OAH Docket No. 3-2901-15763-2
EQB Docket No. 03-65-TR-GRE PMG
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
|
In
the Matter of the Route Permit Application by
Great River Energy and Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association for
the Plymouth-Maple Grove High Voltage Transmission Line |
RECOMMENDATION |
This
matter came on for public hearings before Administrative Law Judge Kathleen D.
Sheehy on March 18, 2004, at 11 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Plymouth Creek
Center, 14800 34th Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota. The hearing continued until all interested
persons had an opportunity to be heard.
Kevin
Lennon, Supervisor of Transmission Substations for Great River Energy (GRE),
17845 East Highway 10, P.O. Box 800, Elk River, Minnesota 55330-0800, presented
information on behalf of GRE and answered questions at the hearing.
Alan
Mitchell, Manager of the Power Plant Siting Program for the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB), and George Johnson, Project Manager, 658 Cedar Street, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55155, presented the Board’s position and answered questions at
the hearing.
Approximately
25 members of the public attended the hearing.
After the hearing, the record remained open for ten days to allow all
interested persons to submit written comments.
Members of the public submitted comments, and GRE and the EQB also filed
written comments. The record closed on
March 29, 2004.[1]
NOTICE
This
project qualifies for alternative review under the Power Plant Siting Act,
Minn. Stat. § 116.575. The EQB was not
required to hold a contested case hearing on this project pursuant to chapter
14, and it did not do so. Under EQB rules,
the EQB 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 EQB
to consider in making its final decision.
The EQB also 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. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116C.575, subd. 7,
the EQB will make the final determination of the matter within 60 days of the
completion of the public hearing.
Persons wishing to file comments concerning this report with the EQB
should contact Alan Mitchell for information about the procedures to be
followed. Further notice is hereby
given that the EQB may, at its own discretion, accept or reject the
Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Should
the EQB issue a permit for the route proposed by GRE for the Plymouth-Maple
Grove HVTL?
The
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the EQB should issue the permit for the
route proposed by GRE, with appropriate conditions.
Based
upon all the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the
following:
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Procedural History
1. Great River Energy (GRE) is a Minnesota not-for-profit cooperative created when Cooperative Power and United Power Association formed a joint operating company to provide generation and transmission services to their 29 cooperative members. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association is one of the 29 cooperative members.
2. GRE filed its application for a route
permit for a high voltage transmission line (HVTL) with the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board on September 9, 2003. At the time, GRE’s application for a Certificate of Need for the
project was pending before the Minnesota Public Utilities commission.
3. By letter dated September 18, 2003, the
chair of the EQB notified GRE that its application was accepted.[2]
4. There are multiple notice and publication
requirements that must be met within 15 days of the filing of the application.[3] GRE attempted to publish notice of the
filing of its application, a description of the proposed project, and
directions for obtaining a copy of the application in the Minneapolis
StarTribune within 15 days, but the publication was delayed until October
1, 2003 due to an error on the part of the advertising staff at the paper.[4] The delay in publication was harmless and
did not interfere with the public’s right to be informed about the project.
5. GRE mailed the notice, within 15 days of
the filing of the application, to regional development commissions, the county,
municipalities, and townships in which the proposed route is located.[5]
6. GRE mailed the notice, within 15 days of
the filing of the application, to each owner whose property is along the
proposed route for the transmission line.
The notice also advised property owners how to contact the EQB to get on
its project contact list. [6]
7. GRE mailed the notice, within 15 days of
the filing of the application, to those persons who had requested to be placed
on a list maintained by the EQB for receiving notice of proposed HVTLs.[7]
8. The PUC granted the Certificate of Need
for the project on October 9, 2003.[8]
9. On October 13, 2003, the EQB published in The EQB Monitor notice of acceptance of the project and of a public information meeting to be held at the Plymouth Library on October 28, 2003.[9] On October 14, 2003, the EQB mailed the notice to each person on the EQB’s general notice list concerning proposed HVTLs, its local government list, and the GRE list of affected landowners.[10]
10. It appears that on October 17, 2003, the EQB published the notice of acceptance of the project and of the public information meeting in the Minneapolis StarTribune.[11]
11. The EQB held the public meetings at the
Plymouth Library, 15700 36th Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota, on
October 28, 2003. The hearings were
held at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The
meetings were well attended. At the
public meeting the EQB received information from the public that was used to
scope the environmental assessment.
