OAH Dkt

3-1013-20257-2

PUC E002/TL-08-734

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OFFICE OF ENERGY SECURITY

In the Matter of the Xcel Energy and Great River Energy Route Permit Application for the South Bend – Stoney Creek 115 kV High-Voltage Transmission Line and Substations Project

SUMMARY OF

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Procedural Background

A public hearing in this matter was held February 23, 2009, by Administrative Law Judge Kathleen D. Sheehy at the Mankato National Guard Armory and Community Center, 100 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Mankato, Minnesota. The hearing was held pursuant to a Notice of Public Hearing issued on February 12, 2009.[1]

Lisa Agrimonti and Valerie Herring, Attorneys at Law, Briggs and Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, appeared for Xcel Energy and Great River Energy (GRE), the Applicants. David Birkholz, Project Manager, 85 7^th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101, appeared for the Energy Facility Permitting Staff, Office of Energy Security, Department of Commerce (OES or Department). Michael Kaluzniak, Senior Energy Facility Planner for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, also attended the public meeting.

Approximately 27 members of the public attended the hearing, five of whom are employees of Xcel Energy or GRE. The public was advised that, in addition to making comments at the hearing, they could also submit written comments to the Administrative Law Judge until March 9, 2009, as stated in the Notice of Public Hearing.[2] The Administrative Law Judge received four comments after the hearing.[3]

Mr. Birkholz described the role of the Energy Facilities Permitting Unit and the Environmental Assessment he had prepared.[4] He offered Exhibits 1 through 11, and he indicated that Ex. 12 (Notice of Public Hearing with Affidavit of Publication) would be included in the record when it was received from the publisher.

Ms. Herring introduced Timothy G. Rogers and Kodi Jean Church, who are permitting analysts for Xcel Energy and GRE, respectively. Mr. Rogers prepared written Direct Testimony, which was marked and received into the record.[5] At the hearing, Mr. Rogers summarized the issues that he addressed in his Direct Testimony. There were then several comments and questions from the public.

The Project

1. The Applicants seek a route permit to construct approximately 8 miles of 115 kV transmission facilities on the south side of Mankato in Blue Earth County. The Applicants propose to construct a new South Bend 115-161/69 kV substation in Rapidan Township and to rebuild an existing 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV from the new substation to the Ballard Corner Switches on 200^th Street; construct a new Stoney Creek 115/69 kV substation in Mankato Township and rebuild an existing 69 kV transmission line to a 115/69 kV double circuit transmission line from the Ballard Corner Switches to the proposed Stoney Creek Substation; and rebuild the existing 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV from the proposed Stoney Creek Substation to the existing Pohl Road Substation.[6] The proposed route would require little new right-of-way.

2. After filing the application, the Applicants determined that a small portion of the proposed route near 193^rd Street, where the transmission line crosses the Le Sueur River, needs to be modified. Originally the Applicants proposed to rebuild entirely along the existing right-of-way; since then, the Applicants have determined that it would be difficult for construction equipment and vehicles to gain safe access to the existing structures located on the steep slope of the Le Sueur River bank. The Applicants now propose to rebuild the transmission line approximately 250 feet north of the existing 69 KV line to avoid this portion of the river bank. The Applicants state that the affected landowners have no objections to this modification.[7] During the hearing, there were no objections to this proposed change.

3. Most of the controversy at the hearing involves an alternative route described as the “SC-2 route alternative.” Mankato Township officials requested that the Environmental Assessment include this alternate route, which would involve locating the Stoney Creek Substation at the intersection of CSAH 90 and Pohl Road, one mile south of the proposed location at the intersection of 200^th Street and Pohl Road. In this alternative, a new 69/115 kV double-circuit line would be constructed along CSAH 90 from Highway 16 to Pohl Road on double-circuit structures, instead of running along the existing route on 200^th Street. Xcel Energy would remove its single-circuit Century-Ballard Corner Switches 69 kV transmission line along 200^th Street from Highway 16 to Pohl Road. A new single-circuit 115 kV transmission line would run north from the alternatively located Stoney Creek Substation to the Pohl Road Substation.[8] Mankato Township officials requested that the alternate route be included in the Environmental Assessment because they believe the proposed route would interfere with future residential development along 200^th Street.[9]

4. The proposed route and the alternative route would cover the same distance and require the same amount of right-of-way; however, the alternative route would require two miles of new right-of-way and the acquisition of property for the new Stoney Creek Substation. The alternative route would accordingly impact new areas and land owners not previously impacted by transmission lines. The proposed route favored by the Applicants would cost approximately $2.57 million; the alternative route would cost slightly less—$2.45 million, plus approximately $125,000 for new easements and land for the substation. The proposed Stoney Creek Substation would be built on an abandoned farmstead that is not currently under cultivation, whereas the alternative route would require taking a small amount of prime farmland out of production for the new substation site. Except for about one-half mile of the proposed route, both the proposed and alternative routes would be located along streets or highways zoned for agricultural use. Mankato Township foresees future residential development north and south of 200^th Street, although an actual development plan is not in place at this time. The Environmental Assessment found that both routes were feasible.[10]

5. The Applicants prefer the proposed route because it maximizes the use of existing easements; it would have minimal impact on recreational resources, whereas the alternate route might impact a bicycle path on the north side of CSAH 90, depending on which side of the highway the transmission lines were placed; and it would avoid delays that might be caused by the need to obtain new easements and other land rights.[11] If the transmission lines were placed on the south side of CSAH 90, land owners in Decoriah Township would be newly affected.

