12-0904-19675-2

OAH 12-1013-20215-2

PUC ET2/TL-08-712

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OFFICE OF ENERGY SECURITY

In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Power and Great River Energy for a 115kV Transmission Line Route Permit (Southdale to Scearcyville)

SUMMARY OF

PUBLIC COMMENTS

A public hearing in this matter was held January 22, 2009, by Administrative Law Judge Steve M. Mihalchick at Cragun’s Conference Center, Shoreline Meeting Room, 1000 Cragun’s Drive, Brainerd, Minnesota. The hearing was held pursuant to a Notice of Public Hearing issued on January 5, 2009, and published in the Brainerd Dispatch on January 9, 2009, and in the EQB Monitor on January 12, 2009.[1] The Applicants, Great River Energy (GRE) and Minnesota Power have applied for a routing permit to build a 115 kV transmission line between the existing Southdale Substation in Baxter, Minnesota, and a new Scearcyville Substation located near Pillager, Minnesota. The line will serve the Baxter/Brainerd area.

Dan Lipschultz, Attorney at Law, Moss and Barnett, appeared on behalf of Great River Energy. Scott Ek, State Planning Director, appeared for and on behalf of the Energy Facility Permitting Staff, Office of Energy Security, Department of Commerce (OES or Department).

Approximately 60 members of the public attended the hearing. They were advised that, in addition to any comments at the hearing, they could also submit written comments to the Administrative Law Judge by February 6, 2009, as stated in the Notice of Public Hearing.[2] Ultimately, 30 written public comments were submitted to the Administrative Law Judge.[3]

At the hearing, Mr. Ek described the Public Utility Commission’s role, the role of OES including preparation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the permitting process in this docket.[4] He offered Exhibits 1 through 19, which included several exhibits that had been filed by the Applicants.[5] The Applicants introduced Exhibit 20, a map depicting the Proposed Route and route alternatives A through F, and Exhibit 21, the Potlatch West Baxter Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).[6] Mr. Ek concluded his remarks by introducing Tricia DeBleeckere, Energy Facility Planner, Public Utilities Commission, who was present at the hearing and available to respond to questions.[7]

Kodi Church, Transmission Permitting Analyst with Great River Energy, summarized the Proposed Route and the rejected route alternatives, as discussed in the Route Permit Application and the EA.[8] She then highlighted why the Proposed Route was chosen by the Applicants over the alternative routes. She stated that the Proposed Route uses a significant amount of existing ROW (ROW), and requires less tree clearing than Alternative C, which would require the clearing of approximately 36 acres.[9]

Ms. Church introduced the following Applicant representatives who were present at the hearing and available to respond to questions: Rick Heuring, Senior Field Representative, GRE; Gene Kotz, Project Manager, GRE; Dave Kempf, Principal Transmission Planning Engineer, GRE; Jim McGuire, Supervising Engineer, Transmission Line Design, GRE; Dave Van House, Transmission Planning Engineer, Minnesota Power; and Bob Lindholm, Manager of Environmental Permitting, Minnesota Power.[10]

There were several comments and questions from the public.

Opposition to the Proposed Route – Little Pine Road

Ronald Duy, Jr., spoke on behalf of his parents who have owned Little Pine Resort on the Gull River since 1974. Little Pine Resort is a family resort designed to provide a natural, peaceful respite from city life. In order to get to the resort, customers travel on Highway 210 and turn south on Little Pine Road about 800 feet to the resort entrance. If the lines were built as proposed, the line would run along the length of Little Pine Road where a small power line now exists. At the resort entrance, the line would make a 90-degree angle and run east. The Duys are concerned that the lines will affect the aesthetic and commercial value of their property and impact their ability to earn a livelihood.[11] With their written submission the Duys include a letter from realtor Bob Franseen. It is Franseen’s opinion that the installation of the line along the Proposed Route would substantially decrease the value of the Duys’ home and business, decrease the sale value of both properties, reduce the resort business and cause the Duys loss of revenue.[12]

Darrel Pulak stated he owns 38 acres from Little Pine Road to the river, north of Highway 210 (just north of the Duy property). He opposed the Proposed Route because it would most likely run along the north of Highway 210 adjacent to his property. He stated that currently no power lines run through his property and he intends to develop at least one lot along the river, but the Proposed Route would impede those efforts and decrease his property value.[13]

The Lapkas, who live on Little Pine Road across from the Little Pine Resort, opposed the Proposed Route. Lloyd Lapka stated the proposed line would run along their property, be aesthetically displeasing, and require the clearing of many oak trees.[14] Pat Lapka stated that the Proposed Route would require the removal of many of their trees, which now serve as a buffer from Little Pine Resort and the resort traffic.