12. On December 16, 2003, the chair of the EQB
issued the scoping decision for the environmental assessment and determined
therein that the environmental assessment should address four alternate routes
proposed during the public meetings:
(1) the Cedar Island Lake segment; (2) the Bass Lake Road and I 494
reconstruction segment; (3) the I 494 Xenium Lane Townhome segment (Rockford
Estates); and (4) the I 494 segment crossing near the Target Store and Home
Depot.[12]
13. On December 16, 2003, the EQB mailed copies
of the scoping decision to each person on the EQB general notification list,
local government list, and GRE landowner list.[13]
14. On February 24, 2004, the chair of the EQB
requested that an Administrative Law Judge conduct the public hearings and
prepare a report and recommendation on the route and any appropriate conditions
that should be included in a Route Permit.[14]
15. The EQB’s Environmental Assessment was
completed on February 29, 2004.[15] The Environmental Assessment was posted on
the EQB web page on by March 1, 2004.
The EQB published a combined notice of the availability of the
Environmental Assessment and notice of the public hearings in The EQB Monitor
on March 1, 2004. The EQB mailed the
same notice to persons on the EQB general notice and project contact lists on
March 3, 2004.[16]
16. The EQB published notice of public hearings
in the Maple Grove paper and the Minneapolis StarTribune.[17] The EQB also gave notice by certified mail
to chief executives of the regional development commissions, counties,
organized towns, townships, and the incorporated municipalities in which the
route is proposed.[18] The notice given was at least ten days but
no more than 45 days before the commencement of the hearings.
17. Approximately 25 members of the public attended the public hearings in Plymouth. In general, the comments concerned route alternatives in three areas: Cedar Island Lake, Bass Lake Road, and the Target crossing/Rockford Estates Townhomes area.
18. At the hearing Exhibits 1 to 26 were received into the record. Comments received after the hearing are marked as Exhibits 27 to 42.
The Proposed HVTL Route
19. GRE proposes to build a single 115-kV transmission line between the Elm Creek Substation in Maple Grove and the Parkers Lake Substation in Plymouth, Minnesota. The planned line is 14 miles long. Two-thirds of the proposed route follows an existing 69-kV transmission line corridor and uses existing rights-of-way; the southern one-third of the proposed route follows a new corridor along Interstate Highway 494 and will require acquisition of new rights-of-way.[19] The proposed line will connect five other substations: the Hennepin, Arbor Lake, Cedar Island, Bass Lake, and Plymouth substations.
20. The proposed route is composed of the following route segments:
A. Construct approximately 2.25 miles of 115kV line to the existing Xcel Energy single circuit 115kV line running southeasterly from Xcel Energy’s Elm Creek substation to its intersection with GRE’s existing 69 kV line connecting the Arbor Lake and Hennepin substations. The existing Xcel Energy line would be rebuilt from the existing single circuit configuration to a double circuit configuration for this 2.25-mile distance.
B. Rebuild approximately 0.5 mile of 69 kV line to 115 kV from the termination of the 115 kV double circuit line described above to the Hennepin Substation. This 0.5 mile of 115 kV line would connect to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV line, which runs southeasterly from Xcel Energy’s Elm Creek Substation to the Osseo Substation.
C. Upgrade 69 kV line to 115 kV, or build new 115 kV line, for approximately 7.1 miles of existing 69 kV line between the termination of the double circuit 115 kV line described above and W-H’s Arbor Lake, Cedar Island, Bass Lake, and Plymouth Substations.
