OAH Docket No. 4-2500-20587-2
PUC Docket No. IP-6686/CN-08-944
PUC Docket No. IP-6686/TL-08-1120
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISION
In the Matter of the
Certificate of Need
and Route Permit
Applications for a 161 SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
kV Transmission Line and
Associated
Facilities in
This matter began on December 1, 2008, when
the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) issued an Order accepting
Northstar Transmission, LLC’s (Northstar) 161 kV Transmission Line application
for a route permit to construct the transmission line in Jackson County,
Minnesota, and authorizing the Department of Commerce’s Office of Energy
Security (OES) to process the application.
On January 22, 2009, the Commission issued another order directing
an informal review process of Northstar’s application for a Certificate of Need
(CON) for that same project and requesting the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) to coordinate the processes associated with the project with
MPUC staff and to hold at least one public hearing on the project.
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE
This report contains a summary of
public testimony. It is not a final
decision. Pursuant to Minn. R. 7849.5720, the Commission will make the final
determination of the matter within 60 days after the receipt of the record from
the administrative law judge.
Description of the Project
Northstar has proposed to construct 9 to
10 miles of 161 kV transmission line in Jackson County, Minnesota, between a
proposed Tatman substation in
As proposed, the transmission line route
would head north out of the Tatman substation along County State Aid Highway
(CSAH) 25/560th Avenue for approximately five and one half miles to
558th Avenue and then continue north two miles to CSAH 14. At that point, the transmission line would
veer slightly north-northwest where it would travel along property and section
lines across private agricultural land to one of two possible points of
interconnection. The first optional
point of interconnection would be the new Jackson Substation, which is located
north of the City of
Northstar is requesting a proposed route
of varying widths, ranging from 300 feet to one mile in width. The proposed transmission line would be
constructed within and share the existing road rights-of-way along CSAH 25/560th
Avenue and
Procedural History
1.
On October 28,
2008, Northstar filed a route permit application for the proposed transmission
line under the alternative permitting process. Since the proposed transmission line capacity
is greater than 100kV and may be 10 miles or more in length, Northstar also filed
an application for a CON on October 28, 2008.[1]
2.
On October 28,
2008, Northstar also filed a request for an exemption from certain CON
application data filing requirements and for a variance from the 45-day time
period required between an exemption request filing and the filing of a CON
application.[2]
3.
On November 17,
2008, the Commission issued a Notice soliciting comments on:
4.
On November 26,
2008, the Office of Energy Security (OES) recommended that the Commission grant
the requested exemptions and found that the application would be complete upon
the submission of certain additional information. The OES recommended the Commission process
the CON application through the informal comment and reply process.
5.
On December 8,
2008, Northstar filed reply comments, providing the supplemental information
requested by OES, and the matter came before the Commission on December 18,
2008.
6.
On January 22,
2009, the Commission issued an Order requesting that the Office of
Administrative Hearings conduct a public hearing to take public testimony
concerning the application.[3]
Hearing Notice and Public Comment
Process
7. On
June 1, 2009, OES issued a Notice of Public Hearing giving advance notice of
the public hearing to persons on the service list. It was followed on June 3, 2009, by a Revised
Notice of Public Hearing, and on June 11, 2009, the Notice of Public Hearing was
published in the Jackson County Pilot, a local newspaper.
8. Approximately
6 members of the public appeared at the public hearing. Three members of the public offered testimony
about the proposed transmission line and related issued. After the hearing, the record remained open
for thirteen days to allow all interested persons to submit written
comments. Three written comments were
filed by members of the public. The
record was closed on July 6, 2009.
9. The
Commission will issue an order on Northstar’s applications for a route permit
and a Certificate of Need after examining this Summary, the hearing
transcripts, all written filings submitted by the public and all filings and
argument submitted by the Applicant, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and
other persons and entities interested in this matter.
Summary of Public Testimony
Scott
Ek, Project Manager with the Department of Commerce’s Office of Energy Security
made a presentation at the public hearing regarding the OES’s responsibility
for conducting and processing route permit applications.
The environmental assessment performed by
the Department is summarized in a document entitled Environmental Assessment: North Star Transmission, LLC, 161 Kilovolt
Transmission Line and Associated Facilities in
Tricia
DeBleeckere, a staff representative of the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission, explained that the Commission is the final authority on both the
site and the route permit and also the CON.