Rick Heuring responded that the Applicants would work with the Duys to discuss options for the types of poles or structures that would be used on Little Pine Road. He anticipated that only three or four poles would be needed to support the line along the north/south segment of Little Pine Road. Jim McGuire stated that they would use aluminum conductor, steel supported wires (795 ACSS) and poles without underbuild to support the line.[15]

The Duys submitted a post-hearing response stating that the massive poles could not be hidden or minimized to such a degree as to not interfere with the natural landscape of Little Pine Resort. The Duys estimated that the power poles (65 feet) would be approximately 15 feet taller than the trees along Little Pine Road.[16]

Opposition to Proposed Route – CSAH 18

William Nelson opposed the Proposed Route, which runs along approximately 1330 feet of his property along CSAH 18. He stated that he purchased the property intending to subdivide it and build a home for his retirement, and be believes the proposed line will substantially diminish the value of his property. He also expressed concerns regarding the safety of the lines and proposes that the line be built on the other side of CSAH 18, which appears to be undeveloped land.[17]

Vickie Kettlewell stated that she owns the Sunup Ranch in Cass County section 18. She expressed concern about stray voltage because the Proposed Route could place a power pole within ten feet of her livestock barn.[18]

Alternative Route C – CSAH 36

Dennis Doucette spoke on behalf of his daughter Christina, who lives on the south end of the north/south segment of CSAH 36. Mr. Doucette stated that the Proposed Route runs right in front of her home and will cause her property value to decrease. He stated that the line should not run through a residential area just to follow an existing ROW. He suggested that the line should instead run through the property of Potlatch Land & Lumber, LLC (Potlatch), which contains only scrub brush. He supported Alternative Route C, which runs farther east of CSAH 36 along Highway 210 and the railroad tracks, then south along the county line. He stated the difference in cost between Alternative C and the Proposed Route is less than three percent.[19] In his post-hearing comment, Mr. Doucette estimated that Alternative C would cost $170,000 more than the Proposed Route which is estimated to cost $7,580,000. He believes the devaluation of homes along CSAH 36 would total an amount much greater than $170,000. He stated that the Proposed Route would affect many more homeowners than Alternative Route C.[20]

Pat Lapka supported Alternative Route C because the line could follow an existing roadway without extensive tree removal. She stated that any future development of the property along Alternative Route C could work around the line and that the existing properties affected by the Proposed Route would not have that luxury.[21]

Leland and Judy Foy opposed the Proposed Route and supported Alternative Route C. The Foys own a home on the west side of CSAH 36, south of the Potlatch property and just north of property owned by Christina Doucette. The Foys’ home and garage are within 80 feet of the ROW of CSAH 36 and the Proposed Route would run right through their front yard. They also voiced safety concerns and believe it may be dangerous for Mr. Foy, who has a defibrillator pacemaker, to live so close to the line.[22]

Donald and Jane Zetah opposed the Proposed Route. They stated that they never would have purchased the property along CSAH 36 two years ago if they knew a power line would run along their property. Currently, all utility lines on their property are underground. They support Alternative Route C.[23]

Charles and Joann Martin, Michael Schwarze, and Joseph Sundgaard, homeowners along CSAH 36, opposed the Proposed Route and supported Alternative Route C.[24] Mr. Sundgaard stated if the line were built along his property he would sell his home. He does not believe the lines are safe and he would not want to raise a family in close vicinity to a power line.[25]

Travis Banks opposed the Proposed Route because it will negatively affect property values along CSAH 36.[26]

Joe Urbanski stated that he owned a development, Riverwood Shores, along the west side of CSAH 36, north of 132nd, in Cass County section 16. The development consists of nine lots that are already platted and developed. He stated that the Proposed Route would impact all of the lots and affect his ability to sell them. He supported Alternative Route C because it would traverse an undeveloped, unplatted area.[27]

On February 5, 2009, the Sylvan Town Board voted unanimously to oppose the Proposed Route and support Alternative Route C. The Board acted after hearing public comment from thirteen affected residents.[28]