D. Build approximately 4.25 miles of new 115 kV line from W-H’s Plymouth Substation to Xcel Energy’s Parkers Lake Substation.[20]
21. The new transmission line would require certain modifications to each of the existing substations, although no changes in the existing footprint of any substation will be required by the project. At Xcel Energy’s Elm Creek Substation, modifications would be required to construct the additional 115 kV termination for the new GRE line. At Connexus Energy’s Hennepin, Arbor Lake, Cedar Island, Bass Lake, and W-H’s Plymouth Substations, the existing 69 kV distribution transformers would be replaced with 115 kV distribution transformers. At Xcel Energy’s Parkers Lake Substation, modifications would be required to construct the additional termination for the new GRE line.[21]
22. Other modifications would be required, including de-energizing W-H’s existing 69 kV line between the Bass Lake and Corcoran substations, GRE’s existing 69 kV line between W-H’s Plymouth Substation and Xcel Energy’s Hollydale Substation, and GRE’s existing 69 kV line between Connexus Energy’s Hennepin Substation and GRE’s Parkwood Substation.[22]
Design Structures
23. GRE’s line design consists of three single conductor phase wires and one shield wire. The phase wires will be 795 MCM (795,000 circular mil) aluminum conductor steel supported (ACSS) with seven steel core strands and 26 outer aluminum strands. The industry code word for this conductor is “Drake.” The conductor has an overall diameter of 1.108 inches and weights 1.094 pounds per lineal foot.[23]
24. GRE proposes to use single shaft wooden poles for most of the project. Along the existing right of way, the poles will be taller (about 80 to 95 ft) than those in place for the 69 kV line (about 60 to 75 ft), but the new poles will have a narrower profile.[24] In a few places where longer spans are required, such as over I494, galvanized steel single shaft poles will be used. GRE plans to use horizontal post insulators unless the design requires longer spans beyond the capability of the insulators. The longest spans will utilize a braced post design to accommodate the increased loadings. The distance between structures will be approximately 400 feet, but structure heights and spans will vary depending on topography and environmental constraints.[25]
25. GRE states that the HVTL will be constructed to comply with Rural Utilities Service (RUS) construction standards as well as the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). These standards include clearances to ground, clearance to crossing utilities, clearance to buildings, right-of-way widths, erecting power poles, and stringing of transmission line conductors.
Alternative Routes
26. The alternative routes are in segments C and D described above. These alternatives were proposed by residents based on their concerns about economic or financial impacts on property values, health concerns about exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), and aesthetic concerns about visual impact of structures and vegetation removal.
Cedar Island Lake.
27. GRE’s proposed route in this area runs along the right of way for the existing 69 kV line along 73rd Avenue North between the Cedar Island Substation on the east and I 494 on the west. Residents along 73rd Avenue North propose either burying the transmission line for this half-mile segment or rerouting the line in one of two ways: to the north along the back of Rosewood Lane and curving around 74th Avenue North to the Cedar Island Substation; or to the north along the back of Rosewood Lane, crossing the I 494/94 junction, then running north of I 94 for a short distance before crossing south of I 94 to connect to the Cedar Island Substation.[26]
Bass Lake Road.
28. GRE’s proposed route runs along the right of way for the existing 69 kV line between 73rd Avenue North, curving southeast along Sunnyslope Drive, and connecting to the Bass Lake Substation at approximately Bass Lake Road. From there, the GRE proposed route runs south along the existing right of way through the Fernbrook Lane neighborhood to the Plymouth substation. Residents in the areas of Sunnyslope Drive and Fernbrook/Empire Lane have proposed alternative route segments that would move the line out of their neighborhood entirely. When the proposed alternative segments are considered together, the residents advocate relocating the line so that it runs parallel to I 494, on either the east or west side, from the Plymouth Substation to 73rd Avenue North. The Bass Lake Substation would have to be connected to this route with a double-circuit line running along Bass Lake Road. [27]
Target Crossing/ Rockford
Estates.
29. The last alternative route is in the segment in which GRE has no existing right of way, between the Plymouth and Parkers Lake Substations. GRE’s proposed route has the line running south along the west side of I 494, parallel to and west of the 345kV line operated by Xcel Energy. GRE’s proposed route would cross to the east side of I 494 just north of Rockford Road, in the area of the Target and Home Depot stores. It would then run south, parallel to and along the east side of I 494 to the Parkers Lake Substation. Residents of town homes located near the Target store and on Zinnia Lane, just south of Rockford Road, object to the proximity of the transmission lines to their homes and to the need to remove trees and other vegetation that blocks their view of the freeway. They propose that the transmission line stay on the west side of I 494 past Rockford Road, crossing to the east side of I 494 at some point farther south (approximately 36th Avenue).[28]
Applicable Statutory and Rule Criteria
30. The EQB’s route permit determination must
be guided by the state’s goals to conserve resources, minimize environmental
impacts, minimize human settlement and other land use conflicts, and ensure the
state’s electric energy security through efficient, cost-effective power supply
and electric transmission infrastructure.
