Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Information/Environmental Scoping Meeting ,,, ,-,-- T Minnesota -vt Cornmerce F Energ Face li ��ermitti g x Public Information and ° 4 Environmental Scoping Meeting 'i ''- = August 10,2011 Orono, Minnesota Proposed Orono 115 kV Transmission Line Project : ka.. 444,0...g., ITransmission Line Permitting in Minnesota 1 The Public Utilities Commission is the government unit that issues high-voltage transmission line route permits in Minnesota. 7\linnesota Statutes Chapter 216E (Thc Power Plant Siting Act) I Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850 (Rules for administration of the Power Plant Siting Act) 1 Transmission Line Permitting in Minnesota High-Voltage Transmission Line—A conductor of electric energy designed for and capable of A operating at a voltage of 100 kV or more and is s greater than 1,500 feet in length. ➢ No person may construct a high-voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission. ➢ A high-voltage transmission line may be constructed only along a route approved by the Commission. Minnesota Statute 216E Proposed Project ➢ Rebuild of existing Orono Substation ➢ Install approximately 0.4 miles of new double circuit 115 kV Transmission Line .- ➢ Replacement of approximately 0.2 miles of single circuit115 .���. kV Transmission Line ➢ Located in of the city of Orono. 0 4,0I I w 2 RouteMN Rule and Right-of-Way 7850. ( 1000) t". ➢ Route: Location of a HVTL between two end points;maybe up to 1.25 miles in width. > Here,Xcel requests 400 feet > Right-of-Way: Land Interest required within a route to construct, maintain,and operate a HV 1L ➢ e Here,Xcel requests 75 feet High Voltage Transmission Line Alternative Permitting Process Minnesota Rule 7850 2800—7850.3900 Acppl t o submitted Appy tron Application 9-5 bmitted �Rc)octeJ OY PUC' Conlmis 3I APp me0 $:. Ap1 £AJ c T.ak':c ArcegO�J y UC f pleto Public Meeting N>✓16nw.Nn.mw,.autnum�u.nouh.ivp:... Publie Comment Penod (Opii�krala d. uta n.-punk Mla!1 'tio P Environ td An man[ISA) Aµnn Ap6/ 'A:, Etadta mental A nmAAE,�"' 'US Oeeieton eA_` .µPerron Appbcrtion and EAS, .1 poly we. Public Hearing w*�" t� 3 Route Application Review Schedule Route Permit Application Filing June 7,2011 Route Permit Application Acceptance June 30,2011 Public Information Meeting August 10,2011 Close of Comment Period August 26,2011 Scope of Environmental Assessment September,2011 I Environmental Assessment October,2011 f. Public Hearing October/November,2011 Permit Decision by Commission December,2011 EA Scope Issued by Deputy Commissioner Scoping Decision Must Identify: ➢Alternative routes,if any, to be addressed in the environmental assessment >Any specific potential impacts to be addressed >The schedule for completion of the environmental assessment >Other matters to be included in the environmental assessment (Minnesota Rules,7850.3700) 4 Project Information Project Name: Orono 115 kV Project PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Energy Facility Permitting Website: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082 eDockets Website: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/search.jsp (Under Docket Number enter"11"for Year and"223" for Number and click Search.) Hard copies of application also available at: Orono City Hall,Planning& Zoning Department;Maple Plain Library;and Long Lake Library. Comment Deadline Friday,August 26, 2011 Oral comments at tonight's meeting Written comments ➢ Turn in at tonight's meeting ➢ U.S. Mail ➢ Email ➢ Fax You may also, submit through website: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/publicComments.html 5 Department of Commerce Contacts Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facility Permitting 85 7thPlace East,Suite 500 St.Paul,MN 55101-2198 Fax: 651-297-7891 Suzanne Steinhauer State Permit Manager (651)296-2888 suzanne.steinhauer@state.mn.us Ray Kirsch Public Advisor (651)296-7588 raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us Sign up for Mailing List at any time: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/#MailingLists 6 HVTL Routing and Power Plant Siting MINNESOTA Alternative Permitting Process l. DEPARTMENT OF L /1111 COMMERCE Minnesota Rules 7850 Application Submitted Application 30 Accepted ,iit Co Public Scoping Meetings Timeline and Comment Period * Time from application Mb 2' acceptance to permit decision = 6 months * Public Participation Scope of Opportunities Environmental Assessment (EA) • EA Developed and Issued • Public Hearing * Permit Decision by Public Utilities Commission • Judicial Review office of Minnesota Office of Energy Security ; >a+ ecur M1linrw«ulDry urlm«nt ut Camm...c« FACT SHEET How to Participate in the Energy Facility Permitting Process: An Overview The permitting processes for energy facilities in Minnesota include multiple opportunities for public participation. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) relies on public participation in making its facility siting and routing decisions. The permitting process for a specific energy facility depends on the type and size of the project. Permitting processes for general types of facilities, e.g., transmission lines, are described on the PUC Energy Facilities webpage, http://energvfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/. These descriptions include flowcharts and applicable statutes and rules. Project Dockets Within the statutes and rules, there are common themes and tools to participate in almost all permitting processes. All processes start when an applicant applies to the PUC for a site or route permit. The application is assigned a docket number and a project docket is opened. The docket is expressed as a year and four digit ID number, e.g., 09 -1234. This docket is a place to organize and view the important documents of the permitting process. You can download and read documents. You can follow the permitting process as it unfolds. There are two ways to access and view project dockets. You can view projects dockets on the PUC Energy Facilities webpage, http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/. You can also view dockets through the Department of Commerce eDockets webpage, https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFilino/search.jsp. Meeting Notices Acceptance of an application by the PUC triggers an environmental review process. This process includes public meetings to discuss the project and develop the scope of the environmental review. Notice is given of when and where meetings will take place. A list of upcoming meetings is on the Energy Facilities webpage. If you're interested in a specific energy facility project, you can sign up to receive notices by mail. The sign up is on the Energy Facilities webpage; click on "Get on a Mailing List." There are two primary mailing lists: (1) The mailing list for PUC power plants and transmission lines (general contact list), and (2)The individual project mailing lists (project contact list). Folks on the general contact list get notices of ALL project applications. This can be a lot of mail! So, be sure you want to be on the list before you sign up. Folks on the project contact list, get notices that apply only to specific projects. Additionally, folks on the project contact list get notices throughout the permitting process; those persons on the general list get only the initial notice. So, if you want to follow along with a project--- sign up for the project contact list! If you prefer email to regular mail, you can sign up for Real Simply Syndication (RSS) feeds on the Energy Facilities webpage or email notification on the eDockets webpage. Finally, notice of public meetings is always published in a local newspaper. So, you can keep an eye out for upcoming meetings by being a regular newspaper reader. Version 4.0 1 Participate and Comment Once you know of a public meeting that you're interested in.... attend and participate! Meetings typically include a discussion of the proposed project and opportunities to ask questions and make comments and suggestions. Importantly, this is your chance to propose alternate routes and sites that should be studied in the environmental review. If you think there's a better route for a transmission line or a better location for a power plant, then propose your alternative. If you don't propose an alternative for the PUC to consider, they can't permit it—i.e., if you don't put your suggestion into the hat, it can't be picked. There is always a comment period after a meeting, typically about 10 days. So, if you think of a suggestion or an alternative after the meeting, you can send it to the project manager. Make sure you get your comments in by the comment period deadline! All meeting notices will include the date of the deadline. Intervention— Becoming a Party Another way to participate in the permitting process is to intervene in a contested case hearing and become a party to the hearing. Not every permitting process has a contested case hearing, but many do. Requests to intervene and become a party must be directed to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the hearing. You can find out who the ALJ is and how to intervene by reading the judge's pre-hearing order for the docket. You can find the pre-hearing order on the eDockets webpage. Environmental Review Documents If there is an environmental review document produced for a project (e.g., an environmental impact statement), it will be posted on the project docket page. You can download and read the document. Hearings Many permitting processes include a public hearing after the environmental review document is issued. A hearing is basically a more formal public meeting. It is often presided over by an Administrative Law Judge. Public hearings require public notice, so if you've signed up for mail or electronic notices, you will be good to go. Once you know of a public hearing that you're interested in ... attend and participate! Citizens can ask questions, submit exhibits, and make comments. There will be a comment period after the hearing and instructions on how to send comments to the judge. Public Utilities Commission Meetings After all the meetings, environmental review, and hearings, there is a substantial record on which the PUC can make a permit decision. You can attend PUC meetings and add your comments to the Commissioners' deliberations. Notice of the PUC meeting at which permit issuance will be considered is mailed to those persons on the project contact list. Contacts— For Help and Information If you have questions about any project or the permitting process in general, you can contact Office of Energy Security (OES) and PUC staff directly. Project dockets on the Energy Facilities webpage provide contact information for a project manager and public advisor. These are OES staff persons who are managing the permitting process; they can help answer questions about participating in the process. Additionally, you can contact PUC energy facilities permitting staff with questions. Minnesota Dept. of Commerce Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Office of Energy Security 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2147 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Local: 651-296-7124 651-296-4026 Toll Free: 1-800-657-3782 http://energvfacilities.puc.state.mn.us http://www.puc.state.mn.us Version 4.0 2 Minnesota Office of Energy Security , " office of sot s v401_ IF ecur FACT SHEET Rights-of-Way and Easements for Energy Facility Construction and Operation This fact sheet has been developed by Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security Energy Facility Permitting staff. It is intended for informational purposes only, as a result of and in response to questions and comments made at siting and routing public meetings throughout Minnesota. This document does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied on as such. Landowners are encouraged to independently verb any statements made herein. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security (OES) provides this fact sheet for landowners who may be affected by construction of energy facilities in the State of Minnesota. Its purpose is to explain the process by which utilities obtain rights-of-way for new energy facilities (i.e., transmission lines and pipelines) and to inform landowners of their rights in negotiating right-of-way agreements. Public Utilities Commission and Permits for Energy Facilities The State of Minnesota has established a state policy of facilities. locating energy facilities in an orderly manner compatible with environmental preservation, sustainable Route Permits: Route permits issued by the PUC for development, and efficient use of resources. The transmission lines and pipelines specify a route width Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has and a right-of-way (ROW) width. The route width is authority to issue permits for certain energy facilities in typically larger than the ROW width — providing the state, including power plants, transmission lines, flexibility in ROW placement within the route to address wind farms, and pipelines. When it issues such permits, human and environmental concerns that arise after the the PUC must choose sites and routes that minimize permit has been issued. For example, the permitted adverse human and environmental impacts while ROW might be 150 ft. wide for a transmission line, but ensuring energy system reliability and sufficient energy the permitted route might be 1000 ft. wide. The route is supplies. larger than the ROW to provide flexibility in locating and constructing the energy facility. But the route is The land required for a specific energy facility may also specific — it identifies where the energy facility impact multiple landowners. In order to ensure that the must be placed, i.e. within the route. Thus, the route particular land and rights-of-way required for an energy provides flexibility and predictability; it specifies where facility can be obtained for a project, Minnesota law the energy facility must go and facilitates best placement gives utilities the power of eminent domain. Because of the facility within the route. the general public interest is enhanced by the addition of necessary energy facilities, the power of eminent domain Site permits: The PUC typically issues site permits for allows utilities to obtain property rights even if electric power plants and wind farms. A PUC site landowners are unwilling to negotiate right-of-way permit will specify the site of the energy facility, with agreements. Thus, Minnesota law gives utilities the limited flexibility for locating and constructing the power to acquire or "take" property interests (generally project. Eminent domain authority is not common for easements) by condemnation for constructing energy power plant sites, and is not available for wind farms. Rights-of-way The right-of-way(ROW)is the physical land area within outright (fcc simple ownership). An outright land a route that is needed to construct and operate the energy purchase is less common because utilities seek only facility. A utility is interested in having rights to this enough land interests to build and safely operate the land area sufficient to meet these uses. These rights may facility, and fee simple ownership may not be necessary be obtained through one of two means: (1) purchase of to accomplish this goal. an easement for the ROW, or (2) purchase of the land 12.13.10 1 A ROW agreement is a private agreement between a does enforce the permits which it issues, including landowner and a utility. The PUC does not involve itself permit conditions related to design, construction, with negotiations between landowners and utilities and maintenance, and restoration within the ROW. has no authority over this process. However, the PUC Easements The most common form of right-of-way (ROW) include application of herbicides. Landowners with agreement is an easement, which is a legal interest in requirements for management of their land, e.g., organic real property that transfers a partial property right to the certification prohibiting the use of certain pesticides, can holder of the easement (e.g., from a landowner to a discuss these requirements during their easement utility). The easement agreement specifies restrictions negotiations with the utility or its agent. Utilities on both the utility's and the landowner's use of the land typically notify landowners before beginning and specifies the rights of the utility to enter and use the maintenance activities in the ROW; notification land. It is binding upon the utility, the landowner, and requirements may be part of the easement agreement. any future owners of the land unless and until the Some general conditions addressing the needs of easement is discharged. The easement will be recorded landowners may be included in the permit issued by the in the county in which it is located in the same manner PUC. In addition, the permitting process includes as other real estate transactions. preparation of an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (AIMP) by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Easement agreements allow only what is described by The AIMP may include provisions dealing with organic the terms of the easement—e.g., to "build and maintain farming as well as traditional agricultural uses. a 20 inch oil pipeline" or "build and maintain a 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line." Easements last for as In some instances, utilities require additional space long as the utility uses and maintains the energy facility during construction of an energy facility. This in the ROW. If the utility abandons or removes the additional space is called"temporary work space" and is facility, the property interest transferred by the easement included in the ROW agreement, but is not part of the may return to the landowner(Minn. Stat. §117.225). permanent easement. As the name implies, this work space is temporary and is typically used to place Easements typically describe allowable uses and construction materials or provide operating room for restricted uses by the landowner. In general, the primary machinery, e.g., room to maneuver and operate a land use restrictions for transmission line ROWs include pipeline drill. Unlike an easement, the property interest tall trees and buildings; for pipeline ROWs they include in the temporary work space reverts back to the buildings,trees, shrubs, and brush. landowner upon completion of the described work. A description of temporary work space, its uses, and ROW maintenance typically includes removing trees and duration should be part of ROW negotiations. other vegetation as needed within the ROW, and may Negotiating Almost all parts of the ROW agreement are negotiable, (Minn. Stat. §117.031). whether it is the purchase of an easement or fee simple ownership. Landowners can negotiate terms in the Typically a utility real estate agent contacts a landowner ROW agreement that will avoid or reduce negative to purchase an easement for a specific parcel or strip of impacts to their property. They can negotiate land that is to be used for a ROW. The utility may offer compensation for the ROW. Utilities, in turn, have an a standard easement agreement and an amount of money obligation to negotiate terms that meet the needs of their it is willing to pay for the easement. The offer will proposed facility. A satisfactory ROW agreement is reflect the utility's assessment of the ROW's impact on likely best achieved if the landowner and the utility have the fair market value of the property. Typically a reasonable expectations and negotiate in good faith. landowner does not sign an easement agreement without first reading it, asking questions, and negotiating terms. Utilities have a statutory incentive to negotiate in good A landowner may wish to obtain an independent faith — if their last written offer to a landowner is appraisal of his or her land value, speak to other significantly different from the final judgment of an landowners about possible ROW agreements and eminent domain proceeding, the landowner can get conditions, or hire an attorney or other person to attorney fees and other reasonable costs reimbursed negotiate on the landowner's behalf. 