At the hearing, Rick Heuring responded that the north/south segment of Alternative Route C runs down the Cass County and Crow Wing County line. The county line forms the boundary for the Potlatch AUAR area. Potlatch intends to develop some of its land into an industrial park. Approximately half of the north/south segment of Alternative Route C, or 1.5 miles, would border this proposed industrial park.[29]

Alternative Route A

Russ Keniston questioned why the line was not running along Highway 210 to Highway 371 (similar to Alternative Route A). He stated there were already lines and railroad track running along Highway 210, and it would require little to no tree removal.[30] Debra Doucette also supported Alternative Route A. She acknowledged that it affected more parcels but countered that most are commercial properties that are not within 500 feet of the proposed line. She pointed out that the route would follow the railroad grade along the entire length of Highway 210.[31]

Mr. Heuring, Senior Field Representative for GRE, responded that there would probably be siting opportunity somewhere in the Highway 210 corridor between the railroad tracks and the highway, and that the Applicants would attempt to use that on part of the Proposed Route. Mr. Heuring stated that it was not feasible to route the line through the City of Baxter along Highway 210 because that route is too populated, so it would impact a greater number of people than the Proposed Route.[32]

Alternative Routes E and F

Debra Doucette also supported Alternative Routes E and F. She stated that these routes comply with the Cass County Comprehensive Plan and the entire routes have existing utility ROWs.[33]

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (Matt Langan, Environmental Planner) opposes Alternative Routes E and F because they cross into lands included in the Crow Wing State Park statutory boundary. Even though the parcels remain in private ownership, the DNR recommended that the line not be placed within the park boundary. The DNR also noted that land along these Alternatives is part of the Chippewa Agency Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Minnesota Historical Society has identified significant cultural resources at the site, including burial mounds. [34]

Potlatch Route

Troy Hradsky stated that he opposed Alternative Route C because it would run along his property line, which is also the Cass and Crow Wing County line. Instead, he proposed that the line follow an existing logging road and power lines that run through the Potlatch property. Mr. Hradsky stated that his land is agricultural and borders the Potlatch land. He indicated that Potlatch intends to develop the land north of 132nd Street, or Mapleton Road, for industrial and residential use. He stated that some of that land has already been developed and cleared of trees used for lumber. He stated that there are no mature trees within this property because Potlatch has logged it a number of times in the past fifteen years. He stated that Potlatch and the City of Baxter have erected a power line to the development. He described a logging road that runs through the Potlatch property approximately 1000 feet from the county line. He stated that the maps presented at the hearing are four or five years old and do not show the industrial development in the Potlatch property.[35] Mr. Hradsky suggested that instead of Alternative Route C, the line should follow the Potlatch power line to 132nd Street, and then follow the existing logging road.[36] He believes that it would be better than Alternative C, which would require the loss of many mature oaks along CSAH 36. His alternative would not impact upon any existing homes and any future Potlatch development could be planned around the power line. He believes GRE wishes to avoid dealing with the City of Baxter, Potlatch and Burlington Northern Railroad, and that the homeowners are at an unfair disadvantage in proposing alternative routes that impact upon central Baxter, Potlatch, or railroad properties.[37]

Dan Steffen spoke in favor of the Potlatch route. He stated that the Potlatch property had been logged and the route would affect few people.[38] Debra and Dennis Doucette also submitted comments in favor of the Potlatch route. Ms. Doucette stated that with the downturn in the economy, it is unlikely that the Potlatch property will ever be developed for residential use.[39]

Mr. Heuring of GRE responded that the route that Mr. Hradsky proposed would sever the Potlatch property and that severance of property should always be avoided. He stated that the Proposed Route would require few trees to be removed because the ROW along CSAH 36 has been cleared extensively. He estimated the ROW is approximately 100 feet wide, so that the placement of the power line 45 feet from the center of the road would require little tree removal. Alternative C would require the removal of more trees than the Proposed Route.[40]

Ed Patrias spoke on behalf of Potlatch. He stated that he had not had a chance to comment on the route proposed by Mr. Hradsky, but that five of the seven Proposed Routes impact Potlatch. He stated that if the line runs on Potlatch property it will negatively affect the property value. He stated that the AUAR has been approved by the City of Baxter. He stated that the AUAR extends half-mile on Alternative C, and that Potlatch property extends one mile from the border of the AUAR. Potlatch plans to develop the property to the south of the AUAR into residential property.[41]