The EQB is to be guided by the following responsibilities, procedures,
and considerations:
(1)
Evaluation
of research and investigations relating to the effects on land, water and air
resources of HVTLs 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;
(2)
Environmental
evaluation of routes proposed for future development and expansion and their
relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the state;
(3)
Evaluation
of the effects of transmission technologies and systems related to power plants
designed to minimize adverse environmental effects;
(4)
Evaluation
of the potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed large
electric power generating plants;
(5)
Analysis
of the direct and indirect economic impact of proposed routes including, but
not limited to, productive agricultural land lost or impaired;
(6)
Evaluation
of adverse direct and indirect environmental effects that cannot be avoided
should the proposed route be accepted;
(7)
Evaluation
of alternatives to the applicant’s proposed route;
(8)
Evaluation
of potential routes that would use or parallel existing railroad and highway
rights-of-way;
(9)
Evaluation
of governmental survey lines and other natural division lines of agricultural
land so as to minimize interference with agricultural operations;
(10)
Evaluation
of future needs for additional HVTLs 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;
(11)
Evaluation
of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should the proposed
route be approved; and
(12)
When
appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other state and federal
agencies and local entities.[29]
31. GRE’s application and the EQB’s
Environmental Assessment contain adequate information to allow consideration of
these factors.
32. The EQB is to assess the following specific
considerations in determining whether to issue a route permit for an HVTL:
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 archeological 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.[30]
33. No route designation shall be issued in
violation of the route selection standards and criteria established in Minn.
Stat. § 116C.575, subd. 8, and in the rules adopted by the EQB.[31]
Assessment of Impacts
Impacts on Human Settlement
Patterns.
34. The existing 69
kV transmission system serving the Plymouth-Maple Grove area was built in
phases from 1954 to 1971. Since the
transmission network was built, the population of the Plymouth and Maple Grove
area has increased more than ten-fold, doubling in the last 20 years. These communities have essentially grown
around the existing transmission network.
The construction of a new transmission line will not lead to development
that would not otherwise occur, nor will it interfere with future
development. The location of the
transmission line and new poles will be done in a manner such that no person
will be displaced from a residence or business. The project will have no significant impact on human settlement
patterns in Plymouth and Maple Grove.[32]
Noise.
35. The noise impacts are the same regardless of which route is
selected. During construction, normal
construction noise can be expected, but these operations will be short in
duration and conducted during daylight hours to minimize the impact on
residents.
36. During operation, audible noise due to
point source corona is a function of conductor voltage gradient. Irregularities on the conductor surface from
rain or droplets from heavy fog may create a crackling sound due to electricity
ionizing moist air near the wires. The
noise produced by a 115 kV line operating normally should not exceed 12 dB(A)
at the edge of the right of way during fair weather conditions; during heavy
rain, the noise level may approach 18 dB(A) at the right-of-way edge. These noise levels are well below the
maximum nighttime noise levels permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (55 dB(A)).[33]
Visual Impacts and Aesthetics.
37. The new pole design will be taller but will have a narrower
profile than the existing 69 kV poles. According to the Environmental
Assessment, the poles will be less intrusive than the existing poles. In some instances, particularly in residential
neighborhoods, the existing distribution line will be placed underground. For the new line segment the poles will be
much less visually intrusive than the existing 345 kV towers almost universally
visible along this stretch on the west side of I 494.
38. Residents along 73rd Avenue and
north and south of Bass Lake Road object to the aesthetics of having taller
poles in their neighborhoods. Residents
of the Rockford Estates town homes object to the placement of new poles within
sight of their back yards and to the removal of trees that stand between their
homes and the highway. On the basis of
these aesthetic objections, residents urge that the route be shifted to other
streets within their neighborhoods or to more commercial areas where the visual
impact of the poles would not be as great.
39. Because of the curve and the need to cross
wide sections of interstate highway at least twice, use of the alternative
route proposed in the Cedar Island Lake area would require the use of much
taller steel structures spaced more closely together along the back of Rosewood
Lane. In some cases these large
structures would have to be less than 20 ft from homes located on this block.[34]
40. Use of the Bass Lake Road alternative would also require taller,
bulkier steel structures along the winding length of Bass Lake Road and along
Wedgwood Avenue.[35]
41. In
the area of the Target Crossing/Rockford Estates, the alternative route would
shift the line to the west side of I 494.
