. Native vegetation will be maintained within the proposed route that is compatible with the operation and maintenance of the transmission line. Where necessary, native species will be planted or seeded in areas that are devoid of native species. Soils will be revegetated as soon as possible to minimize erosion or some other method will be used during construction to prevent soil erosion. During construction temporary guard or clearance poles are installed at crossings to provide adequate clearance over other utilities, roads, highways, or other obstructions after any necessary notifications are made or permit requirements met to mitigate any concerns with traffic flow or operations of other utilities.[64]
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources
90. The proposed route and the alternatives do not require any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. The Applicants noted that in the event the HVTL or the substation were to be removed at some time in the future, there is nothing related to their proposed placement that would prevent or require a different use of resources in the future.[65]
Comparison of Proposed Routes
91.
Through the course of the public participation
in this proceeding, there were two issues raised regarding the Applicants’
92. The other routing issue was raised by the Peysenske Lake Association concerning the possible opening of access to the lake if the HVLT was sited on the east side of CSAH 20. The Association proposed Alternative Segment 9, which would route the HVTL north at 209th Avenue in Section 25, follow 209th Avenue north to TH 34, and follow TH 34 west to the intersection of CSAH 20 and TH 34, where it would once again utilize MP’s existing 34.5 kV line corridor.
93.
The Utilities offered to meet the Association’s
need by following the distribution line on the west side of CSAH 20 through the
sensitive portion of the
94. The Segment 9 alternative raises the cost of this segment between $295,000 and 570,000. Up to 37 residences will be affected using that alternative. Significant loss of trees, particularly mature growth trees, would result using that alternative. The impact of the loss of trees is particularly acute along TH 34, which is the Lake Country Scenic Byway.
95. By contrast, the Utilities’ proposal to move the line to the west of CSAH 20 adds only $67,000 (underground) to $100,000 (underbuilt) to the cost of the project. There are few residences on the west side of CSAH 20 that would be affected, and those residences currently have a distribution line in the location that the HVTL would be placed. The Applicants have shown that their proposed route, modified by moving the 115 kV line to the west side of CSAH 20 is reasonable and minimizes adverse impacts. The choice of underbuilding or running the line underground should be left to the installing Utility.
96. While not an alternative route, the Applicants should ensure description of the route in Segment 3 accurately reflects the street names. There is no change proposed in the route at that location, which is the existing MP 507 line.
Based on the Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Public Utilities Commission, the Department, and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction to consider the joint application by MP and GRE for a Routing Permit.
2. The Public Utilities Commission determined that the Application by MP and GRE for a Routing Permit was substantially complete and accepted the Application for a Routing Permit on April 3, 2007.
3. The Applicants have conducted an appropriate Environmental Assessment consistent with Minn. Rules 7852.2100 to 7852.4100 and met the requirements for Alternative Environmental Review in Minn. Rule 4410.3600.
4. A public hearing was conducted in a community located along the proposed HVTL route. The Applicants gave proper notice of the public hearings, and the public was given the opportunity to appear at the hearings or to submit public comments. All procedural requirements for the Routing Permit were met.
5.
The Applicants have demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Proposed Route is reasonable and prudent,
with two adjustments, one to remain south of CR 171 near Pine River in Cass
County while in the vicinity of residences along that county road and the other
to follow the west side of CSAH 20 in the immediate vicinity of Peysenske
Lake. The one proposed alternative,
Segment 9, is not as reasonable as the Applicants’
6. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to comply with their proposed wetland impact avoidance measures and those set out in the EA during design and construction of the transmission line, including spacing and placing the power poles at variable distances to span and to avoid wetlands. Unavoidable wetland impacts as a result of the placement of poles will be limited to the immediate area around the poles. As much as possible of the construction in wetland areas will occur in the winter to minimize impacts. Where needed, MP and GRE will use construction mats to protect wetland vegetation. MP and GRE will meet all requirements of the USACE, the MDNR (Public Waters/Wetlands), and each affected County (for wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act).
7. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit, prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and follow project construction specifications for site sediment control, where such requirements are appropriate.
8. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to comply with those practices set forth in the Route Permit Application and the Environmental Assessment for right-of-way preparation, construction, cleanup, restoration and maintenance.
9. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to obtain all required local, state and federal permits and licenses, to comply with the terms of those permits or licenses, and to comply with all applicable rules and regulations.
10. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to obtain all necessary permits authorizing access to public rights-of-way and to obtain approval of landowners for access to private property.
11. The Routing Permit should require that MP and GRE contact landowners prior to entering the property or conducting maintenance along the route and avoid maintenance practices, particularly the use of fertilizer or pesticides, inconsistent with the landowners’ or tenants’ uses of the land.
12. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to work with landowners to locate the HVTL on their properties to minimize the loss of agricultural land, forest, and wetlands, with due regard for proximity to homes and water supplies, following property lines and minimizing diagonal crossings, even if the deviations will increase the cost of the HVTL, so long as a landowner’s requested relocation does not adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas.
13. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to work with landowners, the DNR, and local wildlife management programs to restore and maintain the right-of-way to provide useful and functional habitat for plants, nesting birds, small animals and migrating animals and to minimize habitat fragmentation in a manner consistent with inspection and safe maintenance of the right-of-way.
14. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to negotiate agreements with landowners that will minimize the impact on future development of the properties, and to assume any additional costs of development that may be the result of installing roads, driveways and utilities that must cross the right-of-way.
15. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to cooperate with all entities that have existing easements or infrastructure within the route to ensure minimal disturbance to existing or planned developments.
16. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to make every effort to avoid impacts to identified archaeological and historic resources when installing the HVTL on the approved route and undertake cultural resource surveys, where needed. In the event that such an impact would occur, it is appropriate to require the Applicants to consult with SHPO and invited consulting parties. Where feasible, avoidance of the resource should be required. Where such avoidance is not feasible, mitigation for project-related impacts on NRHP-eligible archaeological and historic resources must include an effort to minimize project impacts on the resource.
17. The Routing Permit should require MP and GRE to establish complaint handling procedures and to notify the PUC of those procedures within thirty days from the issuance of the Routing Permit. MP and GRE should notify the Commission of any complaints that are not resolved within 30 days of the complaint.
18. Any Finding of Fact that constitutes a Conclusion is adopted as a Conclusion.
Based on the Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Department recommend to the Commission that:
Subject to the conditions set forth in the Conclusions, the Application of MP and GRE for an HVTL Route Permit for the Badoura 115 kV Transmission Project, following Proposed Route, with adjustments at the Peysenske Lake area and restrictions as described to the south side of CR 171, should be GRANTED.
Dated this 12th day of October, 2007.
|
/s/ Richard C. Luis |
|
RICHARD
C. LUIS Administrative
Law Judge |
Reported: Rapid Reporting – Nancy M. Utke, RPR
Transcript Prepared (One Volume)
NOTICE
This
project qualifies for alternative review by the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission. The PUC was not required to
hold a contested case hearing on this project pursuant to chapter 14, and it
did not do so. Under PUC rules, the PUC
has the option to conduct a public hearing itself or to request that an
Administrative Law Judge conduct the hearing and compile a record for the PUC
to consider in making its final decision.
The Department of Commerce has the option to request that the
Administrative Law Judge prepare a report and recommendation, which it did in
this case. This report contains a
summary of the evidence in the record and a recommendation based on that
record. It is not a final decision. Persons wishing to file comments concerning
this report with the Department of Commerce should contact Bill Storm,
Minnesota Department of Commerce,
[1] Application for A Route Permit by Minnesota Power and Great River Energy Badoura 115 kV Transmission Project (Application) (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=3926175).
[2] ITMO the Application for a Route Permit for the Badoura 115 kV High Voltage Transmission Line and Associated Substation Under the Alternative Permitting Process, (PUC Order, issued April 3, 2007) (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=3991706).
[3] The Badoura Project information is located at http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=19051.