12.13.10 2 4 Easement and purchase agreements are legal documents negotiations, he or she may wish to consult an attorney and should, to the extent possible, include detailed and or "take a timeout" from negotiating until they get a precise language. In general, it is a good idea to include better understanding of the process. Generally, time in the easement agreement details about the ROW, its spent negotiating is time well spent — eminent domain uses, and parties' rights and responsibilities. Blanket proceedings can be time consuming and expensive. easements, i.e., easements that do not identify the exact location of the ROW, were common at one time in Ultimately, each ROW agreement is unique —reflecting Minnesota. More contemporary easements identify and the values and interests of the landowner and the utility. define the land area of the ROW. These interests typically are not mutually exclusive and a satisfactory ROW agreement can most often be If a landowner feels confused or overwhelmed during reached through negotiation. Determining Value A common point of negotiation in ROW agreements is determine if a ROW and associated energy facility will the amount of money that a landowner should receive affect the value of adjoining property, and if so, to what for the ROW, be it an easement or fee simple purchase. extent. Numerous studies have been conducted on this By law, landowners are due just compensation for their issue with varying results. Some general trends have property. Landowners often have questions regarding been revealed by these studies. First, when negative what values should be included in this compensation and impacts on property values occur due to establishment of how these values are calculated. a ROW, they tend to be in the range of a 1 to 10 percent reduction in value. Conversely, in some cases, the To begin with,the value of the land itself—the physical impacts can be positive. Second, negative impacts are length and width of the ROW—should be included. It is most often attributed to the unattractiveness of the possible to estimate the fair market value of this land energy facility, fear of potential health effects, noise with established appraisal methods. Fair market value is (during operation and maintenance, depending on the the amount a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, type of facility), and safety concerns. Third, the taking into consideration the highest and best use to presence of the ROW and energy facility is not the which the property can be put. Fair market value is primary determinant of property value. Neighborhood typically estimated in one of four ways: (1) comparing characteristics, lot size, schools, land characteristics, and the property to similar properties that have been sold improvements are all better predictors of property value. recently, (2) estimating the future income producing Fourth, the impact on property value from a ROW capability of the property, (3) estimating the cost to decreases the further away the property is from the replace an existing structure on the property, and (4) ROW. Thus, impacts are usually greater for smaller estimating the value of planned development on the properties than for larger properties. property. These methods are not conclusive but can be used to support or defend a particular value. Studies notwithstanding, every landowner has a unique relationship with his or her property and thus valuing If the utility is purchasing an easement, it is not impacts to property adjacent to a ROW can be purchasing all of the land rights associated with the challenging. If a landowner determines that he or she ROW. Thus, the utility may propose paying a cannot continue living on property with an energy percentage of the fair market value of the property. This facility ROW easement, the landowner can, with some percentage is a point of negotiation between the limitations, require that the utility purchase the landowner and utility. landowner's entire property in fee simple (Minn. Stat. §216E.12). Landowners can include damages as part of their compensation — e.g., crop damage or drain tile damage A value that generally is not included in ROW due to construction or maintenance of the energy facility. agreements is the value of the energy moving through Landowners can negotiate how this value is calculated. the energy facility(e.g.,transmission line,pipeline). In Landowners can also be compensated for loss of a going contrast,landowners with agreements to allow wind concern(Minn. Stat. §117.186). turbines to be placed on their property can receive payments that reflect the wind energy generated on their Another value that landowners may desire to include is property. In these cases,the wind farm developer is any change in the value of their property that is not in purchasing a property right that includes a known energy the ROW, but is adjacent to it. It may be difficult to source,the wind. ROW agreements for transmission 12.13.10 3 lines and pipelines do not anticipate drawing or creating speak of and no energy value appears in the ROW energy from the ROW;thus,there is no energy value to agreement. Eminent Domain "Eminent domain" is the power to take privately owned The utility begins a condemnation proceeding by filing a property, particularly land, and convert it to public use, petition with the appropriate District Court. Landowners subject to reasonable compensation for the taking. must receive notice of the petition (Minn. Stat. Despite good faith negotiations, it's possible that a §117.055). A landowner may object to the granting of landowner and utility will not reach agreement on the the petition and may appeal the issuance of a petition. If terms of a ROW agreement. Under these circumstances, the petition is granted, the property interest (i.e., once it obtains the necessary PUC permits,the utility has easement or fee simple ownership) is transferred to the the right to use eminent domain power to initiate utility, and the issue of compensation is taken up. The condemnation proceedings. However, until the utility Court must appoint three impartial commissioners for receives the necessary permits, it may not initiate such a the condemnation proceeding to ascertain the amount of proceeding. compensation due to the landowner for the taking of the property (Minn. Stat. §117.075). The commissioners Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 (Minn. Stat. §117, titled have broad powers to hear and consider"allegations and "Eminent Domain") describes the procedures to be proofs of all persons interested" (Minn. Stat. §117.085). followed for condemnation proceedings in Minnesota. The commissioners' decision is considered final; The intent of Chapter 117 is to determine, through a fair however, landowners may appeal the decision and may process, what payment is due the landowner for the use request a jury trial. of his or her land. Chapter 117 provides protections for landowners. The utility must negotiate in good faith A landowner who chooses not to negotiate a ROW on with the landowner, and provide the landowner with a his or her property and instead requires the utility to use copy of an appraisal of the property before beginning a eminent domain power by initiating a condemnation condemnation proceeding (Minn. Stat. §117.036). The process, would likely benefit from legal counsel. landowner can obtain an appraisal and may be Condemnation proceedings can be time consuming and reimbursed, within statutory limits, for the reasonable expensive;however, some landowners may feel this time costs of this appraisal(Minn. Stat. §117.036). and expense is necessary and worthwhile. References and Resources • Minnesota Statutes,Law,and Rules,http://www.revisor.mn.gov/pubs/ • Minnesota Session Laws,2010,Chapter 288,https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=288&doctype=Chapter&year=2010&type=0 • "Eminent Domain:Just Compensation,"Minnesota House of Representatives,House Research, http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssedj ust.htm • Resources on Minnesota Issues,Eminent Domain,Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/eminentdomain.asp • "Summary Guide to Eminent Domain,"Bruce D.Malkerson,Howard A.Roston,and Patrick B. Steinhoff(2006),available for purchase from Minnesota CLE,http://www.minncle.org • "Right-of-Way and Easements for Electric Facility Construction,"Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric02.pdf • "The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values:A Review and Analysis of the Literature,"Cynthia A.Kroll and Thomas Priestley,Edison Electric Institute(1992),http://staff.haas.berkeley.edu/kroll/pubs/tranline.pdf • "Do High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Affect Property Value?,"Stanley W.Hamilton and Gregory M. Schwann,Land Economics,Vol.71,No.4(Nov., 1995),p.436-444 • "The Impact of Transmission Lines on Property Values: Coming to Terms with Stigma,"Peter Elliott,David Wadley,Property Management,20(2),(2002),p. 137-152. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/U0:8095/dw_pm 02.pdf • "Power Lines and Property Values Revisited,"Jennifer M.Pitts,Thomas 0.Jackson,Appraisal Journal,Fall 2007, http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejoumals/article/171851335.html Minnesota Department of Commerce,Office of Energy Security 85 7th Place East, Suite 500,Saint Paul,MN 55101,651.296.4026 http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us 12.13.10 4 P DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT PUC DOCKET No. E02/TL-11-223 Prepared by the Staff of the r.,._, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE August 10, 2011 Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project 61, Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 2 Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 3 INTRODUCTION This scoping document is intended to advise the public of the scoping process and the process for the preparation of the Environmental Review document. The scoping decision will identify for the public the issues and alternatives that the Department of Commerce (Department) has determined are appropriate for inclusion in the environmental review document. A High Voltage Transmission Line (HVTL) Route Permit from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) is required prior to construction of the Project. Xcel Energy (Applicant) submitted a HVTL Route Permit application to the Commission on June 7, 2011. The route permit application was accepted as complete by the Commission on June 30, 2011. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Xcel Energy proposes to construct the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project). As proposed,the Project would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single-circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. Xcel estimates the total Project cost to be approximately $5.3 million dollars. HVTL ROUTE PERMITTING Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.03, subd. 2, provides that no person may construct a HVTL without a route permit from the Commission. An HVTL is defined as a transmission line of 100 kV or more and greater than 1,500 feet in length in Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.01, subd. 4. The proposed transmission lines are HVTLs and therefore a route permit is required prior to construction. The Applicants submitted the HVTL route permit application for the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line pursuant to the provisions of the Alternative Permitting Process outlined in Minnesota Rules 7849.2900. The alternative permitting process includes environmental review and public hearings, and typically takes six months. Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 4 A copy of the HVTL route permit application, along with other relevant documents, can be reviewed at the Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) web page at: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=3 2082 The Department EFP is responsible for evaluating the HVTL route permit application and administering the environmental review process. The Commission is responsible for selecting the transmission lines routes and issuing the HVTL route permit. If issued a route permit by the Commission, the Applicant may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the land necessary for the project pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216E.12 and Minnesota Statute 117. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental review under the alternative permitting process includes public information/scoping meetings and the preparation of an environmental review document, the Environmental Assessment (EA) (Minn. R. 7850.3700). The environmental assessment is a written document that describes the human and environmental impacts of the transmission line project (and selected alternative routes) and methods to mitigate such impacts. The Deputy Commissioner of the Department's Division of Energy Resources will determine the scope of the EA. The EA will be completed and made available prior to the public hearing. The environmental review document under the HVTL Route Permit procedures (Minnesota Rules, 7850.3700, subpart 4) must include the following: A. A general description of the proposed project; B. A list of any alternative sites or routes that are addressed; C. A discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project and each alternative site or route on the human and natural environment; D. A discussion of mitigative measures that could reasonably be implemented to eliminate or minimize any adverse impacts identified for the proposed project and each alternative; E. An analysis of the feasibility of each alternative site or route considered; F. A list of permits required for the project; and G. A discussion of other matters identified in the scoping process. SCOPING PROCESS The purpose of the scoping process is to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the development of the scope of the EA by holding a public meeting and soliciting public comment. This section will contain information on the scoping meeting held Wednesday, August 10, 2011 in Orono, Minnesota. Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 5 The meeting will inform the public about the project and the regulatory proceedings; provide a forum to discuss the environmental, social and economic issues of importance in the areas potentially affected; and gather public input into the scope of the EA to be prepared for the project. The meeting provides the public an opportunity to ask questions about the project and suggest alternatives and specific impacts that should be addressed in the EA. Representatives of Department and the Xcel Energy will be at the meetings to describe the proposed project and answer questions. Written public comments can be submitted to the EFP staff until August 26, 2011. Once the scope is determined, EFP staff will prepare the EA and introduce it into the record at a public hearing to be scheduled, noticed and held at a later date. DRAFT SCOPE FOR COMPLETION OF EA The Scope issued by the Deputy Commissioner will identify the issues to be evaluated in the environmental assessment prepared for the Project. The assessment will describe the project and current setting of the proposed project area. It will also provide information on the potential impacts the proposed project could have as they relate to the topics outlined in this scoping decision document, including possible mitigation for identified impacts, identification of irretrievable commitment of resources and permits from other government entities that may be required. Based on the information in the record at this time, EFP staff anticipates that the issues outlined below will be identified and described in the environmental assessment for the proposed Orono 115 kV project. Additional issues may be identified in the scoping comments and will be addressed in the Scope issued by the Deputy Commissioner. I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Project Description B. Purpose of the Transmission Line C. Project Location D. Route Description 1. Route Width 2. Right-of-Way E. Project Cost II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. Certificate of Need B. High-Voltage Transmission Line Route Permits C. Environmental Review Process III. ENGINEERING AND OPERATION DESIGN A. Transmission Line Conductors B. Transmission Line Structures C. Substations Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 6 IV. CONSTRUCTION A. Transmission Line and Structures B. Substations C. Restoration and Cleanup D. Operation and Maintenance E. Property/Right-of-Way Acquisition and Displacement V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT,POTENTIAL IMPACTS,AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES A. Environmental Setting B. Socioeconomic and Cultural Setting C. Human Settlement 1. Noise 2. Aesthetics(including existing trees and right-of-way clearing) 3. Existing Utilities(pipelines,propane tanks, septic systems) 4. Property Values D. Public Health and Safety 1. Electric and Magnetic Fields 2. Implantable Medical Devices 3. Stray Voltage 4. Air Quality Associated with the Transmission Facility E. Recreation 1. Parks(city, county, state,and federal) 2. Trails F. Transportation and Public Services 1. Roads and Highways 2. Emergency Services 3. Airports G. Interference 1. Radio(AM/FM and Short-wave) 2. Television(satellite and digital) 3. Global Positioning Devices 4. Cellular Phone 5. Wireless Internet H. Archaeological and Historic Resources I. Land Use(land-based economies) 1. Mining 2. Commercial 3. Tourism 4. Agriculture 5. Forestry J. Zoning and Land Use Compatibility/State and Local Government Planning 1. Residential 2. Shoreland K. Water Resources • Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 7 1. Lakes,Creeks, Streams,Rivers, and Other Waterways 2. Wetlands(including description and function) 3. Riparian Areas 4. Floodplains L. Soil and Groundwater M. Flora and Fauna 1. Wildlife Management Areas 2. Scientific and Natural Areas 3. State,Federal, and Regional Parks and Forests 4. National Wildlife Refuge/Waterfowl Production Areas 5. Avian Line Markers/Diverters 6. Vegetation Removal N. Threatened/Endangered/Rare and Unique Natural Resources VI. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Any routes, route segments, or alignment alternatives in addition to the Route proposed by Xcel Energy in its route permit application to be evaluated in the Environmental Assessment would be identified here and shown in an attached map. Under Minnesota Statute (MS 116E.04, subd. 3)the Applicant need not propose additional routes beyond that proposed by Xcel Energy in its route permit application. Any person may propose additional routes, route segments, or alignments to be evaluated in the EA. Minnesota Rules 7850.3700, subpart 2.B. directs the Department to assess additional routes only if it is determined that evaluation of additional routes will assist in the Commission's ultimate decision on the permit application. VU. IDENTIFICATION OF PERMITS The environmental assessment will include a list and description of permits from other government entities that may be required for the proposed project. VIII. ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The scope of the Orono Transmission Project EA will not consider the following: A. No-build alternative. B. Issues related to project need, size,type, or timing. C. Any route or substation alternatives not specifically identified in this scoping decision document. D. Policy issues surrounding whether utilities or local-government should be liable for the cost to relocate utility poles when roadways are widened. E. The manner in which land owners are paid for transmission rights-of-way easements, as that is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project Draft Scoping Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 Page 8 IX. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES NOT CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EVALUATION Routes and route segments not chosen for further evaluation in the EA would be discusses here. This section would discuss the origin of the routes and why they were not chosen for further evaluation. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF EA The Environmental Assessment on the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Project will be completed by October, 2011. Upon completion of the EA, the EFP will notify those persons who have asked to be notified of the completion. In addition, the EFP will publish notice of the availability of the EA in the EQB Monitor. The EA will be made available for review and will be posted on the EFP webpage. 1 euC�)ccez. - 5 DPING ' s/0/2u Q_ k'tL - T 2.2 A & 77t -&A 8 ,(7. u? 6(ii c-(..._---Twf 7/G erg -?) Q1\i F Nac eAM -wit .1K[ I 7-7 i . 49fr-4/d41 7tz' 1.417 /4e7,(1 Etett_bogsv‘ratee--27.-/of,tefreo, ,fietiikoc io‘(, t ___&4: - (///,/ A c_ipr ,eri- e;c7- '.I a(245-64 _. :ki . t, k A - r e%., Z-e--- --crz ,, ,.) \ —1-Nr --N Y ,.. , ..., , _i_____,,,,„ _,, wic''N i ,--,<,1 , i4t/Z413( 'A'N __________ V t9t144C5 AtOVVG 5Z-0/ VI elA). 15 4AlkiN il-PrCle.- Vi. a . . 06a S-- VieN Or i/J°1k) , Ar44744(i__ 0_ / )SALW 5 -- 1P-- 1- 61A-rte-( 0 443 ce .sry Y-111 C-1440° ( aTIt, LiJ Cn Jr �r1,.i f7f„ I a • fisC) 1 I j tgr W+d _ _ _. ' 6) g1. ,5.2 ,,,00 1T a x a- • -o ,�.. N. ,N. N -O I /. '4 13 -O ..:',4•:- -. J C o N J J 0 0 N m 0 a C (y C,3 • 1Y*J CD CO (D e0 (0 D CD -, D D tO ( D C - 4$ cr cO :U 0' 00 m co mrn 6 o n_,m c 4 Jic ,,soc o o p m m om rn - - a _ tf c - c0 m m 9, co o oc D c o00, o 0 < m 3 a mO c Nv D `G `G J Or V-o c . iy0 nd . C 22. W m NaQ � y3 ;O pm O o N (7' O (D ' o Q im0 a 3 }, tiN ° vN O `) ,� a frn 3 OaEA' N o o J om J m o C CD4 1704 • fU J a o `m ( fl T k p _ Z rr. _ 4;^ .-!1',74K �y:d4/1,*,,.‘ +i` r ¢ N ' `:': 'S`k•' 4,tn ry 4 4'p•�d -�1sa t y > r n 'iail ,t)� n fit^ 4 f,t( d1t, %y4 k y. ( ,V �s�6t Z 3 ax. . ..s, n• S ►, w �. .. 2 )1"="''.' * - -- *04 %4*.' '' ' 12 m O m Z !'') 0 . ,..,‘ --, r u0. 4( n Q < +� r l 1 .x�'a m :- r,.. y 41 0.J” ,ik }44,,,.,. 8. r * S " } ! ' , , .. .... , ..n.„.„„„...,..,..., . ,,,..,........, ,,, -, , :,„.., .. , -- • w . . . . .,..„ ,..„.. o'cot. ., , , . .. ..... . ... ,. ,,,,, _ „..„. .„ . r-ac2 ,.. --- , , , ° �„.,....:,.., t s f4 , F _, a.,, a d N r oi most cu a ,Mr Vi CD '14'''' . Vt /,,444.4•,..--1,...41,..... :: a / oo. ..te7 ,. , , • �a w „ y . „.. f m n Q. > „ ',t„.,, i 111.1.�ti , r , ^l !� Itelvhn .Y1 rF}/' 4- .r .k re 22 an T CD a co c3CD31 17-2,,;;), / O -', e-. .. — - 1,,-;., tt ,41-5',, 1 -.7;51 04- -_ -' 1 I r lik ' - -' • r. ‘1,7 ”. -"s h....4y��' 3 mat• ' o •4 .tom "l' .. ,•-.(D Q_�- e'er V r e ''t•tom! 4ii • - '.. °? ��`'1 - .1 ' , ,rte ',''`... *• a / n N / 6 c) 1. - 1/ '1144 t o\5 I a // is, co-F.-_ syr.._. , t1,4'• _ .ty�, . rn / o o co ' X / i ;R , ,,'a.;-rJ / g 4 p. f / c r / ( 'r h _yam+^.--y ti / o i t ,/ 1 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS 2 3 4 5 WEDNESDAY , AUGUST 10 , 2011 6 6 : 00 p . m . 7 8 9 In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the 10 Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project 11 12 PUC Docket Number : E002 /TL- 11 -223 13 14 15 Orono City Hall 16 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono , Minnesota 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 INDEX SPEAKER PAGE 2 Dave Wilson 3 3 Melissa Fogelberg 4 4 Dave Wilson 8 5 Doug Hickey 12 6 Melissa Fogelberg 20 7 Dave Wilson 23 8 Doug Hickey 25 9 Melissa Fogelberg 28 10 Doug Hickey 34 11 Karen Hickey 36 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MR . DAVE WILSON : Dave Wilson , homeowner 2 on Hunt Farm Road . So within the tolerance of the 3 route , the right - of -way could be changed at some 4 point . And the question is : At what point and when 5 do we know when that right -of -way might be changed? 6 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : When the 7 Commission makes their determination they will 8 determine the route , which may be somewhat narrower 9 in some areas , it may be the full 400 feet in some 10 areas . They will also identify an anticipated 11 right -of-way . So that ' s what they anticipate , 12 that ' s what all of the review has been done . 13 Before they construct , it could have - - 14 and I don ' t know this project as well , in my 15 experience it tends to happen more on larger , longer 16 projects where they haven ' t been studied as much . 17 So there is a process . So they would also need to 18 demonstrate that they ' ve contacted the affected 19 landowners . So I can ' t give you a definitive answer 20 to that question . Sorry . 21 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : 22 Melissa Fogelberg , I ' m also a homeowner . So I 23 understand how these things are calculated ; I don ' t 24 understand what the significance of them is . I 25 mean , so you need a right -of -way to maintain the 4 1 line , and that ' s 75 feet wide . Then what happens 2 between 75 and 400 feet , what does the route mean? 3 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : I ' m going to let 4 the utility answer that because anybody could 5 propose - - and in some areas where it ' s very 6 constrained the route width may be the same as what 7 they anticipate as a right -of -way . It is typical 8 that the utility may ask for a somewhat wider area 9 in order to have some flexibility , either as 10 engineering proceeds or in their negotiation with 11 landowners . I don ' t know that that ' s the case here . 