In that area is a series of four large buildings located in close
proximity to each other. Placement of
the line in this location would require a span over the roofs of the buildings
1,700 feet in length. The length of
this span would require huge structures, approximately 200 ft high (the 345 kV
structures are typically 150 ft tall).
If required to build on the west side of I 494 in this area, GRE would
prefer, for safety reasons, to move the line farther west to the other side of
these buildings, where smaller structures could be used on Fernbrook Lane. This shift would make the route longer, but
it would impact approximately the same number of residences, depending on where
the line would cross to the east of I 494.
It would impact more businesses.[36]
Cultural Values and Recreation.
42. The Environmental Assessment identified no impacts to existing
cultural or recreational resources.
Just south of the Plymouth substation, the City of Plymouth has proposed
to build a ball field complex. The City
has requested that GRE design engineers work with city staff to locate the
structures so that ball fields could be constructed without interference from
the transmission line. GRE has agreed
with this request.[37]
Public Services.
43. The proposed transmission line will not affect public services
provided by the cities of Plymouth and Maple Grove (police and fire protection,
waste collection, etc.). In addition,
GRE states that the proposed transmission facilities will be designed to
industry standards to avoid FM radio, television, and cell phone interference. In areas where the signals are weak, a
transmission structure may cause interference.
If the transmission line causes some localized effect outside the right
of way that was not previously experienced, GRE will be responsible to correct
it.[38]
Health and Safety.
44. Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) surround any electrical
device, including a power line.
Electric fields are produced by voltage, and these fields are easily
shielded by objects such as trees and buildings. Magnetic fields are produced by current, and these fields pass
through most materials. Both electric
and magnetic fields weaken with increasing distance from the source.[39]
45. At present there is insufficient scientific evidence to
establish a cause and effect relationship between EMF and any adverse health
effects. The Minnesota Department of
Health recommends avoiding exposures about which there are questions of safety
or health, at least to the extent that an activity can be avoided easily or
cheaply.[40] There are no state or federal health-based
exposure standards.
46. In previous cases the EQB has imposed as a permit requirement a
maximum electric field limit of 8 kV per meter at one meter above ground, to
mitigate serious hazard from shocks when touching large objects parked under
transmission lines with voltage of 500 kV or greater. GRE states that the proposed line will have a maximum magnitude
of electric field density of approximately 1.1 kV per meter underneath the
conductors one meter above ground level, which is well within the EQB limit.
47. The EQB has not imposed similar limits on exposure to magnetic
fields. GRE estimates that in 2005 the
line would have a peak value of 18.6 mG directly underneath the transmission
line and a value of 10 mG at the edge of the right of way at maximum load
conditions. GRE expects that as the
load on the line increases, the power transfer between the Elm Creek and
Parkers Lake substations will stop and the magnetic field strength on this
facility will decrease over time. GRE
estimates that after 2014 the proposed 115 kV line will have a lower magnetic
field strength (12.1 mG directly underneath the line and approximately 6 mG at
the edge of the right of way) than the existing 69 kV system.
48. Other states have set limits on magnetic field exposure of 150
mG (Florida) and 200 mG (New York) at the edge of the right of way.[41]
49. One resident who lives on 73rd Avenue North filed a
comment urging the EQB to move the line off of his street because it might
affect the proper functioning of his son’s implanted cardioverter defibrillator
(ICD). Some materials from the
manufacturer (Medtronic) advise that persons with these devices should avoid
exposure to power lines with voltage of more than 100,000 volts.[42] The voltage on this line will be 115
kV. GRE contends that implantable medical
devices such as pacemakers are designed to tolerate EMF exposure at levels far
higher than those expected directly under this line. For example, it contends that a different manufacturer (Guidant)
recommends not exceeding a magnetic field strength of 10,000 mG or an
electrical field strength of 6 kV/meter.[43] As noted above, the highest magnetic field
strength from this line is expected to be 18 mG, and the highest electric field
strength is expected to be 1.1 kV/meter.
50. It is not possible for the Administrative Law Judge to resolve
this factual issue on the record produced in an alternative review
proceeding. If it were true, however,
that 115 kV lines might affect the functioning of such devices, rerouting the
line would not be a solution; rerouting would simply shift the danger to
another area. Furthermore, there is
insufficient evidence in the record to conclude, as some residents urge, that
undergrounding the transmission line on 73rd Avenue North would
reduce EMF exposure to safe levels for persons using these devices.