[4] Application (Figure 1-3).
[5] Application, Sec. 1.2, page 1-4.
[6] Application, Sec. 1.2, page 1-4.
[7] Application, Sec. 1.2, page 1-4.
[8]
[9] ITMO the Request by Great River Energy and Minnesota Power for Certification of the Badoura and Tower Transmission Lines as Priority Projects, ET-2, E-015/TL-05-867 (ALJ Summary of Testimony at Public Hearings issued April 21, 2006) (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=3022455).
[10] ITMO the Request by Great River Energy and Minnesota Power for Certification of the Badoura and Tower Transmission Lines as Priority Projects, ET-2, E-015/TL-05-867 (Commission Order Certifying the Need and Designating as Priority Transmission Projects issued May 25, 2006) (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=3102250).
[11] Commission Order (issued January 17, 2007) (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=3991706).
[12] Hearing Transcript, at 16 (Storm).
[13] Department Scoping Decision (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4748881).
[14] Public Hearing Transcript, at 17 (Storm).
[15] Department Environmental Assessment, MP & GRE Badoura HVTL Project, (issued July 2007)(“EA”) (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4748881).
[16] Exhibit 11, Department Environmental Assessment, pp. 1-4 (“EA”).
[17] Application, Sec. 7-1.
[18] Application, Sec. 7-1; EA, p. 5.
[19] Application, Sec. 7.1.3.
[20] Application, Sec. 8-2.
[21] EA, Figure 4-22.
[22] EA, Figure 5-1.
[23] Public Hearing Transcript, at 102 (Storm).
[24] EA (Figure 5-2).
[25] EA, Sec. 5.0, p. 46.
[26]
An Affidavit of publication for the Brainerd Dispatch was pending at the time this Report was completed. The Park Rapids
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4782153 .
[27] Available through E-dockets at: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4799109 .
[28] Environmental Assessment, July, 2007 (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4748881)(links to Appendices omitted).
[29] Public Hearing Transcript, at 15-19 (Storm).
[30] Public Hearing Transcript, at 51-56, 61 (Kramer); EA, Appendix E; Exhibit 18.
[31] Public Hearing Transcript, at 57-60 (Atkinson).
[32] Public Hearing Transcript, at 62-73 (Peterson).
[33] Public Hearing Transcript, at 74-83 (Melbo).
[34] Public Hearing Transcript, at 80 (Schmidt).
[35] Public Hearing Transcript, at 83-87 (Kopkie).
[36] Public Hearing Transcript, at 87-101 (Hagemeyer).
[37] Public Hearing Transcript, at 124 (ALJ).
[38] Public Hearing Transcript, at 101-105 (Schmidt).
[39] Public Hearing Transcript, at 102 (Storm); EA p. 5-12..
[40] Public Hearing Transcript, at 110-113 (Hagemeyer).
[41] Public Hearing Transcript, at 117-119 (Ellsworth).
[42] Public Hearing Transcript, at 137-145 (Cupit).
[43] Buerkley Email Comment, September 7, 2007.
[44]
[45] EA, Sec. 4.6, p. 27.
[46] EA, Sec. 4.3, p. 24.
[47]
[48]
[49] Application, Sec. 6.2.1, pp. 6-1 to 6-2.
[50] EA, Section 4.13, pp. 41-44.
[51] EA, Section 4.2.
[52] EA, Section 4.2.
[53] EA, Section 4.14.
[54] EA, Section 4.6, pp. 27-28.
[55] EA, Section 4.6, p. 29.
[56] EA, Section 4.6, p. 30.
[57] EA, Appendix C (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/ShowFile.do?DocNumber=4749093 ).
[58] EA, Figures 4-7 through 4-22, and Table 4-6.
[59] Application, Section 6.5; EA, Section 4.11.
[60] EA, Section 4.11.
[61] EA, Section 4.9, Table 4-3
[62] Application, p. 11-4.
[63] Application, p. 11-4.
[64] Application, p. 11-5.
[65] Application, p. 11-5.