12 There are some instances such as a 13 transmission line that I worked in Northern 14 Minnesota where it was 70 miles long , they get out 15 there and find , for instance , some cultural 16 artifacts where they would need to deviate . Or the 17 landowner may want them to be moved a little bit , 18 maybe , further from the highway and just so their 19 view is different . 20 But I ' ll turn that over to Xcel Energy , 21 if you could introduce yourself . 22 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Chris Rogers , siting 23 and land rights . I think I know what you ' re getting 24 at . Our final right -of -way where we go to acquire 25 the easement of 75 feet , I think what we ' re looking 5 1 to do is to have the flexibility within that 400 2 feet to shift the line . Now , in this case , it ' s 3 less than a mile long . It ' s pretty cut and dry . We 4 talked to landowners upfront regarding the small 5 relocation . There ' s really probably not a real 6 opportunity that that ' s going to be further than 7 that 400 feet . We ' ve got a pretty good idea where 8 that 75 feet is going to go . We ' re obviously not 9 going to run over houses and those types of things . 10 So correct me if I ' m wrong , but the 400 feet is the 11 route width of the easement that they will require? 12 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : So maybe I ' m over 13 simplifying . The route might be the area within 14 which you propose to construct the line? 15 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Correct . 16 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : And so the 17 75 feet will be somewhere within that route , but at 18 the end of the day you don ' t require a right -of -way 19 more than - - 20 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Not more than . 21 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : And once it ' s up 22 and you ' ve got the right - of-way , the route becomes 23 meaningless? 24 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : That ' s correct . 25 The route disappears . If somewhere down the line 6 1 theyneed to make a modification , the concept would p 2 need to be reintroduced . 3 This is a somewhat more elaborate route 4 schematic ( indicating ) . I think there was one that 5 was out front which is pretty simple . Xcel 6 submitted their application at the beginning of 7 June . The Commission accepted it as substantially 8 complete at the end of June . We are here at the 9 public meeting phase . There ' s a public comment 10 period , and I ' ll talk about that in just a minute , 11 that runs through the end of August , August 26th . 12 After that comment period where people 13 are commenting on the information to be evaluated in 14 the environmental assessment we ' ll take that 15 information , I ' ll review it . I ' ll review the 16 comments and present them to my deputy commissioner . 17 They ' ll issue a scope . Once the scope is issued 18 we ' ll get to work on preparing the environmental 19 assessment . 20 And once that ' s complete , we ' ll be back 21 out in the project area for a hearing to be presided 22 over most likely by an administrative law judge . 23 Following the close of the comment period , after the 24 hearing , the whole record will be referred to the 25 Commission for their final decision . 7 1 So this isJ just filling in some of the 2 timelines . The close of the commentp eriod is the 3 26th . I would anticipate the scope of the 4 environmental assessment would be issued sometime in 5 early September and the environmental assessment , 6 which is the environmental review document , will be 7 prepared sometime in October . 8 Following that we ' ll be - - if you ' re 9 signed up on the project list , you ' ll be noticed . 10 There will also be a notice that appears in the 11 local paper . And I would anticipate that the 12 hearing would be held sometime probably in October 13 or earlier November of this year and that will be 14 out here . And then knowing what we know now we 15 would anticipate a final decision by the Commission 16 in December of this year . Those can change but 17 that ' s to give you some idea of the timeline we 18 would anticipate at this point . 19 One thing that I do want to talk about 20 and one of the reasons that we ' re out here is for 21 any large transmission project an environmental 22 review needs to be prepared . And one of the main 23 reasons for this meeting and for the comment period 24 is to gather information from people who are 25 familiar with the area and what they believe needs 8 1 to be reviewed . So we ' re taking comments on what 2 people believe should be evaluated in the 3 environmental assessment . 4 Under Rules the scoping decision must 5 identify alternative routes , if any , to be addressed 6 in the environmental assessment . Under the project 7 for - - under the rules for the projects under 8 200 kilovolts the utility only has to propose one 9 route but any alternatives could be thrown back into 10 the mix for evaluation in the environmental 11 assessment . Any specific potential impacts to be 12 addressed , the schedule for completion , and any 13 other matters to be included in the environmental 14 assessment . 15 This is helpful to some people , it ' s not 16 a done deal . But we ' ve prepared a draft 17 environmental scope which is on the table in front 18 and so you can take a moment now or any time in the 19 next couple of weeks . And if you go to - - it ' s page 20 5 . That is basically like a table of contents . 21 Knowing what we know about this project now what we 22 would expect to be evaluated in the environmental 23 assessment . 24 MR . DAVE WILSON : Dave Wilson , again . 25 I ' ve got another question . The Three River Parks 9 1 District responded to a request that they were 2 considered as a possible alternate site , and quite a 3 few points in what they recommended be included in 4 the environmental assessment . I ' m wondering how 5 this document dated November 10th of last year 6 matches up with what ' s included in the document 7 handed out tonight? 8 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : I can answer 9 that . What we do is we take the general concepts . 10 I believe we ' ve incorporated them . If you look at 11 them and want to get more specific - - and I will too 12 as I ' m developing the environmental assessment , we 13 get down into more detail . But this is sort of just 14 a table of contents , if it ' s helpful for you to 15 think of it that way perhaps . 16 There ' s some information on where to find 17 the documents pertinent to the project . Xcel 18 brought some additional applications , which is the 19 primary document to date . That can be found on the 20 Energy Facility Permitting website . It also be 21 found on eDockets , which serves as the official 22 project record . 23 I think for many purposes the EFP website 24 might be a little bit easier to access . There ' s 25 some software things with eDockets where if pieces 10 1 are filed in multiple parts they don ' t necessarily 2 show up together . Hardcopies of the application are 3 also available here and at local libraries . 4 The comment deadline is Friday , 5 August 26th . Oral comments are being taken at 6 tonight ' s meeting . So after tonight , I ' ll read all 7 of the comments . You are certainly - - please free 8 to call me if you have questions , but as far as 9 comments that are part of the record and then 10 referred to my deputy commissioner and available for 11 the Commission , the oral comments will be available 12 in a transcript . After tonight , the comments do 13 need to be in writing . There ' s some comment sheets . 14 You don ' t have to use that . You may want to take 15 some for your neighbors . That has the contact 16 information . 17 If you think - - sometimes people are 18 either not comfortable speaking at the meeting or if 19 you think of something later , you can turn the 20 comments in at tonight ' s meeting . Even if you 21 comment tonight , a lot of times things come up later 22 if you ' re thinking of things . So by mail , e -mail , 23 fax . There ' s also - - you can comment electronically 24 on the website , and that information is available in 25 the notice also . 11 1 There ' s my name , and then the public 2 advisor for this project is Ray Kirsch , who is not 3 here tonight . But both of us can answer any 4 questions on the process , and I ' ll probably be a 5 little bit more familiar with the project going 6 forward . 7 Joe talked about the mailing list . 8 Anybody can sign up for the mailing list . Up to the 9 notice point I think all of the notices that you 10 received have been from Xcel . From this point 11 forward Xcel may - - and also does - - send out 12 notices for project updates , but they ' re under no 13 obligation to do so . So people need to opt into the 14 project mailing list . If you know you want to be on 15 this , there ' s a sign - up sheet in front . You can 16 give me your contact information , you can also sign 17 up yourself tonight . 18 And that ' s it . So I ' d like to open it up 19 for comments or questions . 20 MR . DAVE WILSON : Dave Wilson , again . 21 What Xcel said about that they had spoken to 22 homeowners about the route , you do recognize that 23 nearly all of your route doesn ' t cross individual 24 property owner ' s property ; it ' s association 25 property . Be careful who you ' re speaking to . Do 12 1 you know the property people to speak to , or is that 2 Chris? 3 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Early on in the 4 process we met with the two landowners where the 5 existing transmission line crosses . Steve - - I ' m 6 sorry , Peter Schoen and Steve Persian . And we went 7 through several different alternatives . I don ' t 8 recall who the association president was at the 9 time , I believe it was Peter , or was it Mike? 10 MR . DAVE WILSON : Mike . 11 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : We do understand that 12 the line crosses on Hunt Farm association property . 13 So we do understand that there ' s ten board members 14 there . We do understand we ' re dealing with ten 15 landowners , not two . Ten total , correct? 16 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Well , actually 11 17 because I have the property to the far left where 18 the pole is changing directions . 19 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : Excuse me . I ' m 20 sorry . If you could just introduce yourself for the 21 court reporter . 22 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Doug Hickey . 4301 23 Spruce Way . I have the property further up where 24 the pole is changing directions . 25 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : You ' re west of the 13 1 farm association? 2 MR . DOUG HICKEY : I ' m not part of the 3 association at all . 4 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : You ' re west of them? 5 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Yeah . If you look at 6 the map where the pole changes directions , that ' s to 7 the west . 8 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : To the west , yeah . 9 MR . DAVE WILSON : Well , could somebody 10 comment on the difference in height between the 11 poles that are there and the poles that are planned , 12 and not just the height but maybe the different 13 configurations as well . How do these differ from 14 what ' s already in existence? 15 MR . JOE SEDARSKI : I think I ' ll stand up 16 front and go to the map . I ' m not sure if - - 17 Suzanne , can you put the map up on the overhead? 18 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : I ' m Jeff Gutzmann . 19 I ' m a transmission engineer with Xcel Energy , and 20 I ' m assigned to work on this project . 21 ( Indicating throughout . ) I ' ll just start 22 with the existing line here . It comes from the 23 west . This is existing wood H- frame at this 24 location . At this location here there ' s actually 25 three wood poles with guy to the ground to allow the 14 1 line to change directions . So it takes the line 2 tension force and keeps the structure stable . 3 The line then turns to the northeast . 4 This structure right across Highway 12 and the 5 railroad tracks is again a wood H - frame . The line 6 coming from the west , these are wood H - frames coming 7 into this vicinity . Again , three wood poles , and to 8 the northeast is wood H - frames . So that ' s the 9 existing line . 10 MR . DAVE WILSON : And how tall 11 respectively? 12 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : Various sites , so 13 I ' ll try to go through here . This structure here is 14 structure 78 , it ' s 70 - foot wood H - frame poles . 15 They ' re imbedded nine feet in the ground , so the 16 structure height is 61 feet . The three -wood - pole 17 structure here , the turning structure , those are 18 80 - foot wood poles . They ' re imbedded ten feet in 19 the ground , so they net out at 70 feet aboveground . 20 And the one structure across Highway 12 , those are 21 H - frame , those are 85- foot wood poles . They ' re 22 imbedded ten and a half feet and they net out at 74 23 and a half feet aboveground nominally . 24 The proposed structures are steel 25 structures . We are proposing steel because of 15 1 higher reliability . Where we come basically what 2 we ' re doing is we ' re intersecting this line here , 3 bringing the power in and out of Orono , and then 4 back on to the 831 ( phonetic ) , that ' s one way to 5 think of it . The power can flow in any direction on 6 that line . So because we ' re going in and out on the 7 structures we want to do steel for higher 8 reliability . 9 So the structures - - I ' ll start at the 10 substation here , these are what we call 11 double-circuit structures . The picture - - the third 12 picture from the left in the back , that will be 13 steel poles with , we call them , davit arms or arms 14 or branches that come off the poles to support the 15 wires . And that will be the structures coming 16 basically from the substation out to this 17 intersection point of the line , it will be that 18 configuration . 19 MR . DAVE WILSON : And how high? 20 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : Is that clear? 21 MR . DAVE WILSON : Yes , and - - 22 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : Then from this point 23 here - - 24 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Jeff , how high , how 25 tall ? 16 1 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : Oh , excuse me . The 2 structure here is the tallest structure because we 3 have to cross a railroad and a road and maintain 4 clearance . This structure here will be 100 feet , 5 proposed . The adjacent structure to the east is 6 90 feet . The next structure at this corner where it 7 turns , 90 feet , and we currently have 80 feet for 8 the remaining structures . 9 MR . DAVE WILSON : That ' s the exposed 10 height . 11 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : Exposed height 12 aboveground . The structure here where the line 13 turns , this is a single-circuit coming in at this 14 point and this is a single-circuit as it heads to 15 the northeast . This is a double-circuit portion to 16 this intersection point . So this line basically 17 just needs to take a turn . We ' re proposing a 18 structure similar to the one shown second from the 19 left in the back . That ' s basically just to capture 20 the wires and turn . 21 We ' re also changing wire configurations , 22 and that is a change from - - the wires are in a 23 horizontal configuration . They ' re going to roll to 24 a vertical configuration here on that structure 25 there . And they ' ll maintain a vertical 17 1 configuration in and out from the substation , and 2 then they ' re going to roll to a horizontal 3 configuration over Highway 12 . That ' s part of the 4 reason for the height , we need it to get to the 5 height where we can stack it to vertical at this 6 point . So this structure here is a 75 - foot 7 structure . The existing H - frame here will be a 8 75 -foot height structure . 9 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Is that the one in the 10 park , Jeff? 11 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : The one in the Baker 12 Park will be 75 feet . Virtually the same as the 13 H - frame that exists today . 14 MR . DAVE WILSON : Dave Wilson , again . 15 Can you help us visualize what ' s going on in the big 16 box now where the substation - - the new substation 17 is planned? We go by there every day and we know 18 it ' s there now . What ' s going to be there under your 19 proposed plan? 20 MR . JEFF GUTZMANN : I ' ll let my coworker 21 take that one . 22 MR . ED SMITH : Ed Smith , substation 23 engineering with Xcel Energy . Basically - - well , 24 what ' s happening is right now we have this 69 kV 25 transmission line that goes right through here , and 18 1 here it taps off and feeds the existing 69 kV 2 substation ( indicating ) . 3 The existing substation has a - - just one 4 transformer , and I think it has two feeders in there 5 for distribution . Those two feeders go underground 6 and then go up to distribution poles along Sixth 7 Avenue . 8 What we ' re going to be doing here is due 9 to studies that our transmission planning people 10 have done is we ' re increasing the whole reliability 11 by having a larger transmission line , a 115 kV 12 transmission line . It ' s basically going to be going 13 from here all the way to 494 , I -494 , in Plymouth . 14 And it ' s going to connect to the Gleason Lake 15 substation . It ' s going to connect to the Hollydale 16 substation that Xcel Energy has , it ' s by the water 17 tower at 101 and 55 . 18 MR . DAVE WILSON : Question : You 19 mentioned the other substations . Are there other 20 substations that would be similar to that that we 21 could see? You mentioned Gleason Lake and others , 22 if you want to visual what this might look like , 23 could you send us someplace? 24 MR . ED SMITH : I could . The one I ' m 25 thinking about is the Basset Creek substation . It ' s 19 1 on the south side of Medicine Lake . If you ' re 2 familiar with 55 where the - - 3 MR . DAVE WILSON : 55 and 169? 4 MR . ED SMITH : It ' s northwest of there . 5 If you ' re on 55 , do you know where the Holiday gas 6 station is , just west of there? 7 MR . DAVE WILSON : Um- hmm . 8 MR . ED SMITH : If you just go north at 9 that intersection and then take your first left you 10 end up going into the - - I think it ' s the city of 11 Medicine Lake . And so it ' s on the south side of 12 Medicine Lake , and that ' s where the Basset Creek 13 substation is . 14 MR . DAVE WILSON : Is there something 15 right at the intersection of 55 and 169? There ' s 16 not a substation there , is there? 17 MR . ED SMITH : No , not that I can recall . 18 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : It ' s 19 Melissa Fogelberg , again . This thing is huge . And 20 I have gone and looked at the Basset Creek 21 substation and I was astonished at how much larger 22 it is than what ' s in the current location . So it 23 seems to me that for the Commission to fully assess 24 the impact of this proposed plan , I would think it ' s 25 not that Xcel Energy is going to do this , it ' s what 20 1 Xcel proposes to do . So don ' t get your cart before 2 your horse . 3 I would think that for the Commission to 4 fully assess this that what you would need is 5 more - - what do you call it? Line sight drawings or 6 something that you could look at that would 7 visualize the size and , you know , the 8 substantialness of the structure . And I think they 9 should do it before and after . I think there needs 10 to be some sort of a vertical drawing that says 11 here ' s what it looks like now and here ' s what it ' s 12 going to look like after . 13 And likewise , these pictures of the 14 poles , I mean , those don ' t look so bad . But if you 15 don ' t have a drawing that illustrates how tall the 16 current structures are you don ' t really have an 17 opportunity to appreciate how much larger these are 18 than what ' s already there . 19 So it seems to me for the Commission to 20 be able to fully assess what this is - - and maybe 21 they ' re professionals at it because they do this all 22 the time - - but it seems to me you need additional 23 drawings in this application so you can look at it 24 and visualize the before-and -after and the 25 significance of this , the scope of the - - of the 21 1 change that they ' re proposing . So that ' s something 2 I think needs to be included . 3 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : The application 4 is what it is , and then moving forward - - but I 5 think that ' s a comment that we can try to address in 6 the environmental assessment . 7 I don ' t want to - - did you have - - 8 MR . ED SMITH : Well , I can briefly - - I 9 can just address , we are not - - basically this - - 10 personally , I think the substation ' s going to be 11 very well hidden . And the reason I ' m saying that is 12 because we are leaving exactly - - this berm is going 13 to be pretty much the same way it is right now and 14 we ' re going to be quote / unquote cutting into the 15 hill so it ' s going to be hidden . 16 I mean , you ' re going to have higher hills 17 I think on the west side and potentially here a 18 little bit on the south and we ' re going to have a 19 retaining wall here . So we are cutting into the 20 hill to try to hide it also . 21 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : Maybe that would 22 be another advantage of including visuals because if 23 you ' re doing something to mitigate the impact on the 24 neighborhood and you could put it in a drawing that 25 would enable someone to look at it and to visualize 22 1 what the mitigation efforts will be , you might - - 2 MR . ED SMITH : Yeah , and we are - - 3 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : Whatever you ' re 4 doing to mitigate , if you could put that in a 5 visual , then it could - - maybe it would get us more 6 comfortable with what you ' re doing . But I don ' t 7 think you can really appreciate the impact or the 8 mitigation efforts if you don ' t have some visual 9 thing you can look at that shows you what it ' s going 10 to be . 11 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : Thank you . And 12 that ' s - - I think that ' s fine . Because we kind of 13 started in on a comment , I didn ' t go over the ground 14 rules , and that ' s introducing yourself so the court 15 reporter has a record and then speaking one person 16 at a time . 17 As I mentioned , we will be back in the 18 project area , and so talking about what the actual 19 effects would be , that ' s something that we should 20 have a better idea of when we ' re back in the project 21 area . 22 I know that there are other people here 23 and we ' re here as long as you need tonight but I 24 just want to make sure if somebody else has a 25 question that we can try to address them if somebody 23 1 needs to move on . 