51. Moreover, Xcel Energy’s 345 kV line runs through this highly
populated area; people walk and drive under and around the lines every
day. Many buildings have been erected
close to or directly underneath these lines in Xcel Energy’s right of way, yet
there is no evidence that even these larger voltage lines have posed any health
or safety risks to residents who use implantable medical devices. The predicted exposures of the 115 kV GRE
line are certainly well below limits set by other states and by the
manufacturer cited by GRE. The EQB
should take whatever additional steps it deems necessary to resolve this issue
to its own satisfaction and determine whether other mitigative measures should
be required of GRE (such as raising the height of wires and conductors, etc) in
areas where the lines are particularly close to residences.
Impacts on Land-Based Economies,
Including Agriculture.
52. The Environmental Assessment identified 1.6 acres of prime
farmland in the right-of-way between the Plymouth and Bass Lake
Substations. The remainder of the
proposed route consists of urban or built-up land. The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has indicated
that the transmission line will not affect prime farmland in the area of the
project.[44] The Environmental Assessment identifies no
impacts on forestry, mining, or tourism.
Impacts on Local Archeological and Historic Resources.
53. There are no
properties listed on or eligible for the National or State Registers of
Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the
area that will be affected by this project.[45]
Impacts on the Natural
Environment.
54. This project is
located in a heavily developed, highly urbanized portion of the western Twin
Cities. There are limited areas that
could be described any longer as unique natural resources. Almost all waters, wetlands, forests,
agricultural land, and other natural areas are isolated patches in the urban
matrix. These areas are already
protected through designations as parks, wetlands, and waters of the
state. Wildlife habitat is limited to
wetlands and park property.
55. Potential
impacts to wetland and water resources will be minimal and limited to ground
disturbances associated with placement of the transmission structures,
regardless of the route selected.
Construction in these areas will take place in winter to minimize
impacts to the natural environments.[46]
56. There are no wetland areas within the
right-of-way of the proposed route or the alternative route in the Cedar Island
Lake area.
57. GRE’s proposed route along the existing
transmission line between the Bass Lake and Plymouth substations would impact
seven wetland areas. Use of the
alternative route along Bass Lake Road and I 494 would impact two or three
wetland areas instead of the seven that are currently impacted.
58. The
new portion of the proposed route, between the Plymouth and Parkers Lake
Substations, would impact ten wetland areas.
Use of the alternative route in the area of Rockford Estates would
decrease the impact by one.[47]
Effects on Rare and Unique
Natural Resources.
59. There is one
feature in the area that is listed as a remnant natural community on the
Minnesota County Biological Survey—a maple-basswood forest located south of
Schmidt Lake Road in the Plymouth to Parkers Lake segment of the proposed
route. This is designated as a future
park area in the City of Plymouth comprehensive plan. City staff have requested that the line be engineered with extra
spans or taller structures to minimize the number of trees that would have to
be cleared. GRE has agreed to clear as
few trees as possible and will stake the proposed route in the fall when the
leaves are off, so City staff can walk the woodland area and assess the
potential impacts. The City of Plymouth
has an existing tree preservation policy, and if GRE surpasses the threshold,
restitution would be required.[48]
60. There are no
threatened or endangered species or state-listed species identified by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) along the proposed route. The US Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed
the proposed route and concluded the project would not affect any federally
listed or proposed threatened or endangered species. It is not likely that any migratory threatened or endangered
species will intrude into what is a highly developed urbanized environment.[49]
61. The
Environmental Assessment identified no critical habitats that would be
disrupted by the project.
Application of Design Options to Maximize Energy
Efficiencies, Mitigate Adverse Environmental Effects, and Accommodate Expansion
of Transmission Capacity.
62. GRE has no
plans to expand the proposed 115 kV transmission line through 2026, and it
states that it is not aware of any other utility plans to expand the 115 kV
line. The design plans are based on the
current project and do not include any future expansion of the HVTL.[50]
63. GRE states that
it will work with affected landowners to use a design that mitigates the impact
on the affected landowners and the right of way. Specifically, GRE has committed to the following to mitigate
visual and aesthetic impacts:
·Bury distribution line where
possible in residential neighborhoods.
·Place structures as far as
possible from homes.
