EQB & MN Rules - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

planning criteria require voltages on the transmission system to stay at 90 percent of nominal voltage and lines are required to be loaded to less than 100 percent of their emergency capacity after a contingency. Leaving the Orono Substation on the 69 kV system would violate both of these Xcel Energy criteria.' 5. The project would consist of the following: • Replacement of the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint to accommodate the new 115 kV transmission line. • Construction of approximately 0.4 miles of new double circuit 115 kV transmission line between Xcel Energy line 0831 and the Orono Substation. • Relocation of approximately 0.2 miles of the existing Xcel Energy single circuit 115 kV transmission line 0831.5 6. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy (GRE) 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the expanded Orono Substation.' 7. The Xcel Energy Proposed Route would exit the Orono Substation, head north for 866 feet as a double circuit line and then turn to the northwest along the southern edge of the BNSF railroad right-of-way for approximately 1,205 feet to the existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831. At this point, the project would replace three existing transmission structures and approximately 1,030 feet of single circuit 115 transmission Line 0831with two new structures and approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission line, re-routing the existing line off of two residential parcels and onto adjacent Huntington Farm Home Owners Association (HFHOA) property adjacent to the BNSF railroad. A new double-circuit corner structure would connect the single- and double-circuit portions of the project.' Xcel Energy would also install fiber optic shield wire along the entire length of the project for possible future use. 8 8. As presented in the route permit application, Xcel Energy also identified and analyzed four alternative routes (Alternative Route 1, Alternative Route 2, Alternative Route 3, and Alternative Route 4).9 The alternatives were rejected by Xcel Energy as they did not fulfill its objectives or provide any greater advantage with respect to the Proposed Route,pursuant to Minnesota Rule 7850.3100. 4 Ex. 12 at p. 5 (EA) 5 Ex.2 at pp.9-10(Application) 'Ibid. at p. 10 'Ex. 12 at p.7(EA) B Ex. 17 at Schedule 11 (Sedarski Direct) 9 Ex.2 at pp. 16-18,and Appendix G (Application) 3