2 If you could just identify yourself . 3 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Doug Hickey , property 4 owner to the west . If you put the map up again , I 5 just want to comment on the route and the route 6 right -of -way as far as I ' m concerned . Part my 7 property exists where the existing power pole is , 8 that ' s number 78 I believe . The route - - as long as 9 the route follows that new route going off , I would 10 have no problem with that at all . 11 But with the 400 foot right -of -way if you 12 brought it into the property another 400 feet , then 13 there ' s a lot of the old - time oaks that they would 14 have to cut down and I would have a big problem with 15 that . But as long as the route stays the same , I ' m 16 happy with that . 17 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : Okay . And then 18 Xcel , can you comment on do you intend to assume the 19 same right -of -way or would it be different? 20 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Chris Rogers , with 21 Xcel siting and land rights . We do , we would not 22 plan on - - we ' d use the existing right -of -way that ' s 23 there today , so that ' s correct . 24 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Okay . 25 MR . DAVE WILSON : Dave Wilson , again . 24 1 Two questions on the substation . Can you express 2 the difference in the footprint between current and 3 proposed : X times? 4 MR . ED SMITH : I ' m sorry . I don ' t have 5 that number with me . We can definitely figure that 6 out and calculate it as far as an acre basis . 7 MR . DAVE WILSON : It ' s going to be ten 8 times more . 9 MR . ED SMITH : I mean , the substation is 10 designed to have two or potentially three 11 transformers here in the future to - - we ' re going to 12 be grading this , we ' re going to be grading it to its 13 ultimate size . We ' re going to be fencing it in to 14 its ultimate size , but as the need for electricity 15 grows in this area , in the future - - at some point 16 in the future we can put in these other transformers 17 to satisfy the customer needs . 18 MR . DAVE WILSON : Dave Wilson , again . 19 The top of your substation illustration has the 20 graphics there . I ' m not clear what those are , are 21 those towers? Within the box , within your red box , 22 what are those? 23 MR . ED SMITH : These are what we call 24 dead end structures . So basically you have the 25 transmission line going from - - they ' re stacked up 25 1 vertically and then they rotate in , they ' re 2 horizontal in the end at this dead end structure . 3 MR . DAVE WILSON : How high are those? 4 MR . ED SMITH : I don ' t know . 5 UNIDENTIFIED : 65- ish? 6 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : That is actually 7 something that we need to carry forward in the EA . 8 I just want to make sure that we get people ' s 9 comments on what needs to be evaluated . What we 10 have now is Xcel ' s proposal , and we ' ll be evaluating 11 that and other alternatives and other mitigation 12 going forward . 13 MR . ED SMITH : Pretty much , they should 14 be identical to - - or very similar to what ' s at the 15 Basset Creek substation . 16 MR . DOUG HICKEY : One other question . 17 Doug Hickey . Is the voltage and current to the 18 power line going to stay the same? 19 MR . ED SMITH : No . We ' re going from a 20 69 , 000-volt to a 115 , 000- volt transmission line . So 21 basically the conductors are going to be higher . 22 MR . DOUG HICKEY : I mean , the power line 23 there currently is 115 , 000 volts , the power line 24 that ' s coming from the west , the existing line? 25 MR . ED SMITH : Yes . The existing line - - 26 1 there ' s two lines in play here . There ' s the 69 kV 2 GRE line which was feeding the existing substation , 3 and then there ' s the proposed - - there ' s the 4 existing 115 kV line and we ' re proposing to divert 5 that into the substation , in and out , and go back . 6 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Okay . 7 MR . GENE KOTZ : I would like to add 8 something . My name is Gene Kotz , I ' m the project 9 manager for the overall effort once it is permitted . 10 Those are great questions you have , Ms . Fogelberg , 11 Mr . Wilson , and Mr . Hickey . One thing we do have is 12 we have a number of samples that we could e-mail 13 you . So it would be great if you ' re on the roster 14 so we have your e-mail . We can send you samples of 15 existing properties that have this voltage and just 16 similar representations of what we ' ve done all over 17 the city . 18 The issue with , kind of , the substation 19 in general is it ' s currently fed 69 kV . That ' s an 20 old voltage . It ' s kind of a rural voltage . And 21 unfortunately , or fortunately depending on how you 22 view it , your city has grown , your capacity needs 23 have changed , your protective needs have changed , 24 and we to have upgrade this existing property . But 25 we can provide some samples of what we do for 27 1 screening , what we ' ve done typically in cities and 2 areas like yourselves . 3 But we can do that , and we can get you 4 great pictures and everything . But the purpose of , 5 really , this project is to take care of a poor 6 performing substation . Okay . This substation does 7 have issues . We want to improve reliability and , 8 just , performance for the public . And we don ' t just 9 build these for the heck of it . We have to upgrade 10 these sites eventually and this is where we ' re at 11 now . 12 But we can get you great samples and 13 pictures and representations of what we plan to do 14 with regards to berming , screening , and all that 15 good stuff . So make sure you get on the list and we 16 get your e-mails so we can correspond with you 17 effectively . 18 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : I ' d just like to 19 clarify . The list that ' s out front is just the 20 project list . So that ' s to be put on the mailing 21 list . We do not provide your contact information to 22 Xcel . And then secondly , I think that that ' s great 23 if Xcel wants to send you that , but from what I ' m 24 hearing we need to make sure that ' s in the record . 25 So correspondence between you and anybody 28 1 else is not a part of the record , but what I ' m 2 hearing from this is that ' s something we need to get 3 into the record and probably the environmental 4 assessment is the best place to do that . 5 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Suzanne , Mr . Wilson , I 6 don ' t know if your question was answered about the 7 difference in footprints . The current fenced area 8 versus what ' s proposed , I ' ve put Jeff ' s glasses on 9 here , the existing fenced areas that ' s there today 10 is 86 by 51 ; 86 north and south , 51 east and west . 11 The proposed would be - - it ' s not a square , but 12 roughly 241 by 240 . And that would be the fenced 13 area and , of course , that all sits within the 14 16 - acre marker that we own . 15 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : Melissa 16 Fogelberg , again . And I guess I ' ve got a number of 17 questions I ' ve just jotted down , I don ' t know if 18 it ' s appropriate to include them in the scoping or 19 not . But if it is I ' d like to have them answered , 20 and if it ' s not I ' d still like to have them 21 answered . 22 Maybe I can just kind of run through 23 them . One question would be what alternative 24 locations were considered , not just what different 25 routes through this existing parcel but what 29 1 additional locations were considered . 2 Because I understand that there are other 3 locations that would accomplish the same thing but 4 Xcel was most interested in this one because it 5 would cost the least and it would be easier for them 6 to work with . So whether that ' s in the scope or 7 not , I ' d just appreciate an answer to that . 8 MR . JOE SEDARSKI : I can answer that . 9 Joe Sedarski , permitting analyst . Ms . Fogelberg , 10 we ' re going to have to get more information on the 11 planning review of this project in terms of our 12 amounts of the planning that you referenced . We 13 talked a little bit about it here , really what kind 14 of led where the project got developed and what was 15 looked at that time . 16 I ' m not familiar with any alternative 17 substation sites that would actually accomplish what 18 we ' re trying to do but I ' m going to have to look 19 back at some our planning documentation to see the 20 bigger world that we looked at and we can answer 21 that . 22 MR . ED SMITH : I would like to just 23 explain though that , you know , from our point of 24 view we own the land , we - - and I , as a substation 25 engineer , am asked - - you know , transmission 30 1 planning says we need a bigger substation and so 2 forth , so they say can you make it fit here? And so 3 I have to design it and look at it and so forth . 4 And I say , oh , yes , in this situation we 5 were able to say yes , we can make it fit here . And 6 that does allow therefore to use our existing 7 property and there ' s our existing distribution 8 circuits that are already there that we don ' t have 9 to be - - you know , get new route rights -of -way for 10 the distribution circuit and so forth . So it is a 11 more economical thing to always go with the existing 12 site if you can make it work . 13 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : And I understand 14 that , and I know that ' s your job to make it work 15 that way . But , you know , another way of looking at 16 it is you ' ve got a problem and you ' re trying to make 17 your problem our problem . So , you know , sure , it ' s 18 easier for you to work with this and less costly but 19 now we have a problem that we didn ' t have before . 20 And , you know , so your solution has a price tag for 21 us . 22 I ' m curious , the property just to the 23 east of yours , there ' s that little section right - - 24 who owns that? I don ' t know . And if you ' re going 25 to have to condemn some property any way , why don ' t 31 1 you condemn that property and get the substation 2 further away from the homes and out of the wetland? 3 MR . CHRIS ROGERS : Chris Rogers , Xcel 4 Energy . We did look at some alternatives for 5 alternate substation sites . The challenge is we own 6 the property that ' s there today . We also need to 7 connect to the existing transmission line . Some of 8 the other sites we looked at - - and these were 9 through Michael Kuruvilla , K- U - R- U -V- I - L- L-A - - and 10 so we did look at some alternative sites . 11 One of them was owned by the gun club , we 12 had another couple parcels that were owned by MnDOT , 13 I believe . None of those sites panned out . They 14 were either not large enough or they created a 15 larger impact by placing the substation further way 16 and connecting the transmission line . 17 The substation has been there since 1989 18 and we do own property there . So for us to go out 19 and find another piece of property , it may not be 20 prudent for our ratepayers . We ' ve got an existing 21 site here , and as Ed said that the infrastructure is 22 there . We don ' t want to solve one problem and 23 create another problem for someone else . And 24 condemning somebody when we own land today , I don ' t 25 think that ' s an option at this point . 32 1 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : And , again , I 2 disagree . I think the difference between this and 3 the situation of maybe some of the others is that 4 this is a substantial structure that ' s going in 5 someone ' s backyard . And many of the substations of 6 this size are more in commercial or industrial 7 areas , so you ' re not putting this enormous 8 structure , you know , like in Michael ' s backyard and 9 where the residents have to drive by it every day . 10 Another question I have is just getting 11 through some of these materials there are a number 12 of alternatives that were laid out . Some of them 13 involved going along the north side of Highway 12 14 and one of the reasons for not doing that was that , 15 oh , that would have an impact on Baker Park . And we 16 don ' t want to have an impact on Baker Park . 17 So it feels reading that as though the 18 impact on us is less significant than the impact on 19 Baker Park . And I think that ' s something that 20 should be addressed as well . You ' ve got people that 21 live in these homes 24 hours a day , 365 days a year . 22 So it seems to me that that should have more weight 23 perhaps than a park which is visited by guests who 24 come and go . 25 So if there is , you know , a preference 33 1 for the south side over the north side because it 2 doesn ' t affect Baker Park , I would like to 3 understand and have addressed the issue of why their 4 concerns are more important than the concerns of the 5 homeowners . 6 MR . ED SMITH : Well , I know that - - 7 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : I don ' t think we 8 need to - - what I ' m hearing is we don ' t have - - we 9 don ' t have to answer that , but what I ' m hearing is 10 there ' s an interest in having other routes 11 evaluated . And the one that went through Baker 12 Park , would it be fair to say you would like to have 13 that evaluated? 14 MS . MELISSA FOGELBERG : I would like to 15 have that evaluated . I think that ' s something that 16 I didn ' t see that it was addressed and I flipped 17 through this stuff pretty quickly . I don ' t see that 18 any consideration was given to burying the line . So 19 why can ' t they bury the line instead of putting 20 these 100- plus - foot structures across the wetlands 21 and in our line of view? 22 I thought it was interesting they didn ' t 23 call it visual impact , they called it a point of 24 visual interest . Well , some of us would not enjoy 25 having a point of visual interest in our backyard . 34 1 So it seems to me that burying the line would be a 2 reasonable alternative that should be addressed as 3 well and perhaps weighed against the impact on the 4 neighbor ' s use and enjoyment of their property and 5 diminution and the value of their homes . So I ' d 6 like to see that addressed . 7 And another one that I think would be 8 really important is that from what I ' ve read I don ' t 9 think this proposed structure is consistent with the 10 city of Orono ' s comprehensive plan , and the plan 11 includes a number of important considerations . So I 12 would like attention paid to how this plan can be 13 reconciled against the city of Orono ' s comprehensive 14 plan : The affects of quality of life , you know , 15 impact on nature , the feel of the community , and a 16 number of other things that are important to the 17 environment , if you interpret environment more 18 broadly than just plants and animals . 19 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : I can only 20 answer that question in a general way . We do need 21 to look at the land use for this . So that ' s 22 something we will be looking at , as we would in any 23 transmission line . 24 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Question , Doug Hickey , 25 just a comment to hers . If the line was buried 35 1 would there be higher magnetic field exposure to 2 bury the line versus 80 feet above the ground? 3 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : I don ' t know the 4 answer to that question . 5 MR . JOE SEDARSKI : Did you want us to try 6 to answer that right now? 7 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : You can try to 8 answer that but - - 9 MR . JOE SEDARSKI : We would have to model 10 it , but typically it ' s been our experience burying 11 the line doesn ' t mean that you ' re going to - - it ' s 12 been our experience that by burying the lines you 13 don ' t lower your exposure to EMF . You might have 14 increased exposure , but we would have to do some 15 modeling to confirm for this particular 16 configuration . So burying the line would maybe 17 address one concern but may not address another . 18 MR . DOUG HICKEY : Correct . 19 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : Any other 20 comments or questions? I want to make sure people 21 have an opportunity to ask questions , we may not be 22 able to answer them now , and also to make sure that 23 the topics that you believe are important are noted 24 here . But I also want to respect your time because 25 it ' s a beautiful evening out . 36 1 MS . KAREN HICKEY : I do have a question . 2 It ' s a little beyond this project but - - 3 Karen Hickey , property owner . The line heading west 4 crosses our property and at this point now where the 5 pole is located there , the pole is out of view and 6 it ' s in a good spot . Now if they continue upgrading 7 the line , would they change the location of that 8 pole possibly down the road , or would we get a 9 chance to have input in that down the road or - - 10 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : What I can say 11 is it is not part of this project , so there would 12 need to be another process . It could be a local 13 review or it could come to the state . So the 14 concise answer is it is not part of this project but 15 any change would need to be evaluated . 16 MS . KAREN HICKEY : Would they contact 17 property owners before they made a change? 18 MS . SUZANNE STEINHAUER : They would need 19 to contact the property owners . 20 I want to make sure people have an 21 opportunity . We ' ll be around to answer questions , 22 it won ' t be on the record . And any written 23 comments , as long as they ' re in by August 26th , 24 we ' ll look at , we ' ll evaluate . The scoping will 25 summarize all the comments that came in and provide 37 1 rationale for either why something may be carried 2 forward to the EA or why it was not carried forward . 3 I do want to make sure that people have 4 an opportunity . Going once , going twice , going 5 three times . Thank you very much for coming out . 6 We ' re going to be around tonight for a while to try 7 to answer any questions you have . I appreciate your 8 time and your input and we look forward to seeing 9 you in the fall . 10 ( Public comment concluded . ) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 p 11081XX1 Minnesota Newspaper Association 12 South Sixth Street Suite 1120 ki Minneapolis,MN 55402 612-332-8844 Affidavit of Publication The Minnesota Newspaper Association verifies that the ad for Orono SubstationProject Ran in the Wayzata Lakeshore Weekly News August 2, 2011 411 B Accounting g Manager Date:(11f Lf-1/ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of August 2011. Notary: ejeitudt My Commission Expires Janu 1, 2015 CT: �1' N • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1131115 t Hesby and Linda t:onen November is me mmneronsa useu uy u.we Lima,aA...I/vac.........................r •- �" t 'i I r-w ill.q'� expire in December. City Council The filing peri- in Minnesota,including five Chinese immersion schools, - (��� w M-ry#'' a Candidate filing informa- od for those seats closed May took the test this year. Fir ` �' s P I J bon packets and affidavits of 31. Zhiaing Chin,assessment and evaluation coordinator '. ,x���I' +.-aIat,, s l- candidacy are available from for Hopkins Public Schools,anticipated that amid year's a the office of the school district TO comment on this article,go to fourth-grade class will be able to read and write in Chi- Jan, hi- is 17-Feb 26,2012 � ' clerk,at 210 County Road 101 wwveweeklynewswm, nese at an adult level by May 2012.By the time the students are in.junior high,they are expected to have tiTNE» Y\SIF Il l\C.I-RTll\l-F4 enough language and cultural expertise to be able to aKrcits 1. work in China. 11,x,,,,,,r..,, .,,unr,:,i._ NIICNINII'Slifl: "The strong YCT test results reflect XinXing's strong (e---ii..---421 /r/a�/�o An AtTroN,'k BUY AND READ -curriculum,instruction and excellent teaching staff," • said Chin."The students have mastered Chinese Ian- . Morn-Apr e,2012 p&F c Liour. Q at DIANETICS guage skills to a degree that surpassed initial (1{ter"0/'-�/,�vµ-u rat THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH Yf� BY L ROE H20.00 D expectations." 11112.1V -d'- LO PRICE:520.00 XinXing Academy,a Chinese immersion program in ,� the district,opened at Eisenhower Elementary School 4 °��'s inspiring you to be you Church ofSuieatokgy of Minnesota _ �' series of performances. 332 Minnesota St 4N1201 in2007. St.Paul,M50 551011(651)222-6906 Apr24-Jun10,2012- childrenstheatre.org 1612.874.0400 I nxorae.2iamlogrMl wavareasslormaugulkag NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND SCOPING MEETINGS In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project PUC Docket Number:E002/TL-11-223 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Minnesota Department of Commerce from the Commission.Because the proposed transmission line capacity system:https://www.edocketastate.mn.us/ERling/search.jsp(enter the Energy Facility Permitting(EPP)will conduct public information and is under 200 kV less than ten miles in length,and does rot cross a year 11"and the minter"223"). environmental assessment(EA)scoping meeting at the time and state border,a certifizate of need is not required(Minnesota Statute location listed below,on the route permit application Xcel Energy for 2165.2421,subdivision 2). The route permit applications are also available at the locations noted the proposed 115 kV Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV below Transmission Line Project.The purpose of the meeting is to provide Aroutepermitapplicaticnforthepro?ettwes9(gdadrderitiealtereative:-'- : .