Potlatch also submitted a written comment in opposition to the Potlatch Route proposed at the hearing. Potlatch opposed the suggested route because: 1) the logging road is not a road but an infrequently used trail that is narrow, and unimproved; the trail is not an existing ROW or easement but is a private forest trail; 2) the alignment of any future road to the south of the lift station installed to support residential development is uncertain, but it is likely that any transmission line route that bisects the property will require costly relocation when infrastructure and roadways are completed to the south to connect Mapleton Road to Highway 210; 3) the route would bisect Potlatch property; 4) a full comparison of this suggested route with the Alternative Routes has not been completed or provided for public review and comment; and 5) the suggested route would result in similar or greater impacts to ROW and tree clearing.[42]

Minnesota Department of Transportation – Highway 210

Mary Safgren, Senior Planner, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT), submitted a post-hearing comment regarding the Highway 210 corridor. She stated that MDOT has identified a future safety expansion project on Highway 210 between CSAH 18 and the beginning of the four-lane highway in Baxter in its 2030 plan. That segment of highway warrants the safety expansion, but at this time the project is unfunded. Any future expansion of Highway 210 could impact a 300-foot corridor. Since expansion would most likely occur to the north, MDOT prefers that the line to be routed to the south of Highway 210 and the railroad tracks.[43]

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

The DNR noted that the Gull River supports an important bird migration route and that any crossing of the River needs to include construction and operation methods that avoid or reduce the potential for bird collisions and direct impacts to this Public Water. The DNR urges that the project be designed so that no power poles are placed in the Gull River. The DNR also noted that any work in the bed of a Public Water would require a Public Waters Work Permit and any crossing of a Public Water will require a DNR Utility Crossing License. In evaluating the Proposed and Alternative Routes, the DNR believes that Alternatives A and D reduce potential natural resource impacts to the extent possible by following existing cleared corridors.[44]

Demonstrated Need

Vickie Kettlewell and Debra Doucette questioned whether the line was needed at this time and whether the growth that the area has experienced in recent years will be sustained.[45] Edward Shaw stated he does not believe there is a legitimate need for increased transmission capacity because people are wasteful with their energy use.[46]

Dave Kempf, Transmission Planning Engineer for GRE, responded that the City of Brainerd is currently served by 230 kV lines which have plenty of capacity. The proposed line is going to serve the Baxter/Brainerd area and the load in this area for the long term. In the last four years, the electric use in this Baxter/Brainerd area has grown by 14 percent. The area is currently overloaded and susceptible to lengthy power outages. Therefore, Kempf maintained, a larger transmission line is needed to serve this load center. Someday, a transformer might have to be installed at the Scearcyville Substation to bring that power to 115 kV, but that would not involve any expansion of the transmission grid in the area.[47]

Dan Mannie, Joe Urbanski, Charles and Joann Martin, and Verla Engelbrecht questioned why, if the Baxter/Brainerd area needs the power, the line does not go through the Cities of Baxter and Brainerd.[48]

Mr. Kempf responded that the Applicants had originally proposed to go through the City of Baxter, but the City objected to this proposal and stated that it wanted the line to run west of the City. The Applicants project the growth will occur west of the City of Baxter and currently there is no transmission to serve large loads in that area. He believes that it is neither feasible nor desirable to go north of Baxter because of lakes located there and because that area is being adequately served by the current transmission lines.[49]

Future Substation and Lines

Laura Paulson spoke in opposition to the Proposed Route. The Proposed Route does not affect her property, but she opposes the substation proposed to be built within five to ten years. She is afraid the substation and line will cause ill health effects. She also opposes the Proposed Route because she uses CSAH 36 everyday and believes the line would disturb the serenity of the rural area.[50]

Dan Steffen was also concerned how the lines and infrastructure in the area would develop in future years to accommodate future load growth and road and highway upgrades.[51]

The Duys also submitted written comments that a future substation could be located on Little Pine Resort property.[52]

Mr. Kotz, the Transmission Project Manager, responded that although the Permit Application refers to a substation, whether a substation will be needed at some point is speculative. If Crow Wing County has future load growth, a substation will be placed somewhere along the route, but the need for or the location of the substation have yet to be determined. Mr. Kotz stated that the reference in the application is merely a potential location for the substation if one is needed.[53]