·Minimize the appearance of the
lines in the area of Rockford Estates by hanging the wires over the Mn/DOT
right of way.
·Re-landscape the berm in the
area of Rockford Estates, including installation of a wood fence, plant
material consistent with maintenance of the transmission line, and a new
sprinkler system.
·Take measures to minimize
erosion by planting or seeding areas where structures are installed.
·Negotiate special tree-trimming
agreements with individual landowners to minimize excessive tree removal.
Use or Paralleling of Existing
Rights of Way.
64. The proposed
route uses the existing 115 kV route and right of way from Elm Creek to GRE’s
existing facilities at CR 81 and Zachary Lane; it uses the existing 69 kV route
from there to the Plymouth Substation. GRE
states that it has a 70-ft easement on its existing route that should be
adequate for most areas.[51] From the Plymouth Substation to the 494
crossing, it uses an existing Xcel Energy route and right of way. From the 494 crossing south, the proposed
route parallels the I 494 right of way corridor on the east side. GRE maintains that it is not possible to use
the Xcel Energy route and right of way on the west side of 494 for this final
stretch because Xcel Energy has allowed encroachments (buildings) into the
right of way that would not permit the safe and economical installation of the
115 kV HVTL within that easement.
65. The
Cedar Island alternative route would not use existing rights of way and would
affect landowners north and south of I 94 who are not already impacted by
transmission lines.[52] The alternative of undergrounding for
approximately ½ mile along 73rd Avenue North would use GRE’s
existing rights of way.
66. The
Bass Lake Road alternative route would not use existing rights of way and would
affect many landowners who are not already impacted by transmission lines.[53] The alternative would run parallel to but
not entirely within the Xcel Energy right of way for the 345 kV line on the
west side of 494; it would run parallel to the 494 corridor on the east side.
67. Some
residents dispute GRE’s assertions that the 115 kV line would have to be placed
at least 80 to 100 ft away from the center line of the 345 kV line to comply
with NESC vertical and horizontal clearance requirements.[54] No one contends, however, that the 115 kV
line could be built on or under the 345 kV line, and there is no evidence that
the 115 kV line could be built closer to the 345 kV line in a manner that would
avoid impacting many new landowners between the Plymouth Substation and 73rd
Avenue North.
Electrical System Reliability.
68. The
transmission line is needed to provide better electric service to the residents
of Plymouth and Maple Grove. Most of
the existing transmission system in this area was built before 1970 and is no
longer adequate to support the electric load.
The infrastructure proposed in this project is intended to enable GRE to
provide more reliable energy service and to allow for projected regional growth
for the next 20 years.
Costs of
Constructing, Operating, and Maintaining the Facility that are Dependent on
Design and Route.
69. The cost of constructing, operating, and
maintaining the facility along the proposed route is likely to be lower than
along alternative routes.[55] The proposed route relies on existing rights
of way to the extent technically and economically feasible, which reduces the
cost of acquiring easements and right of way preparation. GRE estimates that costs of construction on
the proposed route are $11,364,000. It
estimates that annual operation and maintenance costs will be approximately
$1,000 per mile of line.
70. GRE has provided some information
concerning the costs associated with the alternative routes. GRE contends that the first alternative in
this area, running the line around the back of Rosewood Lane and along 74th
Avenue North, is not buildable because there is inadequate room behind the town
homes on 74th Avenue North.
It estimates that the other route alternatives, running either above
ground across the highway and back, or underground for 1/2 mile along 73rd
Avenue North, would cost an additional $1.15 million to $1.25 million vs.
$100,000 to use the existing right of way for above-ground lines. GRE also maintains that undergrounding the
HVTL for this 1/2 mile would produce energy losses of more than 5 MW. Residents in the area dispute this
figure. They maintain, based on
information obtained from Underground Systems, Inc., that undergrounding may
minimize energy losses and that the additional cost of installation might be
recovered over time through fewer energy losses and decreased maintenance
costs.[56]
71. Again, there is no way to resolve this type
of factual issue on the record produced in an alternative review
proceeding. Even if the information
provided by the residents as to energy losses is accurate, however, the initial
installation cost is a large additional expense for ½ mile of power line.