- `-- I information to the public about the project end to identify issues and permitting process by Xcel Energy on June-7,2011:The project is Orono City Hall Maple Pain Library Long Lake Library alternatives to study in en EA that will be prepared by EFP staff, eligible for consideration under the alternative permitting process,as Planning and Zonin; 5184 Main Street East 1865 Wayzata the transmission line voltage would be between 100 and 200 kilovolts Department Maple Plain,MN 55359 Boulevard West Public Information and Sopping Meeting (Mirmeseta Rules 78502800,subpart 28).The application was accepted 2750 Kelley Parkway Long Lake,MN 55365 Wednesday,August 10,2011 as complete by the Commission on June 30,2011.The Commission has Oros MN 55356 6:00 p.m. six months from the time the application isaccepted to complete the project Contacts.The EFP has designated staff member Suzanne alternative permitting process and make a decision one route permit Orono City Hall Steinhauer(651-296.2888,suzannasteinhaueristate.mn.us)as Project Council Chambers Route permit applications for high-voltage transmission lines are Manager and Ray Kirsch(651-296-2588,raymond.kirsch®state.mn.es) 2750 Kelley Parkway subject to environmental review IMinnesote Rules 7850}For this as Public Advisor.You may contact them at,Department of Commerce, Orono,MN 55356 project,EFP staff will prepare an environmental assessment:The energy Facility Permitting,05 7th Place East,Sudor 500,St Paul,MN 952-249-4600 environmental assessment contains information on the potential human "5101.2198.Otlner contact information:.Tol l-Free:1-800-657-3794.fax: and environmental effects of the proposed project.includes possible 657-297.7891 or TTY:Minnesota Relay Services,1-800-627-3529,and •During the meeting,EFP staff will give a presentation about the - alternative routes or route segments,and examines mitigating measures ask for the Department of Commerce. state'snighvoltagetransmission line(HVTL)permitting process,the for anticipated effects: p X Xcel Energy.Information about this project is available from Xcel proposed project,and how the public can participate.Xcel Energy will - Energy.You can direct questions to Joseph G.Sedarski(812-330.6435, have representatives at the public meeting who can answer general Further information on Minnesota statutes enc rules governing questions about the proposed project.Members of the public will have the routing process are available on the following website:http:// jneaph.g.eedarski@xcelenergycom).Mt Sederski may be contacted an opportunity to ask questions,present comments,and propose issues, eiergyfacilities puc.state.mn.usflrensmissionLines.html. in writing et Xcel Energy,414 Nicollet Mall,MP-8,Minneapolis,MN opportunity impacts and alternatives to be studied in the EA. 55401, EFP Review-Enviroaweztal Assessment EFP staff is responsible Review copies of the route permit application,permitting process for conducting the environmental review for route permit applications This notice can be made available in alternative formats(is.,large flowcharts,and comment forms will be available at the meeting. submitted to the Commission IM-nn.Rules 7850 3700).Fmrirorenental pout or audio)by calling 651,286.003951voicel•Persons with hearing review fora project of this size requires the preparation of ah or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay en The EFP will accept written comments on the scope of the EA environmental assessment(EA).An EA examines the potential humor 1.800.627.3529 or by d(eling 71 t. until Friday,August 26,2011.Please include PUC Docket No.TL-11- and environmental impacts of a proposed project 223 on all comments.Comments may be submitted on the Commissions alternative routes for the project,and potential ,ter ,, energy facility permitting website,http:/Jwww.energyfacilities.puc. mitigative measures.EFP staff conducts a public ,: Tr „.04',14,40.4,(44://25,4-1: , j.4,44/ }°""'� aai state mn.us or may be mailed,emailed.or faxed to: information meeting to gather comments and „A",,, ,ri ,r I suggestions on the proposed project in order to y s.+. a"��� +r, r, r ,� ,�/ Suzanne Steinhauer focus the content or'scope”of she environmental o..va..�....w..•..® ,,V)7' . ,'',/ •i, ,7' StaaPermit Manager assessment. yeas-s w A s „„'. ,� Minnesota Department of Commerce -_O�...,r".,,..,+,.",-wa",.. „0, ....,..„,,,,,,,„.... „. .„,..,,.,14',',,,,,,..4),'” r "�`,,,,?,/':?...5',1,'''' Energy Facility Permitting Public Rearing,Upon completion of the ""e,"�'.,, ,, : 1/�I` S ,s +. 85 7th Place East,Suite 500 environmental assessment,a public hearing will o n.�.. yy;." i, ' � ,.v',4,;,-,,,, St.Paul,Minnesota,55101-2198 be held where the public will he afforded the ::roc 9". ,p,/,. r,/v ,rr./ 7,ty, Fax:651-29E-2888 opportunity to make oral presentation,provide � �v/r s Suzanne steinhauer©sate mn.us documentary evidence,and ask questions of Xcel F"+ "4'4175, / P 1:44.;„/,;,/,.., r/ r Energy and EFP staffNotice of the hearing will « . , . A ,/,,,✓" Project Description.The Project as proposed byte Applicant, be published in local newspapers and mailed to \ `� / f /4',4,,/,;"/r v , µ' would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with new 115 kV persons who register their names or the project '(y , „,„:,,vIry jf '`it1 l Substation at the same location,but with a larger footprim.The Project mailing list The public hearing will be held in ,v1 !„� ass,;:.rr '''',.:7” , would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV the county where the proposed project wou,d be _ � .„,,,,...'4', „„.4"',yr,P ,rr, transmission line 0837 through new double circuit 115 kV transmission located. urn• flrl"` 'h''�'•(.r . lines of approximately 2,040 feet The Project,as proposed,would ✓ also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line and Eminent Domain.If issued a route permit by -'-- 7traal.i...--• ++, ar 1/it %,• replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 ky the Commission,the Applicants may exercise the a v✓ t+ a"°a`' transmission line.While not part of the Route Permit requested by power of eminent domain to acquire land for this r, e Xcel Energy,approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy project pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216E.12. i ',t f££l \\�f,,,'�Y'. 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono L i - r' ' + Substation. Project Meiling List Persons should contact �,.----kit(' [ ~"4--.—_..�4 r f ih �''{�`"�.f the state permit manager or public advisor(noted i\ " \ d%' Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans below)or register online at vvww.energyfaciloies. - ���, 1 \\ '' of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles;structure heights are puc.state.mn.us to get their name on the project r l I `"'-•:� `, •, !`r ` '\ anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single-circuit structures to mailing list.Persons on the mailing list will receive i I I I .. -,„•, ,_ 75.115 feet for the double-circuit stmcwres.Xcel Energy is requesting notices of meetings/hearings orad notices of .__ -_._....� P ry '. a mute width of approximately 400 feet,or 200 feet either side of the document availability for this project.R you do [ t n„r _”. II .J!i proposed alignment shown in the Application maps.The anticipated nut register to be on the mailing list you will n'• ''" right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. •not receive correspondence regarding this 9 /y.---- project after this notice.Registration to the r '° Il The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin project mailing list is voi005uiy and may be done "' I � "' - - 'I��� County.The Project will cost approximately$5.3 million dollars. at anytime. Frown+ Review Process.In Minnesota,no person may constrict a high- Project Documents.A more detailed description C .. voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission of the proposed project is contained in the route (Minnesota Statute 216E.03,subdivision 2).A high-voltage transmission permit application;an electronic versions of this document is available line is defined as a conductor of electric energy designed for and cote Commission's energy facility permitting website: VINNESEITAAc+ kcapable of operation at a voltage of 100 kV or more and is greater than ` MMERCE , 1,500 feet in length(Minnesota Statute 216E.01,subdivision 41.The http://energyfacilities.p:o.state.mn.us/Docket.htmilk1=DO082 project as proposed would consist of approximately 4.7 miles of new 115 kVtronsmission line and would therefore require a route permit Additionally.documents are available on the Commission's eDockea xcelenergy.com 0 2011 Xcel Energy Inc. NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND SCOPING MEETINGS In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project PUC Docket Number:E002/TL-11-223 TAKE NOTICE that the Minnesota Department of Commerce from the Commission.Because the proposed transmission line capacity system:https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling :acility Permitting(EFP)will conduct public information and is under 200 kV,less than ten miles in length,and does not cross a year"11"and the number"223"). nental assessment(EA)scoping meeting at the time and state border,a certificate of need isnot required(Minnesota Statute The route permit applications are also available at I listed below,on the route permit application Xcel Energy for 2166.2421,subdivision 2). below:ro u used 115 kV Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV . fission Line Project.The purpose of the meeting is to provide A route permit application for the project`was fil d U f h ltetnatrva f'xr4 qzM h tion to the public about the project and to identify issues and permitting process by Xcel Energy on June-7,2011.The project is Orono City Hall ' °' MaplePlain Cibjary tives to study in an EA that will be prepared by EFP staff. eligible for consideration under the alternative permitting process,as Planning and Zoning 5184 Main Street East the transmission line voltage would be between 100 and 200 kilovolts Department Maple Plain,MN 55359 Public Information and Scoping Meeting (Minnesota Rules 7850.2800,subpart 2B).The application was accepted 2750 Kelley Parkway Wednesday,August 10,2011 as complete by the Commission on June 30,2011.The Commission has Orono,MN 55356 6:00 p.m. six months from the time the application is accepted to complete the . project Contacts.The EFP has designated staff alternative permitting process and make a decision on a route permit. Steinhauer(651-296-2888. Manager and Ray Kirsch suzannasteinhauer�, Orono City Hall (651-296-7588,raymonc Council Chambers Route permit applications for high-voltage transmission lines are as Public Advisor.You may contact them at: oni 2750 Kelley Parkway subject to environmental review(Minnesota Rules 7850).For this Energy Facility Permitting,85 7th Place East,Suit Orono,MN 55356 project,EFP staff will prepare an environmental assessment.The 55101-2198.Other contact information:Toll Free 952-249-4600 environmental assessment contains information on the potential human 651-297-7891 or TTY:Minnesota Relay Services, and environmental effects of the proposed project,includes possible ask for the Department of Commerce. I the meeting,EFP staff will give a presentation about the alternative routes or route segments,and examines mitigating measures high voltage transmission line(HVTL)permitting process,the for anticipated effects. Xcel Energy.Information about this project is a ;ed project,and how the public can participate.Xcel Energy will Energy.You can direct questions to Joseph G.Si epresentatives at the public meeting who can answer general Further information on Minnesota statutes and rules governing Joseph.g.seda direct coml.Mr.Sedarsl ons about the proposed project.Members of the public will have the routing process are available on the following website:http:// in writing at:Xcel Energy,414 Nicollet Mall,MP portunity to ask questions,present comments,and propose issues, energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Transmissionlines.html. 55401. ;ts and alternatives to be studied in the EA. EFP Review—Environmental Assessment.EFP staff is responsible This notice can be made available in alternative w copies of the route permit application,permitting process for conducting the environmental review for route permit applications print or audio)by calling 651.296.00391(voice). harts,and comment forms will be available atihe meeting. submitted to the Commission(Minn.Rules 7850.3700).Environmental or speech disabilities may call us through Mie). review for a project of this size requires the preparation of an 1,800.627.3529 or by dialing 711. EFP will accept written comments on the scope of the EA environmental assessment(EA).An EA examines the potential human Friday,August 26,2011.Please include PUC Docket No.TL-11- and environmental impacts of a proposed project, 1n all comments.Comments may be submitted on the Commissions alternative routes for the project,and potential , ,,, , _,:,,..,,: ,,„ // , f gy facility permitting website,http://www.energyfacilities.puc. mitigative measures.EFP staff conducts a public ' • E.R..B e togather information meetingcomments and ' A Propoutl5 °° .mn.us,or may be mailed,emailed,or faxed to: suggestions on the proposed project in order to / .—�uw"9:17.77�seo d"� / nne Steinhauer focus the content or"scope"of the environmental __PopuORMooUonWGRB° � °° j assessment. ---GRE 59kV Una B°,e Bu RnmomU Permit Manager —•E.A.N;%alEnm°y 01.1.11 Una f ✓ ;�,,,,,'./7// iesota Department of Commerce ,—.1 RqorW Ro. .` ,4oa �+ ,��`s gpµyW/6 Fl Rghlol Ney _ � � gy Facility Permitting Public Hearing.Upon completion of the EJ,bgXaiO, OM , A° environmental assessment,a public hearing will '^,°'.'°B'° 1."'7 th PlaceEast,Suite 500 r=ptpW.etlQcnoSA,IMIm "" � � be held where the public will be afforded the 22 6.....Y 'aul,Minnesota,55101 2198 HenwpRQun,Perak 651-296-2888 opportunity to make oral presentation,provide471771:1,1". ',/ri,7" 4 OW,, if, 4°4 47 mne.steinhauer®state.mn.us documentary evidence,and ask questions of Xcel --.1reeei "V , .e://./.• Energy and EFP staff.Notice of the hearing will - A, /.,- / / „,,, 3 �: 'ect Description.The Project,as proposed by the Applicant, be published in local newspapers and mailed to , 1Id replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with new 115 kV persons who register their names on the project ` station at the same location,but with a larger footprint.The Project mailing list.The public hearing will be held in _ q,,,-;,, 'A, ' old connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV the county where the proposed project would be ---,.....40-e-•,- a fL „ .- ; I/ ismission line 0831 through new double circuit 115 kV transmission located. Bn a �R; �° f . s of approximately 2,040 feet.The Project,as proposed,would T ` °-'.., remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line and Eminent Domain.If issued a route permit by lace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV the Commission,the Applicants may exercise the .f ismission line.While not part of the Route Permit requested by power of eminent domain to acquire land for this j' M I Energy,approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy project pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216E.12. j :i m kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Project Mailing List.Persons should contact ~ . i• )station. __- / ,,'z i the state permit manager or public advisor(noted �� 1;Bra,i ,I Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans below)or register online at:www.energyfacilities. ,- '�.:"' ., lam` approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles;structure heights are puc.state.mn.us to get their name on the project :icipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single-circuit structures to mailing list.Persons on the mailing list will receive , . • s • •---.-`... \\' l�___ to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures.Xcel Energy is requesting notices of meetings/hearings and notices of ;k L oute width of approximately 400 feet,or 200 feet either side of the document availability for this project.If you do i posed alignment shown in the Application maps.The anticipated not register to be on the mailing list you will .. tit_.,f,.,n„f,,.tho navy rransmissinn line would be 75 feet. not receive correspondence regarding this I e .-', "'.. Ii RECEIVED J 4,18,4 1 1 \t ;,t: ,.4,,, dr INNESOTA ril." STATE OF MINNESOTA E. PARTMENT OF OMMERCE Department of Commerce *I858 Issued: July 27, 2011 NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND SCOPING MEETINGS In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) will conduct public information and environmental assessment (EA) scoping meetings at the times and location listed below, on the route permit application Xcel Energy for the proposed 115 kV Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. The purpose of the meetings is toprovide information to thepublic about the project and to identifyissues and alternatives g to study in an EA that will be prepared by EFP staff. Public Information and Scoping Meetings Wednesday, August 10,2011 6:00 p.m. Orono City Hall Council Chambers 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 During the meetings, EFP staff will give a presentation about the state's high voltage transmission line (HVTL) permitting process, the proposed project, and how the public can participate. Xcel Energy will have representatives at the public meetings who can answer general questions about the proposed project. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions, present comments, and propose issues, impacts and alternatives to be studied in the EA. Review copies of the route permit application, permitting process flowcharts, and comment forms will be available at the meeting. The EFP will accept written comments on the scope of the EA until Friday, August 26, 2011. Please include PUC Docket No. TL-11-223 on all comments. Comments may be submitted on the Commissions energy facility permitting website, http://www.energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us, or may be mailed, emailed, or faxed to: • Suzanne Steinhauer State Permit Manager Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facility Permitting 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101-2198 Fax: 651-296-2888 Suzanne.steinhauer@state.nm.us Project Description. The Project, as proposed by the Applicant, would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV Substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single-circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. The Project will cost approximately $5.3 million dollars. Review Process. In Minnesota, no person may construct a high-voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission (Minnesota Statute 216E.03 subdivision 2). A high-voltage transmission line is defined as a conductor of electric energy designed for and capable of operation at a voltage of 100 kV or more and is greater than 1,500 feet in length (Minnesota Statute 216E.01, subdivision 4). The project as proposed would consist of approximately 4.7 miles of new 115 kV transmission line and would therefore require a route permit from the Commission. Because the proposed transmission line capacity is under 200 kV, less than ten miles in length, and does not cross a state border, a certificate of need is not required (Minnesota Statute 216B.2421, subdivision 2). A route permit application for the project was filed under the alternative permitting process by Xcel Energy on June 7, 2011. The project is eligible for consideration under the alternative permitting process, as the transmission line voltage would be between 100 and 200 kilovolts (Minnesota Rules 7850.2800, subpart 2B). The application was accepted as complete by the Commission on June 30, 2011. The Commission has six months from the time the application is accepted to complete the alternative permitting process and make a decision on a route permit. Route permit applications for high-voltage transmission lines are subject to environmental review (Minnesota Rules 7850). For this project, EFP staff will prepare an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment contains information on the potential human and environmental effects of PUC Dockets TL-11-223 Page 2 of 4 the proposed project, includes possible alternative routes or route segments, and examines mitigating measures for anticipated effects. Further information on Minnesota statutes and rules governing the routing process are available on the following website: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/TransmissionLines.html. EFP Review—Environmental Assessment. EFP staff is responsible for conducting the environmental review for route permit applications submitted to the Commission (Minn. Rules 7850.3700). Environmental review for a project of this size requires the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). An EA examines the potential human and environmental impacts of a proposed project, alternative routes for the project, and potential mitigative measures. EFP staff conducts a public information meeting to gather comments and suggestions on the proposed project in order to focus the content or"scope" of the environmental assessment. Public Hearing. Upon completion of the environmental assessment, a public hearing will be held where the public will be afforded the opportunity to make oral presentation, provide documentary evidence, and ask questions of Xcel Energy and EFP staff. Notice of the hearing will be published in local newspapers and mailed to persons who register their names on the project mailing list. The public hearing will be held in the county where the proposed project would be located. Eminent Domain. If issued a route permit by the Commission, the Applicants may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire land for this project pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216E.12. Project Mailing List. Persons should contact the state permit manager or public advisor (noted below) or register online at: www.energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us to get their name on the project mailing list. Persons on the mailing list will receive notices of meetings/hearings and notices of document availability for this project. If you do not register to be on the mailing list you will not receive correspondence regarding this project after this notice. Registration to the project mailing list is voluntary and may be done at any time. Project Documents. A more detailed description of the proposed project is contained in the route permit application; an electronic versions of this document is available on the Commission's energy facility permitting website: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082 Additionally,documents are available on the Commission's eDockets system: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/search.isp (enter the year"11" and the number"223"). The route permit applications are also available at the locations noted below: Orono City Hall Maple Plain Library Long Lake Library Planning and Zoning Department 5184 Main Street East 1865 Wayzata Boulevard West 2750 Kelley Parkway Maple Plain,MN 55359 Long Lake,MN 55365 Orono,MN 55356 PUC Dockets TL-11-223 Page 3 of 4 Project Contacts. The EFP has designated staff member Suzanne Steinhauer (651-296-2888, suzanna.steinhauer@state.mn.us) as Project Manager and Ray Kirsch (651-296-7588, raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us) as Public Advisor. You may contact them at: Department of Commerce, Energy Facility Permitting, 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-2198. Other contact information: Toll-Free: 1-800-657-3794, Fax: 651-297-7891 or TTY: Minnesota Relay Services, 1- 800-627-3529, and ask for the Department of Commerce. Xcel Energy. Information about this project is available from Xcel Energy. You can direct questions to Joseph G. Sedarski (612-330-6435, joseph.g.sedarski@xcelenergy.com). Mr. Sedarski may be contacted in writing at: Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, MP-8, Minneapolis, MN 55401. This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e., large print or audio) by calling 651.296.00391 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1.800.627.3529 or by dialing 711. PUC Dockets TL-11-223 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Jan Mottaz, hereby certify that I have this day, served copies of the following document on the attached list of persons by electronic filing, e-mail, or by depositing a true and correct copy thereof properly enveloped with postage paid in the United States Mail at St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Commerce Comments NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND SCOPING MEETINGS Docket No E002/TL-11-223 Dated this 27th day of July 2011 /s/Jan Mottaz • Karen Hammel Jeff Freeman Karen Kromar Attorney General s Office DEED MPCA 1400 Bremer Tower 332 Minnesota Street E200 520 Lafayette Road North 445 Minnesota Street St.Paul,MN 55101 4th Floor St.Paul,MN 55101 St. Paul,MN 55116 Stacy Kotch Douglas Benson Bob Patton Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture 395 John Ireland Blvd 625 North Robert Street 625 North Robert Street Mailstop 678 St.Paul,MN 55155 St.Paul,MN 55155 St.Paul,MN 55155 Travis Germundson Jennie Ross Jamie Schrenzel BWSR MN Department of Transportation MN DNR 520 Lafayette Road 395 John Ireland Blvd 500 Lafayette Road St.Paul,MN 55155 Mail Stop 620 Box 25 St. Paul,MN 55155 St.Paul,MN 55155 Dave Wilson Melanie Curtis Melissa Fogelberg Homeowner City of Orono 870 Hunt Farm Rd 840 Hunt Farm Road 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55356 Orono,MN 55356 Orono,MN 55356 Douglas Hickey Joe Sedarski Valerie Herring 4301 Spruce Way Xcel Energy Briggs and Morgan Maple Plain,MN 55359 414 Nicollet Mall MP8 2200 IDS Center Minneapolis,MN 55401 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 Kelly Grissman Annette Rubink Three Rivers Park District National Conductor 3000 Xenium Lane North 18119 State Highway 371 Plymouth,MN 55441 Brainerd,MN 56401 RECEIVED i JUL 272011 OO P%'U.yP� STATE OF MINNESO'� ` ' DEPARTMENT OF ! MINNESOTA �F QRD j` �: _- `COMMERCE Department of Commerce 14 `�:` ; �yij�'rg:.'a ir ''"'pini�mnn' NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND SCOPING MEETINGS In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) will conduct public information and environmental assessment (EA) scoping meetings at the times and location listed below, on the route permit application Xcel Energy for the proposed 115 kV Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. The purpose of the meetings is to provide information to the public about the project and to identify issues and alternatives to study in an EA that will be prepared by EFP staff. Public Information and Scoping Meetings ,�A� Wenesday,August 10,2011 A\ V e`, 0".10'. 