Support for the Proposed Route

On February 3, 2009, the City of Baxter passed a Resolution supporting the Proposed Route. The City noted that Proposed Route is preferred because 95% of the path lies within existing ROWs; the route minimizes new ROW acquisition and tree removal; and because the EA indicates the Proposed Route is superior.[54]

Potlatch submitted a comment supporting the Proposed Route. Potlatch owns over 1,500 acres in the vicinity of West Baxter and Sylvan Township. Potlatch supports the Proposed Route for the same reasons cited by the City in its Resolution. Potlatch opposes Alternative Route C because: 1) it requires four times the amount of new ROW acquisition than the Proposed Route and the majority of the new ROW will impact Potlatch’s forested properties; 2) it requires twice the tree clearing (an additional 20 acres) compared to the Proposed Route, which would result in an ongoing loss of revenue for Potlatch; 3) Potlatch has recently received approval of an AUAR on a 540-acre site in West Baxter and Alternative Route C negatively impacts approximately 160 acres of industrial-zoned property in the AUAR area; 4) Alternative Route C impacts approximately seven percent fewer parcels than the Proposed Route but when proposed and ongoing developments are considered, it would result in a greater number of affected parcels than the Proposed Route; and 5) because of the municipal approval of proposed land uses, ROW acquisition within the AUAR boundaries may substantially impact the proposed costs of Alternative Route C.[55]

Verla Engelbrecht expressed tepid support for the Proposed Route but suggested that major consideration be given to the placement of the poles and lines.[56]

Other Comments

Phillip and Rosanne Estrem commented that Segment One of the Proposed Route will cross unique land that is home to a variety of animals, trees and plants. Segment One also crosses a wetland, a creek that empties into the Mississippi River, and several small lakes including Island Lake. Forest View School is located within a half mile of Segment One. There are trails and a park for non-motorized use nearby. The Estrems request that Segment One be a “no spray zone” because the defoliants would present unnecessary health hazards to the people, animals, water and environment along Segment One.[57]

The Administrative Law Judge viewed the portions of the Proposed Route along CSAH 18, Little Pine Road SW, and CSAH 36, as well as the Potlatch property along Mapleton Road. The descriptions given in the public comments are quite accurate. Little Pine Road SW is nicely wooded and serves essentially as an entrance road to Little Pine Resort and to the Lapka property. CSAH 36 runs largely through a heavily wooded area that buffers it from the many homes in the woods or in the smaller agricultural land areas that are now being developed. All utility lines in the area are underground, except for a small line along Mapleton Road. CSAH 36 has a wide tree-lined ROW that would allow the lines to be built with little tree removal, but doing so would detract greatly from the attractiveness of the highway as it now exists. The Potlatch land, at least as viewed from Mapleton Road, appears to have been logged off and now has only small trees and brush on it. The logging road on it may not be the best placement, but the Commission may wish to consider modifying the width of the Alternative Route C corridor in that area by widening it to the east to the half-section line in Sections 10, 15, and 22. That would allow Potlatch to negotiate the optimal placement with the Applicants and plan its developments around the new line.

Dated: February 20, 2009

/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick

STEVE M. MIHALCHICK

Administrative Law Judge

Reported: Shaddix & Associates

Christine Munson, Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared

[11] Transcript at 21-27; see also Public Comment Ex. 1; Public Comment Ex. 28.

[12] Public Comment Ex. 1; Public Comment Ex. 29.

[20] Public Comment Ex. 4, citing EA, p 37-38; Public Comment Ex. 18; see also Public Comment Ex. 22.

[24] Public Comment Ex. 20; Public Comment Ex. 25; Public Comment Ex. 30.

[27] Transcript at 35-37; Public Comment Ex. 21.

[35] Verla Engelbrecht also commented that the maps used at the hearing were outdated. Public Comment Ex. 27.

[36] See map attached to Public Comment Ex. 17.

[37] Transcript at 41-52; 54; Public Comment Ex. 9.

[45] Transcript at 73-74; Public Comment Ex. 5.

[48] Transcript at 80-81; 87; Public Comment 20; Public Comment Ex. 27.

[50] Transcript at 57-61; Public Comment Ex. 23.