72. GRE estimates that one portion of the Bass
Lake Road alternative would add $187,500 to the project; however, it is not
clear what this figure represents. GRE
has stated that many additional steel structures at a cost of $200,000 each
would be required, along with acquisition of additional rights of way, which
could quickly add “millions” to the cost of the project.[57] There is no accurate estimate in the record
of what this alternative route would cost, but it appears to be substantially
higher than $187,500.
73. GRE
estimates that the additional cost of the Target Crossing/Rockford Estates alternative
is between $500,000 and approximately $1 million, depending upon how far west
of the existing 345 kV line the new line were to be located.[58] It is not clear whether it is either
technologically feasible or safe to erect a span of 1,700 feet to run over the
top of the large buildings immediately to the west of the 345 kV line.
Adverse
Human and Natural Environmental Effects that Can Not Be Avoided.
74. The only identified environmental effects that cannot
be avoided are primarily short-term during the construction of the line. GRE has committed to maintaining native
vegetation within the proposed route that is compatible with the operation and
maintenance of the transmission line.
It has agreed to plant or seed in areas that are devoid of native
species or use other methods to minimize erosion.
Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources.
75. The proposed route does not require any irreversible or
irretrievable commitment of resources.
Excluded Sites that Must Be
Avoided Under Minn. R. 4400.3310.
76. Neither the proposed route nor any alternate route would involve
any of the exclusions under this rule.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon
the evidence contained in the record, the Administrative Law Judge respectfully
recommends that the EQB issue the route permit for the route proposed by GRE,
with appropriate conditions including those identified above. GRE should be required to stay within the
existing right of way for portions of the transmission line that are a rebuild
or upgrade of the 69 kV line; and in the areas where new rights of way will be
required, GRE should be required to stay within 40 feet either side of the
center line.
Dated: May 6, 2004
__/s/
Kathleen D. Sheehy______
KATHLEEN
D. SHEEHY
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
I. Notice.
A
group of residents in the Sunnyslope neighborhood contend that they received
inadequate notice of the public hearings on March 18, 2004.[59] The EQB provided the public notice that was
legally required: it published the
notice in local newspapers, and it mailed the notice to those on its contact
lists. Earlier in this process, it
appears that the EQB provided more notice than it was required to provide, by
mailing notices of the public meetings in October 2003 to all persons on the
GRE list of landowners. While it might
be better to be consistent, the Administrative Law Judge cannot conclude that
“over-noticing” in the past made the more recent notices legally insufficient. The EQB did what it was required to do and
cannot be faulted because these residents did not request that their names be
added to the EQB’s project contact list.
II. Preference for Use of the Existing Route.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that, in order to make the route selection process comport with Minnesota’s commitment to the principle of nonproliferation of power lines, the EQB must, as a matter of law, choose a pre-existing route unless there are extremely strong reasons not to do so.[60] The court reasoned that the use of a pre-existing route minimizes the impact of the new intrusion “by limiting its effects to those who are already accustomed to living with an existing route.” This policy is rooted not in the desire to make it “easy” for power companies to make routing decisions, but in the legislative preference to protect the environment from further impairment and encroachment when choosing between alterative sites.[61]
The residents proposing alternative routes along the Cedar Island Lake area and the Bass Lake Road area contend that routing the 115 kV line in the same general area as Xcel Energy’s 345 kV line would be consistent with the principle of nonproliferation. The principle of nonproliferation has to do with containing the impact of power lines on landowners, particularly landowners who built their homes after an existing power line was constructed.[62] The record is clear that the alternative routes would impact many new landowners, and these alternative routes are therefore inconsistent with the principle of nonproliferation. The alternative routes would simply shift the burdens of living with the power line from one set of landowners to another, and they are also clearly more costly.
III.
Use of New Rights of Way.
GRE has no existing route between the Plymouth and Parkers Lake Substations. It proposes using part of Xcel Energy’s right of way until technical and safety considerations resulting from encroachments into the right of way require a shift to the west side of I 494. GRE’s proposed route would impact about the same number of residences but fewer businesses than the alternative. Finally, three outside engineering firms studied many route alternatives for this segment of the line, and all recommended use of the proposed route.[63] GRE has demonstrated that it would be technologically difficult to accomplish the alternative route and that the visual impacts and costs of the alternative route would be much greater.
Residents also expressed concerns that they were not able to participate more actively in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. The record reflects, however, that their concerns were taken seriously, that the alternative routes were fully considered in the process, and that these routes were rejected for sound reasons.
K.D.S.