Ben
Kerl, a developer with National Wind, provided background on the need for the
project. The purpose of the 161 kV
transmission line is to serve the output of a large community-owned wind farm
that will be built in Emmet and
Al
Blum, employee of Emmet County Energy, described the proposed route and
explained the reasons for the choices made and contemplated. The collection systems from 133 wind turbines
will travel underground and come together at a substation located on the Jack
Tatman property. At that point the
proposed route will proceed north along County Road 25 for two miles and then
will proceed on
Scott
Ek asked Mr. Blum to clarify whether Northstar had decided to select pole 114
as the point of interconnection. Mr.
Blum explained that he had misspoken, and Mr. Kerl stated that they wished to
confirm that the point of connection would be the new
Sarah
Withers, a landowner in the Project area, asked about the alternate route
discussed at a previous public meeting. Mr.
Ek explained that the alternated route was addressed in the Environmental Assessment
and was still being considered. He also
solicited comments from the public about which route appeared most suitable.
Wanda Jerousek, another landowner in
the Project area, voiced her concern about the transmission line running over
the tops of both her house and the Withers’ house, both of which are close to the
road. For this reason she encouraged the
consideration of an alternate route.
Van
Johnson, another landowner in the Project area, voiced concern about the
possible destruction by contractors of the township road going through
Summary of Written Comment
The
Rob, Sarah, Dylan, and Tressa Withers family, who are landowners in the Project
area, submitted a written comment. They
expressed concern that the proposed route would bring the 160 kV transmission
line in close proximity to their house. They
stated that the distance from the center line of the pole to there daughter’s
bedroom would only be about 173 feet.
They were concerned about long term health impacts on themselves and
their two young children. They disputed
the statement in the Environmental Assessment indicating that residents along
their segment of the route currently have a view of an REA distribution
line. They stated that the line in
question has been underground since the 1960’s.
They argued that the impact of the 161 kV line would be more then
incremental and proposed that an alternative route be adopted. They suggested a route along the west fence
line, although noting that this new
route would affect four residences not currently affected by the original route
Nevertheless, they argued that the
alternative route would be further away from those houses than the proposed
route would be from their own house.
They also noted that, unlike their house, the other houses would have a
shelterbelt to obstruct the view of the line.
Jody and Richard Withers, also landowners
in the Project area, submitted a written comment raising four concerns:
1. The Withers have health concerns related to close
proximity to the 161 kV line. They have
recently constructed a retail store on their property, and they are concerned
about exposure of their to the transmission line. They urge that the Commission err on the side
of caution and pick an alternate route.
2.
They are also concerned
about the impact their proximity to the transmission line may have on their
essential communication devices. They
fear an impact on cell phone reception, television reception and internet
connection.
3. Further, they are concerned that the transmission
line poles will be placed in their driveways and would pose a potential hazard
to the equipment that they use.
4. Finally, they take exception to the suggestion made
in the Northstar application that they already have a view of a power
line. They claim that the half-mile of
power line across their land does not have any above ground poles. They argue that the addition of the
transmission line would be a major change to the character of the property, since
there are currently no above ground poles in the vicinity.
In summary, Jody and Richard encourage the adoption
of an alternative route that they presented at the public meeting at the
AmericInn on January 29, 2009.
Joe
Ascheman, a landowner in the Project area, also submitted a written
comment. He expressed concern about
having the transmission line close to his livestock and himself. He proposed that the route be moved to the
west ½ mile where there is less desirable land.
No other written comments
from the public were received.
Dated: July 22, 2009.
__s/Bruce
H. Johnson___________________
BRUCE
H. JOHNSON
Administrative
Law Judge
Reported: Janet Shaddix Eiling, R.P.R.
Shaddix & Associates
One Volume
[1] Application for a Certificate of Need
(https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?DocNumber=559123)
[2] Exemption and Variance Request
(https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?DocNumber=559123)
[3] See, Order
Granting Exemptions and Variance, Finding Application Complete and Directing
Informal Review Process, January 22, 2009.
(https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?DocNumber=570851)
[4] Ex. 14.