Mankato Township Land Owners

6. Dan Fogal, the Mankato Township clerk and planner, confirmed that the township still supports the alternate route versus the proposed route because of anticipated development along 200^th Street. He noted that the City of Mankato had been growing south toward 200^th Street and that property developers had been examining this area for possible future residential development. The township believes that rebuilding of the power line in this area would detrimentally affect development along 200^th Street.[12]

7. Randy Schostag lives in Golden Valley, Minnesota, but owns land north and south of 200^th Street in Mankato Township. He believes the larger power lines could have a significant detrimental effect on the expansion of the City toward his property. He believes the alternate route along CSAH 90 would be more economic and would minimize potential damage to property in Mankato Township.[13]

8. Randy Schostag and Dan Fogal also noted that GRE purchased the property for the proposed Stoney Creek Substation at 200^th Street and Pohl Road after the township refused to approve the construction of a breaker station at that location in 2004. At that time, the township recommended that any upgrades to the electrical system be placed along CSAH 90 because electrical transmission or a substation there would be more consistent with possible commercial development in that area, as opposed to the residential development anticipated in Mankato Township.[14]

9. In response, Xcel Energy offered a Mankato Township zoning map into the record, which demonstrates that the areas north and south of 200^th Street are still zoned for agricultural use.[15]

10. Dave Schostag expressed concern about landscaping around the proposed Stoney Creek Substation at 200^th Street and Pohl Road. He indicated that a new school will be built about one and one-half miles north of the proposed substation, and he wanted more information about how aesthetic impacts might be minimized.[16] Kodi Church, GRE’s permitting analyst, responded that GRE would work with neighboring landowners to determine the appropriate screening for the substation after receiving the permit.[17]

11. In a post-hearing comment, Aaron and Cheryl Furst, who live at 56906 200^th Street, argue that the alternate route makes more aesthetic and financial sense in light of the number of homes that may be located along 200^th Street in the next five to fifty years. They pointed out that the alternate route is less expensive and would impact fewer people in the future. They maintain there is no basis for believing that the need to negotiate new right-of-way would cause problems or would slow the project down. They acknowledge that residents need more electrical power, but maintain that the easier and faster way of providing the power is not necessarily the most thoughtful way. They urge the Commission to “make a good decision for now and in the future.”[18]

12. LaDaryl Fischer owns property near the intersection of CSAH 90 and Pohl Road. The alternate route proposal would place the Stoney Creek Substation on his property. He is concerned that the drain tile around his house, yard, and fields would be damaged. He has an existing livestock operation, and he is concerned about the impact of stray voltage. He is also concerned that, because the bicycle trail is constructed north of CSAH 90, Xcel Energy would be required to drive vehicles through his fields to obtain access to maintain the transmission poles. He pointed out that north of 200^th Street, where Pohl Road enters the City of Mankato, many homes were built right up to the transmission lines, so it cannot be argued that the transmission lines impeded any residential development.[19]

13. After the hearing, Mr. Fischer submitted written comments restating his objections and including photographs of newer residential development built right up to existing transmission lines where Pohl Road enters the City from the south. He noted that the transmission lines were there when these homes were built and caused no apparent problems for those developers. He also pointed out that, if the alternate route were used, Xcel would remove the transmission lines along 200^th Street, but the distribution lines would remain in place, with the net effect of increasing the number of lines that must be maintained. He urged the Commission to disregard the alternative route and to maintain the proposed route on right-of-way that has existed for many years: “This line is existing, so it isn’t being placed in anyone’s back yard on the existing right of way. It is only being upgraded where it has been for decades.” [20]

Rapidan Township Land Owners

14. Gene Ziegler owns property in Rapidan Township south of the proposed South Bend Substation. The drainage tile for his farm runs under the area where the Applicants propose to build the substation, and he is concerned that construction be done in a manner that does not damage the drainage tile.[21] Tim Rogers of Xcel Energy responded that Xcel engineers would work to ensure that the drain tile was intact and remained operational.[22]

Decoriah Township Land Owners

15. Bruce Ulman asked Xcel Energy to clarify what would happen to the power lines currently located on 200^th Street if the alternate route were selected. Tim Rogers indicated that the existing transmission line would be removed, but the distribution line connecting to the Ballard Corner switching station would remain in place. Mr. Ulman then noted that use of the alternate route would not reduce the number of power lines in place, and he questioned the need to add more lines along CSAH 90.[23]

16. Diane Reuter and her husband Robert Reuter own a farm south of CSAH 90 at 57605 192^nd Street in Decoriah Township. They maintain that locating the transmission lines along CSAH 90 would impact future development of their land, just as it would impact future development of land in Mankato Township along 200^th Street.[24]

17. Robert Reuter submitted a comment after the hearing expressing his opposition to the alternate route. He is opposed to taking prime farm land out of production when the power company has an easement and property for the project already in place along the proposed route.[25]

18. Jason and Tami Reuter, who live at 57731 192^nd Street, submitted a comment after the hearing similarly opposing the alternate route along CSAH 90. They contend that the landowners along 200^th Street purchased their land knowing of the power line, so it makes little sense to transfer that burden to new individuals. They also assert that since there are existing easements, and since GRE already owns the land that would be used for the proposed Stoney Creek Substation, rate payers should not be required to bear the expense and delay associated with negotiating new easements and acquiring land for this purpose. In addition, they note that a number of small farms are located along CSAH 90, and they object to taking any viable farm land out of production. They encourage the Commission to discourage the proliferation of transmission lines by using existing easements.[26]

Dated: March 19, 2009

___s/Kathleen D. Sheehy________________

KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY

Administrative Law Judge

Reported: Shaddix and Associates

Christine Munson, Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared

[3] These comments have been marked as Exhibits 15-18. Exhibit 18, a letter from LaDaryl Fischer, was mailed on March 5, 2009, but for reasons unknown was not received by the Office of Administrative Hearings until March 12, 2009. The Administrative Law Judge has deemed the comment to be timely received, despite the delay in delivery.