6:00 p.m. CP ,' t Orono City Hall __ vJ Council-Climbers " CrPratrr f____-'.-, Wright,MN 55798-8017 218-476-2003 / During the meetings, EFP staff will give a presentation about the state's high voltage transmission line (HVTL) permitting process, the proposed project, and how the public can participate. Xcel Energy will have representatives at the public meetings who can answer general questions about the proposed project. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions, present comments, and propose issues, impacts and alternatives to be studied in the EA. Review copies of the route permit application, certificate of need application, permitting process flowcharts, and comment forms will be available at the meeting. The EFP will accept written comments on the scope of the EA until Friday, August 26, 2011. Please include PUC Docket No. TL-11-223 on all comments. Comments may be submitted on the Commissions energy facility permitting website, http://www.energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us, or may be mailed, emailed, or faxed to: 1 Suzanne Steinhauer State Permit Manager Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facility Permitting 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul,Minnesota, 55101-2198 Fax: 651-296-2888 suzanne.steinhauer@state.mn.us Project Description. The Project, as proposed by the Applicant, would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV Substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single-circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. The Project will cost approximately$5.3 million dollars. Review Process. In Minnesota, no person may construct a high-voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission (Minnesota Statute 216E.03, subdivision 2). A high-voltage transmission line is defined as a conductor of electric energy designed for and capable of operation at a voltage of 100 kV or more and is greater than 1,500 feet in length (Minnesota Statute 216E.01, subdivision 4). The project as proposed would consist of approximately 4.7 miles of new 115 kV transmission line and would therefore require a route permit from the Commission. Because the proposed transmission line capacity is under 200 kV, less than ten miles in length, and does not cross a state border, a certificate of need is not required(Minnesota Statute 216B.2421, subdivision 2). A route permit application for the project was filed under the alternative permitting process by Xcel Energy on June 7, 2011. The project is eligible for consideration under the alternative permitting process, as the transmission line voltage would be between 100 and 200 kilovolts (Minnesota Rules 7850.2800, subpart 2B). The application was accepted as complete by the Commission on June 30, 2011. The Commission has six months from the time the application is accepted to complete the alternative permitting process and make a decision on a route permit. Route permit applications for high-voltage transmission lines are subject to environmental review (Minnesota Rules 7850). For this project, EFP staff will prepare an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment contains information on the potential human and environmental effects of PUC Dockets TL-11-223 Page 2 of 4 IP the proposed project, includes possible alternative routes or route segments, and examines mitigating measures for anticipated effects. Further information on Minnesota statutes and rules governing the routing process are available on the following website: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/TransmissionLines.html. EFP Review—Environmental Assessment. EFP staff is responsible for conducting the environmental review for route permit applications submitted to the Commission (Minn. Rules 7850.3700). Environmental review for a project of this size requires the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). An EA examines the potential human and environmental impacts of a proposed project, alternative routes for the project, and potential mitigative measures. EFP staff conducts a public information meeting to gather comments and suggestions on the proposed project in order to focus the content or"scope"of the environmental assessment. Public Hearing. Upon completion of the environmental assessment, a public hearing will be held where the public will be afforded the opportunity to make oral presentation, provide documentary evidence, and ask questions of Xcel Energy and EFP staff. Notice of the hearing will be published in local newspapers and mailed to persons who register their names on the project mailing list. The public hearing will be held in the county where the proposed project would be located. Eminent Domain. If issued a route permit by the Commission,the Applicants may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire land for this project pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216E.12. Project Mailing List. Persons should contact the state permit manager or public advisor (noted below) or register online at: www.energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us to get their name on the project mailing list. Persons on the mailing list will receive notices of meetings/hearings and notices of document availability for this project. If you do not register to be on the mailing list you will not receive correspondence regarding this project after this notice. Registration to the project mailing list is voluntary and may be done at any time. Project Documents. A more detailed description of the proposed project is contained in the certificate of need and route permit applications. Electronic versions of these documents are available on the Commission's energy facility permitting website: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082 Additionally,these documents are available on the Commission's eDockets system: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/search.jsp (enter the year"11"and the number"223"). The route permit applications are also available at the locations noted below: Orono City Hall Maple Plain Library Long Lake Library Planning and Zoning Department 5184 Main Street East 1865 Wayzata Boulevard West 2750 Kelley Parkway Maple Plain,MN 55359 Long Lake,MN 55365 Orono,MN 55356 PUC Dockets TL-11-223 Page 3 of 4 11 Project Contacts. The EFP has designated staff member Suzanne Steinhauer (651-296-2888, suzanna.steinhauer@state.mn.us) as Project Manager and Ray Kirsch (651-296-7588, raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us) as Public Advisor. You may contact them at: Department of Commerce, Energy Facility Permitting, 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-2198. Other contact information: Toll-Free: 1-800-657-3794, Fax: 651-297-7891 or TTY: Minnesota Relay Services, 1- 800-627-3529, and ask for the Department of Commerce. Xcel Energy. Information about this project is available from Xcel Energy. You can direct questions to Joseph G. Sedarski (612-330-6435, joseph.g.sedarski@xcelenergy.com). Mr. Sedarski may be contacted in writing at: Xcel Energy,414 Nicollet Mall,MP-8,Minneapolis,MN 55401. This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e., large print or audio) by calling 651.296.00391 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1.800.627.3529 or by dialing 711. PUC Dockets TL-11-223 Page 4 of 4 f , • Existing Structure • Proposed Structure ®Proposed Route - ° Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 — Existing GRE 69kV Line BD GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed ——• Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line j Requested Route Width(Approximately 400'Total) I I Existing Xcel Orono Substation Orono Substation Property Park Boundary Proposed 75 Ft Right-of-Way � Q Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area �,�/ Hennepin County Parcels ,/ /- \ evsF y 7 /'boa\„ z` /,/ \ 77. _ -,Q77(New) Morris T. Baker / �"' 0-'76(Line 0831) -�4'^-�( 0r7r8!(fine=0831) �� �� \ .,To be replaced Park Reserve t To be.replaced �� �� \ ., 076=1c(New) \ Toirepla a existing•structure 077 \ .\.--7'., f 077(Line,0831)�� -,r To be replaced''with,new;structure,076-1 1 ^\ �� \\0762(New), N. \ N N\ \ \ \ 11. A \\\ \ \076-3'(New), N. \ _. � / X76-4(New) \ A \ \ \ \\ \ \6-5(New) i r --I'll_ \"\----\ --- J., ..„, e ., .,_ ___.-C13-6' 450 /- a cri L MPUC Docket No. Feet E002/TL-11-223 O FIGURE 1 ,��-� OHO' EFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 4.1 O* CP - Ellen Anderson Chair J. Dennis O'Brien Commissioner Phyllis Reha Commissioner David Boyd Commissioner Betsy Wergin Commissioner Joseph G. Sedarski SERVICE DATE: June 30, 2011 Senior Permitting Analyst, Siting and Land Rights Xcel Energy Services Inc. DOCKET NO. E- 002/TL-11-223 414 Nicoilet Mall, MP-8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project The above entitled matter has been considered by the Commission and the following disposition made: Accepted the HVTL Route permit application submitted by Xcel Energy for the Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project as complete and authorized Department of Commerce Energy Facilities Permitting (EFP) staff to process the application under the alternative review process pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3900. Authorized the EFP staff to name a public advisor in this case. Determined that based on the available information an advisory task force is not necessary at this time. The Commission agrees with and adopts the recommendations of the Department of Commerce which are attached and hereby incorporated in the Order. BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION 00.11 :1 e illif 7(4,40p ,ir � r '` _ B+ W. Haar 3.61r �} Executive Secretary y,1+1858k�,.: This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e. large print or audio) by calling 651.296.0406 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1.800.627.3529 or by dialing 711. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY FACILITY PERMITTING STAFF DOCKET No. E002/TL-11-223 Meeting Date: June 30, 2011 Agenda Item # Company: Xcel Energy Docket No. PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. Issue(s): Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the Department to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? DOC Staff: Suzanne Lamb Steinhauer 651-296-2888 Relevant Documents Xcel Energy's HVTL Route Permit Application June 7, 2011 The enclosed materials are work papers of the Department of Commerce (Department) Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) staff. They are intended for use by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) and are based on information already in the record unless otherwise noted. This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e., large print or audio) by calling 651-296-0391 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by dialing 711. 1 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 2 Documents Attached. 1. Site map illustrating the project area/location. Note: Relevant documents and additional information can be found on eDockets (E002/TL-11- 223) or the Commission's Energy Facilities Permitting website at: http://energytacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html'?Id=32082 Statement of the Issue Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete under the Alternative Review Process of the Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statutes 2I6E.001 to 216E.18)? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the EFP to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? If the application is rejected, the Commission must advise the applicant of the deficiencies in the application. Introduction and Background On June 7, 2011, Northern States Power, a Minnesota Corporation (Xcel Energy or Applicant), submitted a high voltage transmission line (HVTL) Route Permit application to the Commission for the proposed Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project). Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.03, subd. 2, provides that no person may construct a high voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission. An HVTL is defined as a transmission line of 100 kV or more and greater than 1,500 feet in length in Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.01, subd. 4. The proposed transmission lines are HVTLs and therefore a route permit is required prior to construction. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Alternative Permitting Process outlined in Minnesota Rules7850.2800, subpart 2 and 7850.2900. The Project does not meet the criteria for a"large energy facility" as defined in Minnesota Statute 216B.2421, because, although it has a capacity in excess of 100 kV, it is less than 10 miles long. Project Description The Project, as proposed by the Applicant, would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV Substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line 2 r DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 3 and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single- circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. The Project will cost approximately$5.3 million dollars. State Regulatory Process and Procedures The proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project qualifies for review under the Alternative Permitting Process authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.04, subd. 2(3), and Minnesota Rules 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C), for HVTLs between 100 and 200 kV. Route permit applications must provide specific information about the proposed project including, but not limited to, applicant information, route description, environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures (Minn. R. 7850.3100). The Commission may accept an application as complete, reject an application and require additional information to be submitted, or accept an application as complete upon filing of supplemental information (Minn. R. 7850.3200). The review process begins with the determination by the Commission that the application is complete. The Commission has six months to reach a final decision on the route permit application from the date the application is determined to be complete. The Commission may extend this limit for up to three months for just cause or upon agreement of the applicant (Minn. R. 7850.3900). Environmental Review Applications for high voltage transmission line route permits are subject to environmental review, which is conducted by EFP staff under Minn. R. 7850.3700. The staff will provide notice and conduct public information and scoping meetings to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental assessment (EA). The Department of Commerce will determine the scope of the EA. An EA is a written document that describes the human and environmental impacts of a proposed project (and selected alternative routes) and methods to mitigate such impacts. The EA will be completed and made available prior to the public hearing. 3 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 4 Hearing Process Applications for high voltage transmission line route permits under the alternative permitting process require a public hearing upon completion of the EA pursuant to Minn. R. 7850.3800. A portion of the hearing must be held in a county where the proposed project would be located. The hearing must be conducted in the following manner, although the hearing examiner may vary the order in which the hearing proceeds: • the staff shall make a brief presentation to describe the project, explain the process to be followed, and introduce documents to be included in the record, including the application, the environmental assessment, and various procedural documents; • the applicant shall introduce its evidence by way of testimony and exhibits; • the public must be afforded an opportunity to make an oral presentation, present documentary evidence, and ask questions of the applicant and staff; • the hearing examiner shall provide a period of not less than 10 days for the submission of written comments into the record after the close of the hearing; and • the hearing examiner shall transmit the complete record created at the hearing, including all written comments, within five days of the close of the record, unless the hearing examiner has been requested by the Commission to prepare a report. Public Advisor Upon acceptance of an application for a site or route permit, the Commission must designate a staff person to act as the public advisor on the project (Minnesota Rule 7850.3400). The public advisor is someone who is available to answer questions from the public about the permitting process. In this role, the public advisor may not act as an advocate on behalf of any person. The Commission can authorize the EFP to name a staff member from the EFP staff as the public advisor or assign a Commission staff member. Advisory Task Force The Commission may appoint an advisory task force (Minnesota Statute 216E.08). An advisory task force must, at a minimum, include representatives of local governmental units in the affected area. A task force can be charged with identifying additional routes or specific impacts to be evaluated in the EA and terminates when the Department issues an EA scoping decision. The Commission is not required to assign an advisory task force for every project. In the event that the Commission does not name a task force, the rules allow a citizen to request appointment of a task force (Minnesota Rule 7850.3600). The Commission would then need to determine at its next meeting if a task force should be appointed or not. The decision whether to appoint an advisory task force does not need to be made at the time of accepting the application; however, it should be made as soon as practicable to ensure its charge can be completed prior to the EA scoping decision by the Department. 4 r ' DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 5 EFP Staff Analysis and Comments EFP staff conducted a completeness review of Xcel Energy's Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project HVTL route permit application and concludes that the Application meets the content requirements of Minnesota Rule 7850.3100 and is complete. Application acceptance allows staff to initiate and conduct the public participation and environmental review process. Advisory Task Force In analyzing the merits of establishing an Advisory Task Force for the project, EFP staff considered four project characteristics: size, complexity, known or anticipated controversy and sensitive resources. The proposed design information and preliminary environmental data contained in the HVTL route permit application were used to complete the following evaluation: Project Size. At approximately 3,100 feet, or 0.6 mile, this 115 kV transmission line is one of the smaller HVTL projects that have come before the Commission. Complexity. The Project is simple and straightforward. Consistent with its short length, the Project is located entirelywithin the city of Orono. The substation and approximately 870 feet of the proposed transmission line, as well as the re-route of GRE's 69 kV line, are located entirely on a 16-acre parcel owned by Xcel Energy. No homes are within 200 feet of the proposed centerline. Known/Anticipated Controversy. EFP staff anticipates a moderate level of public interest with this project, based on a review of the comments received during Xcel Energy's application for a conditional use permit from the city of Orono' and the agency comments included in the application.2 Concerns related to land values, aesthetics, and health the Project were raised during the conditional use permit process. These issues are typical of issues raised with other transmission line projects. Following the comments received during the Orono conditional use permit process, Xcel Energy modified the Project to move the route closer to the railroad and relocate a portion of its existing 115 kV transmission line further from homes. Comments received from the Three Rivers Park District and Metropolitan Council identify a number of issues to be evaluated in an Environmental Assessment. Sensitive Resources. No federally listed species or critical habitats are documented within the proposed route. No State Forest, Wildlife Management Areas or Scientific and Natural Areas are crossed by the proposed HVTL. Based on the information in the Natural Heritage Information system and comments from the DNR included in the application, the primary concern is the potential for collisions with the Project. This type of issue would be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. The environmental I Northern States Power Company Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a Route Permit: Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project, Appendix D. See eDockets 20116- 63311-05 2 Ibid.,Appendix C. See eDockets 20116-63311-04 5 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 6 setting along the proposed route, as well as the larger surrounding area includes large wetland complexes and smaller isolated wetlands, as identified in the Wetland Delineation Report included in Appendix F. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with Xcel Energy's consultant's recommendation that a field survey be performed. Based on the analysis above, as well as the public, governmental, and agency comments documented in the application, EFP staff concludes that an advisory task force is not warranted in this case and that the alternative permitting process provides adequate opportunities for citizens to identify issues and route alternatives to be addressed in the environmental assessment. Staff can also assist citizens and governmental units in understanding the routing process and identifying opportunities for participating in further development of alternative routes and permit conditions. Therefore, staff recommendation is to take no action on a task force at this time. Commission Decision Options A. Application Acceptance 1. Accept the HVTL Route permit application submitted by Xcel Energy for the Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project as complete and authorize EFP staff to process the application under the alternative review process pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3900. 2. Reject the HVTL Route permit application as incomplete and issue an order indicating the specific deficiencies to be remedied before the Application can be accepted. 3. Find the Application complete upon the submission of supplementary information. 4. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. B. Public Advisor 1. Authorize the EFP staff to name a public advisor in this case. 2. Appoint a Commission staff person as public advisor. 3. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. C. Advisory Task Force 1. Authorize EFP staff to establish an advisory task force with a proposed structure and charge for the task force. 2. Determine that based on the available information an advisory task force is not necessary at this time. 3. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. EFP Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Options Al, B1 and C2. 6 r f/ DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 7 • Existing Structure • Proposed Structure mamas Proposed Route —Existing Xcel Energy 11SkV Line 0831 --Existing ORE 691V Line Bt) GRE 89kV Lire BD To Be Removed •-•.Proposed Relocation of GRE 89kV Line BD Existing Xcet Energy Distaxition Line L=Requested Rout Width(Approximately 403 Total) 1 I tndstirg XcelOrono Substation C:7—,Oran Sub on Property Peek Boundary ET:_Proposed 75 ft Right-of-Way Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Hennepin County Parcels r-- ' ea \ 4 Morris T Baker K y,.; •0.4(New) .b,; 07s Park Reserve 78�� ---.. To be replaced Tobe replaced �.,. *, \ .., 076 1<(New) ', \ To repWce existing•structure 077 `'�__ 077(Line 08:11)_ Toa with structu 076 1 '/ `� r07 2(Ne 1115 Ill ,� ~� N076-3(New) I 1 i 1 I ;`tI "tics.- `f I 1076-0(New) ,,Z \\ , 1 076-5 6-5(Now) T__ I ) II 1-- — ' \ ..., 0 Y a_ le . : 450 - a rk xwpn v ( ric""Y i� " to. ......... MPUC Docket No. O' ,ack:.„4. :� • , j v E00241.11-223 / O FIGURE 1 7 Public Utilities Commission I Agenda-June 30, 2011 r Page 1 of 2 PublicdUtilities Commission Veie , 0,7.--6- Agenda ,wo, ,v 6v4,.) J -'V/- .P<h fL��(jG '4 - is (/ Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:30 AM start time -r b '2 Utilities represented: Energy Facilities 2 r � -7� W�7 tch C/'� 7rt,G ,¢� /i, ��- c� WetcaSt "(/4 k S To view all documents relates" = the following Agenda items, visit eDockets J Ceir,fre,. ,zE9 14 C',Q,v/rreice,_ DECISION ITEM -r— I/ Y �, �,, 1 E002/TL-11-223 Xcel Energy / � t' ' In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the Department to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? (PUC: Kaluzniak; DOC: Briefing Papers - Steinhauer) -- ORAL ARGUMENT AND DELIBERATION I - S /le\i) **2 IP6701/CN-09-1186 AWA Goodhue Wind, ---- LLC In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Goodhue Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County. Should the Commission find that the Environmental Report on this project adequately addresses the scoping decision of the Director of the Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources? Should the Commission grant a certificate of need for the proposed Goodhue Project? (PUC: Briefing Papers - DeBleeckere) **3 IP6701/WS-08-1233 AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC http://www.puc.state.mn.us/puc/calendar/week/20110630_AGN 6/30/2011 r Public Utilities Commission l Agenda - June 30, 2011 Page 2 of 2 In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) Site Permit for the 78 MW Goodhue Wind Project in Goodhue County. Should the Commission adopt the Report provided by the Administrative Law Judge? Should the Commission grant a site permit to Goodhue Wind, LLC for the 78 MW Goodhue Wind Project? (PUC: Briefing Papers - DeBleeckere; DOC: Briefing Papers - Hartman) * One star indicates agenda item is unusual but is not disputed. ** Two stars indicate a disputed item or significant legal or procedural issue to be resolved. (Ex Parte Rules apply) Minnesota Public Utilities Commission • 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 • Saint Paul, MN 55101-2147 Local: 651.296.7124 • Toll Free: 1.800.657.3782 • Fax: 651.297.7073 • Contact Us • eDockets & eFiling • Comments About This Website http://www.puc.state.mn.us/puc/calendar/week/20110630_AGN 6/30/2011 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 2 Documents Attached. 1. Site map illustrating the project area/location. Note: Relevant documents and additional information can be found on eDockets (E002/TL-11- 223)or the Commission's Energy Facilities Permitting website at: http://enen4v facilities.puc.state.Inn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082 Statement of the Issue Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete under the Alternative Review Process of the Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statutes 216E.001 to 216E.18)? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the EFP to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? If the application is rejected, the Commission must advise the applicant of the deficiencies in the application. Introduction and Background On June 7, 2011, Northern States Power, a Minnesota Corporation (Xcel Energy or Applicant), submitted a high voltage transmission line (HVTL) Route Permit application to the Commission for the proposed Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project). Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.03, subd. 2, provides that no person may construct a high voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission. An HVTL is defined as a transmission line of 100 kV or more and greater than 1,500 feet in length in Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.01, subd. 4. The proposed transmission lines are HVTLs and therefore a route permit is required prior to construction. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Alternative Permitting Process outlined in Minnesota Rules7850.2800, subpart 2 and 7850.2900. The Project does not meet the criteria for a"large energy facility"as defined in Minnesota Statute 2168.2421, because, although it has a capacity in excess of 100 kV, it is less than 10 miles long. Project Description The Project, as proposed by the Applicant, would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV Substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line 2 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENTESOOF COMMERCE BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY FACILITY PERMITTING STAFF DOCKET No. E002/TL-11-223 Meeting Date: June 30, 2011... ... ......... .......... ......... ...Agenda Item# Company: Xcel Energy Docket No. PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. Issue(s): Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the Department to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? DOC Staff: Suzanne Lamb Steinhauer .651-296-2888 Relevant Documents Xcel Energy's HVTL Route Permit Application...........................................June 7, 2011 The enclosed materials are work papers of the Department of Commerce (Department) Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) staff. They are intended for use by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) and are based on information already in the record unless otherwise noted. This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e., large print or audio) by calling 651-296-0391 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by dialing 711. 1 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 3 and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single- circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. The Project will cost approximately$5.3 million dollars. State Regulatory Process and Procedures The proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project qualifies for review under the Alternative Permitting Process authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.04, subd. 2(3), and Minnesota Rules 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C), for HVTLs between 100 and 200 kV. Route permit applications must provide specific information about the proposed project including, but not limited to, applicant information, route description, environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures (Minn. R. 7850.3100). The Commission may accept an application as complete, reject an application and require additional information to be submitted, or accept an application as complete upon filing of supplemental information (Minn. R. 7850.3200). The review process begins with the determination by the Commission that the application is complete. The Commission has six months to reach a final decision on the route permit application from the date the application is determined to be complete. The Commission may extend this limit for up to three months for just cause or upon agreement of the applicant(Minn. R. 7850.3900). Environmental Review Applications for high voltage transmission line route permits are subject to environmental review, which is conducted by EFP staff under Minn. R. 7850.3700. The staff will provide notice and conduct public information and scoping meetings to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental assessment (EA). The Department of Commerce will determine the scope of the EA. An EA is a written document that describes the human and environmental impacts of a proposed project (and selected alternative routes) and methods to mitigate such impacts. The EA will be completed and made available prior to the public hearing. 3 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 4 Hearing Process Applications for high voltage transmission line route permits under the alternative permitting process require a public hearing upon completion of the EA pursuant to Minn. R. 7850.3800. A portion of the hearing must be held in a county where the proposed project would be located. The hearing must be conducted in the following manner, although the hearing examiner may vary the order in which the hearing proceeds: • the staff shall make a brief presentation to describe the project, explain the process to be followed, and introduce documents to be included in the record, including the application,the environmental assessment, and various procedural documents; • the applicant shall introduce its evidence by way of testimony and exhibits; • the public must be afforded an opportunity to make an oral presentation, present documentary evidence, and ask questions of the applicant and staff; • the hearing examiner shall provide a period of not less than 10 days for the submission of written comments into the record after the close of the hearing; and • the hearing examiner shall transmit the complete record created at the hearing, including all written comments, within five days of the close of the record, unless the hearing examiner has been requested by the Commission to prepare a report. Public Advisor Upon acceptance of an application for a site or route permit, the Commission must designate a staff person to act as the public advisor on the project (Minnesota Rule 7850.3400). The public advisor is someone who is available to answer questions from the public about the permitting process. In this role, the public advisor may not act as an advocate on behalf of any person. The Commission can authorize the EFP to name a staff member from the EFP staff as the public advisor or assign a Commission staff member. Advisory Task Force The Commission may appoint an advisory task force (Minnesota Statute 216E.08). An advisory task force must, at a minimum, include representatives of local governmental units in the affected area. A task force can be charged with identifying additional routes or specific impacts to be evaluated in the EA and terminates when the Department issues an EA scoping decision. The Commission is not required to assign an advisory task force for every project. In the event that the Commission does not name a task force, the rules allow a citizen to request appointment of a task force (Minnesota Rule 7850.3600). The Commission would then need to determine at its next meeting if a task force should be appointed or not. The decision whether to appoint an advisory task force does not need to be made at the time of accepting the application; however, it should be made as soon as practicable to ensure its charge can be completed prior to the EA scoping decision by the Department. 4 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 5 EFP Staff Analysis and Comments EFP staff conducted a completeness review of Xcel Energy's Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project HVTL route permit application and concludes that the Application meets the content requirements of Minnesota Rule 7850.3100 and is complete. Application acceptance allows staff to initiate and conduct the public participation and environmental review process. Advisory Task Force In analyzing the merits of establishing an Advisory Task Force for the project, EFP staff considered four project characteristics: size,complexity, known or anticipated controversy and sensitive resources. The proposed design information and preliminary environmental data contained in the HVTL route permit application were used to complete the following evaluation: Project Size. At approximately 3,100 feet, or 0.6 mile, this 115 kV transmission line is one of the smaller HVTL projects that have come before the Commission. Complexity. The Project is simple and straightforward. Consistent with its short length, the Project is located entirely within the city of Orono. The substation and approximately 870 feet of the proposed transmission line, as well as the re-route of GRE's 69 kV line, are located entirely on a 16-acre parcel owned by Xcel Energy. No homes are within 200 feet of the proposed centerline. Known/Anticipated Controversy. EFP staff anticipates a moderate level of public interest with this project, based on a review of the comments received during Xcel Energy's application for a conditional use permit from the city of Orono' and the agency comments included in the application.2 Concerns related to land values, aesthetics, and health the Project were raised during the conditional use permit process. These issues are typical of issues raised with other transmission line projects. Following the comments received during the Orono conditional use permit process, Xcel Energy modified the Project to move the route closer to the railroad and relocate a portion of its existing 115 kV transmission line further from homes. Comments received from the Three Rivers Park District and Metropolitan Council identify a number of issues to be evaluated in an Environmental Assessment. Sensitive Resources. No federally listed species or critical habitats are documented within the proposed route. No State Forest, Wildlife Management Areas or Scientific and Natural Areas are crossed by the proposed HVTL. Based on the information in the Natural Heritage Information system and comments from the DNR included in the application,the primary concern is the potential for collisions with the Project. This type of issue would be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. The environmental Northern States Power Company Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a Route Permit: Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project, Appendix D. See eDockets 201 I 3 3 I I-1)5 2 Ibid.,Appendix C. See eDockets 2O I l(,-(,3;1 l-(.l4 5 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 6 setting along the proposed route, as well as the larger surrounding area includes large wetland complexes and smaller isolated wetlands, as identified in the Wetland Delineation Report included in Appendix F. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with Xcel Energy's consultant's recommendation that a field survey be performed. Based on the analysis above, as well as the public, governmental, and agency comments documented in the application, EFP staff concludes that an advisory task force is not warranted in this case and that the alternative permitting process provides adequate opportunities for citizens to identify issues and route alternatives to be addressed in the environmental assessment. Staff can also assist citizens and governmental units in understanding the routing process and identifying opportunities for participating in further development of alternative routes and permit conditions. Therefore, staff recommendation is to take no action on a task force at this time. Commission Decision Options A. Application Acceptance 1. Accept the HVTL Route permit application submitted by Xcel Energy for the Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project as complete and authorize EFP staff to process the application under the alternative review process pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3900. 2. Reject the HVTL Route permit application as incomplete and issue an order indicating the specific deficiencies to be remedied before the Application can be accepted. 3. Find the Application complete upon the submission of supplementary information. 4. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. B. Public Advisor 1. Authorize the EFP staff to name a public advisor in this case. 2. Appoint a Commission staff person as public advisor. 3. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. C.Advisory Task Force 1. Authorize EFP staff to establish an advisory task force with a proposed structure and charge for the task force. 2. Determine that based on the available information an advisory task force is not necessary at this time. 3. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. EFP Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Options Al, B1 and C2. 6 ♦ r DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 7 • Existing Structure • Proposed Structure :-mum Proposed Ronde Existing Xcel Energy 115110 L.ise 0831 Existing GRE 691'V Line IX) GRE fi9kV Line BCI lb Be rs mvwl -'-— Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BC Existing Xcel Energy D isuaxnwn Law Requested Rate Width iAppioxinately 404'Totaii Existing Xcel Orono Substation Orono Subs-taken Property Pate Rouxtery Proposed 15 F1 Rightot-Way =Prry;oswl()MOO Ss bstali n Expansion Ares Hennepin County Parcels 9a'r�oea 1-( I it- 11 v` ,12077 iNew) �� Morris T: Baker to° A.0761 Line 08311 0781 Line 0831) To be replaced Park Reserve To be replaced 076-1(New) To replace existing structure 077 •077(Line 0851) To be replaced with new structure 076-1 076-2(New) 7o 076-3(Now) c UU� 076-4(New) /1 .. rte 07 l * '. � f ' 0 CR 6 450 a • I s t MR1C Docket—N. Feet I E0024L11.22:7, O FIGURE 1 r 4 I FerVINttN9TTF COMMERCE BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY FACILITY PERMITTING STAFF DOCKET No.E002/TL-11-223 Meeting Date: June 30, 2011 Agenda Item # Company: Xcel Energy Docket No. PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. Issue(s): Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the Department to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? DOC Staff: Suzanne Lamb Steinhauer 651-296-2888 Relevant Documents Xcel Energy's HVTL Route Permit Application June 7,2011 The enclosed materials are work papers of the Department of Commerce (Department) Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) staff. They are intended for use by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission)and are based on information already in the record unless otherwise noted. This document can be made available in alternative formats(i.e., large print or audio)by calling 651-296-0391 (voice).Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by dialing 711. 1 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 2 Documents Attached. 1. Site map illustrating the project area/location. Note: Relevant documents and additional information can be found on eDockets (E002/TL-11- 223) or the Commission's Energy Facilities Permitting website at: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.htm l?Id=32082 Statement of the Issue Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete under the Alternative Review Process of the Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statutes 216E.001 to 216E.18)? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the EFP to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? If the application is rejected, the Commission must advise the applicant of the deficiencies in the application. Introduction and Background On June 7, 2011, Northern States Power, a Minnesota Corporation (Xcel Energy or Applicant), submitted a high voltage transmission line (HVTL) Route Permit application to the Commission for the proposed Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project). Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.03, subd. 2, provides that no person may construct a high voltage transmission line without a route permit from the Commission. An HVTL is defined as a transmission line of 100 kV or more and greater than 1,500 feet in length in Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.01, subd. 4. The proposed transmission lines are HVTLs and therefore a route permit is required prior to construction. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Alternative Permitting Process outlined in Minnesota Rules7850.2800, subpart 2 and 7850.2900. The Project does not meet the criteria for a"large energy facility" as defined in Minnesota Statute 216B.2421, because, although it has a capacity in excess of 100 kV, it is less than 10 miles long. Project Description The Project, as proposed by the Applicant, would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV Substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the new substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line 2 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 3 and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single-pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single- circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double-circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. The Project will cost approximately$5.3 million dollars. State Regulatory Process and Procedures The proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project qualifies for review under the Alternative Permitting Process authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 216E.04, subd. 2(3), and Minnesota Rules 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C), for HVTLs between 100 and 200 kV. Route permit applications must provide specific information about the proposed project including, but not limited to, applicant information, route description, environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures (Minn. R. 7850.3100). The Commission may accept an application as complete, reject an application and require additional information to be submitted, or accept an application as complete upon filing of supplemental information (Minn. R. 7850.3200). The review process begins with the determination by the Commission that the application is complete. The Commission has six months to reach a final decision on the route permit application from the date the application is determined to be complete. The Commission may extend this limit for up to three months for just cause or upon agreement of the applicant (Minn. R. 7850.3900). Environmental Review Applications for high voltage transmission line route permits are subject to environmental review, which is conducted by EFP staff under Minn. R. 7850.3700. The staff will provide notice and conduct public information and scoping meetings to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental assessment (EA). The Department of Commerce will determine the scope of the EA. An EA is a written document that describes the human and environmental impacts of a proposed project (and selected alternative routes) and methods to mitigate such impacts. The EA will be completed and made available prior to the public hearing. 3 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 4 Hearing Process Applications for high voltage transmission line route permits under the alternative permitting process require a public hearing upon completion of the EA pursuant to Minn. R. 7850.3800. A portion of the hearing must be held in a county where the proposed project would be located. The hearing must be conducted in the following manner,although the hearing examiner may vary the order in which the hearing proceeds: • the staff shall make a brief presentation to describe the project, explain the process to be followed, and introduce documents to be included in the record, including the application,the environmental assessment, and various procedural documents; • the applicant shall introduce its evidence by way of testimony and exhibits; • the public must be afforded an opportunity to make an oral presentation, present documentary evidence, and ask questions of the applicant and staff; • the hearing examiner shall provide a period of not less than 10 days for the submission of written comments into the record after the close of the hearing; and • the hearing examiner shall transmit the complete record created at the hearing, including all written comments, within five days of the close of the record, unless the hearing examiner has been requested by the Commission to prepare a report. Public Advisor Upon acceptance of an application for a site or route permit, the Commission must designate a staff person to act as the public advisor on the project (Minnesota Rule 7850.3400). The public advisor is someone who is available to answer questions from the public about the permitting process. In this role,the public advisor may not act as an advocate on behalf of any person. The Commission can authorize the EFP to name a staff member from the EFP staff as the public advisor or assign a Commission staff member. Advisory Task Force The Commission may appoint an advisory task force (Minnesota Statute 216E.08). An advisory task force must, at a minimum, include representatives of local governmental units in the affected area. A task force can be charged with identifying additional routes or specific impacts to be evaluated in the EA and terminates when the Department issues an EA scoping decision. The Commission is not required to assign an advisory task force for every project. In the event that the Commission does not name a task force, the rules allow a citizen to request appointment of a task force (Minnesota Rule 7850.3600). The Commission would then need to determine at its next meeting if a task force should be appointed or not. The decision whether to appoint an advisory task force does not need to be made at the time of accepting the application; however, it should be made as soon as practicable to ensure its charge can be completed prior to the EA scoping decision by the Department. 4 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 5 EFP Staff Analysis and Comments EFP staff conducted a completeness review of Xcel Energy's Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project HVTL route permit application and concludes that the Application meets the content requirements of Minnesota Rule 7850.3100 and is complete. Application acceptance allows staff to initiate and conduct the public participation and environmental review process. Advisory Task Force In analyzing the merits of establishing an Advisory Task Force for the project,EFP staff considered four project characteristics: size,complexity,known or anticipated controversy and sensitive resources. The proposed design information and preliminary environmental data contained in the HVTL route permit application were used to complete the following evaluation: Project Size. At approximately 3,100 feet, or 0.6 mile, this 115 kV transmission line is one of the smaller HVTL projects that have come before the Commission. Complexity. The Project is simple and straightforward. Consistent with its short length, the Project is located entirely within the city of Orono. The substation and approximately 870 feet of the proposed transmission line, as well as the re-route of GRE's 69 kV line, are located entirely on a 16-acre parcel owned by Xcel Energy. No homes are within 200 feet of the proposed centerline. Known/Anticipated Controversy. EFP staff anticipates a moderate level of public interest with this project, based on a review of the comments received during Xcel Energy's application for a conditional use permit from the city of Orono' and the agency comments included in the application.2 Concerns related to land values, aesthetics, and health the Project were raised during the conditional use permit process. These issues are typical of issues raised with other transmission line projects. Following the comments received during the Orono conditional use permit process, Xcel Energy modified the Project to move the route closer to the railroad and relocate a portion of its existing 115 kV transmission line further from homes. Comments received from the Three Rivers Park District and Metropolitan Council identify a number of issues to be evaluated in an Environmental Assessment. Sensitive Resources. No federally listed species or critical habitats are documented within the proposed route. No State Forest, Wildlife Management Areas or Scientific and Natural Areas are crossed by the proposed HVTL. Based on the information in the Natural Heritage Information system and comments from the DNR included in the application,the primary concern is the potential for collisions with the Project. This type of issue would be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. The environmental Northern States Power Company Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a Route Permit: Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project, Appendix D. See eDockets 20116- 63311-05 2 Ibid.,Appendix C. See eDockets 20116-63311-04 5 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 6 setting along the proposed route, as well as the larger surrounding area includes large wetland complexes and smaller isolated wetlands, as identified in the Wetland Delineation Report included in Appendix F. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with Xcel Energy's consultant's recommendation that a field survey be performed. Based on the analysis above, as well as the public, governmental, and agency comments documented in the application, EFP staff concludes that an advisory task force is not warranted in this case and that the alternative permitting process provides adequate opportunities for citizens to identify issues and route alternatives to be addressed in the environmental assessment. Staff can also assist citizens and governmental units in understanding the routing process and identifying opportunities for participating in further development of alternative routes and permit conditions. Therefore, staff recommendation is to take no action on a task force at this time. Commission Decision Options A. Application Acceptance 1. Accept the HVTL Route permit application submitted by Xcel Energy for the Orono Substation Replacement and 115 kV Transmission Line Project as complete and authorize EFP staff to process the application under the alternative review process pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3900. 2. Reject the HVTL Route permit application as incomplete and issue an order indicating the specific deficiencies to be remedied before the Application can be accepted. 3. Find the Application complete upon the submission of supplementary information. 4. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. B. Public Advisor 1. Authorize the EFP staff to name a public advisor in this case. 2. Appoint a Commission staff person as public advisor. 3. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. C.Advisory Task Force 1. Authorize EFP staff to establish an advisory task force with a proposed structure and charge for the task force. 2. Determine that based on the available information an advisory task force is not necessary at this time. 3. Make another decision deemed more appropriate. EFP Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Options A l. BI and C2. 6 DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 7 Emoting Structure • Rawest!Structure sort Proposed flours Fsrtlr,p Xcal Energy 1151v lrw 0gi1 --.Ee4n ORE ofeV Lew Hf) 01W 64MV tree BO To Be Rowse Rapoaed fir loc9..1 of MS 49MV tele 80 Externs Xrel Energy Der buion(.we. Reemerged Route Yeah tMArdxenaIMy 400'Tail" Exlterp Xcel Orono S.Lenten Orono Sgbelsskrm Property Pae BnreWy Reposed 75 Et Rollelurry =Reposed Orme Surodsr.rwr.Expanaxro Area t W rerun i'nway Pan.Ws. R _��e/ on(Newi� '` 076(one 0831) Monis T.Baker ro7arcCi"R6'6831) To b•rspi•eed Park Reserve To be replaced To To r.pt3ce.seti sauaur•077 077(Line To be replaced'with new struelure•0761 076,2(Nur c .1; w \ OEM t ( I 1 a� 078.4(New) 076F5(WWI CR 6 CZ �• e Y 450 l lr a MPUC Docket Pro Feet 100211-11.223 o t FIGURE 1 7 A Xcel Energy Substation Replacement and New Transmission Line Project Located at 3950 Sixth Avenue North On June 7, 2011,Xcel Energy filed a Route Permit Application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC)for their property at 3960 Sixth Ave N,Orono. The proposed project includes rebuilding the existing 69 kilovolt(kV) Orono Substation to 115kV and constructing up to one mile of new double circuit 115kV transmission line to connect the planned substation to existing 115 kV Line 0831, located in Orono. The stated need for the project is to increase the operating voltage from 69 kV to 115kV which is stated to improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads,and allow for additional growth in the future. Notice of Filing Route Permit Application The following official document is available for review at the City of Orono; Maple Plain Library and the Long Lake Library: Northern States Power Company Application to the MN Public Utilities Commission for a Route Permit: Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project—Alternative Permitting Process MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Notice of Public Hearing:Thursday,June 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM in the Large Hearing Room at the offices of the PUC in St Paul - PUC Meeting Agenda—June 30, 2011 - MN Dept of Commerce Report/Comments—June 30, 2011 Project Contact List and State Staff Contacts If you have questions about the Project siting process or wish to receive written notices of the Project milestones regarding the environmental review process and meetings, including notice of the availability of the Environmental Assessment, please sign up for the Project contact list at http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082/ or by contacting Ms. Suzanne Steinhauer at the Department of Commerce who is the State Permitting Manager for this Project: Suzanne Steinhauer Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facilities Permitting 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101 suzanne.steinhauer@state.mn.us (651) 296-2888/ 1-800-657-3794 (651) 297-7891 (fax) 1-800-627-3529 or 711 (TYY: Minnesota Relay Service) If you have questions about the Commission review process, contact Mike Kaluzniak at the Commission: Mike Kaluzniak 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2147 mike.kaluzniak@state.mn.us (651) 201-2257 The Route Permit Application and Project information are available online at: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082 Project information and copies of the Route Permit Application may also be obtained by contacting Joe Sedarski at Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall (MP8), Minneapolis, MN 55401, (612) 330-6435,joseph.g.sedarski@xcelenergy.com. A copy of the Route Permit Application is also available at the following public locations: Orono City Hall Maple Plain Library Long Lake Library Planning and Zoning Department 5184 Main Street East 1865 Wayzata Boulevard West 2750 Kelley Parkway Maple Plain, MN 55359 Long Lake, MN 55365 Orono, MN 55356 Mike Gaffron From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:35 AM To: 'melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com' Cc: michael.kuruvilla@att.net; Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com; pwfraser@gmail.com; pfogelberg@gmail.com; tjs@mgmllp.com; Jessica Loftus; Lili McMillan (lilim@mac.com); Mike Gaffron Subject: RE: Xcel Energy- Orono Substation Melissa Yes, a member of city staff will attend the upcoming meeting(s). Melanie Curtis S 952.249.4627 IE mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us From: melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com fmailto:melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.coml Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:51 AM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: michael.kuruvilla@att.net; Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com; pwfraser@gmail.com; pfogelberg@gmail.com; tjs@mgmllp.com; Jessica Loftus; Lili McMillan (liiim@mac.com) Subject: Re: Xcel Energy - Orono Substation Thank you. I appreciate the heads up. Can you advise what the city's plans are with respect to the hearing?There was agreement at the council meeting that the city would stand by the residents. From: Melanie Curtis jmailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.usl Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:45 AM To: Fogelberg, Melissa R Cc: michael.kuruvilla@att.net <michael.kuruvilla@att.net>; Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com <Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com>; pwfraser@GMAIL.COM <pwfraser@GMAIL.COM>; pfogelberg@GMAIL.COM <pfogelberg@GMAIL.COM>; 'tjs@mgmllp.com' <tjs@mgmllp.com>; Jessica Loftus <jloftus@ci.orono.mn.us>; Lili McMillan (lilim@mac.com) <lilim@mac.com> Subject: Xcel Energy - Orono Substation Melissa Hello, this email is to let you know that on June 7, Xcel filed an application with the Public Utilities Commission for the review of the permits for the project(upgrade substation and new transmission line) adjacent to your neighborhood. They have a public hearing at the PUC offices on Thursday, June 30th at 9:30 AM. We have created a page on the City's website to pass along the information we receive. Please see the City's website here: http://www.ci.orono.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B BASIC&SEC={D3480935-B462-43 F9-B8BC-D4436677842A} The project and attachments are listed under the heading"other projects". There is a list of contacts provided in the first link if you have questions. The City will also provide updates if we receive them. I understand that you may subscribe to updates on the PUC website by using the eDocket number. The eDocket link is here: httbs://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showeDocketsSearch&searchType=ne w I realize I have not included everyone in your neighborhood on this email, however I have included the neighbors I have email addresses for... please pass this along to anyone I may have missed. Thank you and have a nice weekend, Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning &Zoning Coordinator 1 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning &Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtiseci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us Summer Office Hours (Monday, May 23rd to Friday, September 2nd) Monday -Thursday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm Friday 7:30 am to 11:30 am 2 Melanie Curtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:45 AM To: 'melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com' Cc: michael.kuruvilla@att.net; Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com; pwfraser@GMAIL.COM; pfogelberg@GMAIL.COM; 'tjs@mgmllp.com'; Jessica Loftus; Lili McMillan (lilim@mac.com) Subject: Xcel Energy-Orono Substation Melissa Hello, this email is to let you know that on June 7, Xcel filed an application with the Public Utilities Commission for the review of the permits for the project (upgrade substation and new transmission line) adjacent to your neighborhood. They have a public hearing at the PUC offices on Thursday, June 30th at 9:30 AM. We have created a page on the City's website to pass along the information we receive. Please see the City's website here: http://www.ci.orono.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B BASIC&SEC={D3480935-8462-43F9-B8BC-D4436677842A} The project and attachments are listed under the heading"other projects". There is a list of contacts provided in the first link if you have questions. The City will also provide updates if we receive them. I understand that you may subscribe to updates on the PUC website by using the eDocket number. The eDocket link is here: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showeDocketsSearch&searchTvpe=ne w I realize I have not included everyone in your neighborhood on this email, however I have included the neighbors I have email addresses for... please pass this along to anyone I may have missed. Thank you and have a nice weekend, Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning &Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning &Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtisc(D.ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us Summer Office Hours (Monday, May 23rd to Friday, September 2nd) Monday -Thursday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm Friday 7:30 am to 11:30 am 1 III Notice To: Persons Interested in the Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project Re: Notice of Xcel Energy Filing of Route Permit Application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223) Northern States Power Company,a Minnesota corporation("Xcel Energy")filed a Route approximately 14 mile and then cross an additional Y mile of private property as shown If you have questions about the Commission review process,contact Mike Kaluzniak Permit application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission("Commission") on the attached map. at the Commission: on June 7,2011,for the Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kilovolt("kV") Transmission Line Project("Project").This letter provides information on the Project Depending upon the final selected route,the Project may cross over adjacent wetlands Mike Kaluzniak and the routing process as well as how to register your name with the Commission on or railroad/roads.A portion of the proposed Project may be located within existing 121 7th Place East,Suite 350 the Project contact list to ensure that you receive future notices. easements maintained by Xcel Energy or other road authorities and utilities.However, Saint Paul,MN 55101-2147 some new easement acquisition is anticipated.For new construction of structures and mike.kaluzniakr©state.mn.us Project Description transmission line,Xcel Energy typically proposes a 400-foot-wide route corridor,200 (651)201-2257 Xcel Energy proposes to replace the existing Orono Substation and construct new feet on either side of the proposed new line location. 115 kilovolt(kV)transmission lines to connect the planned substation to existing Xcel The Route Permit Application and Project information are available online at Energy 115kV transmission Line 0831 located in the City of Orono,Hennepin County, If the Commission approves Xcel Energy's proposal,the Company will work with http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082. Minnesota.A map of the general area of the proposed Project is enclosed. landowners to purchase property rights,known as an easement,in order to construct this segment of transmission line.Xcel Energy typically requires a right-of-way of 75 Project information and copies of the Route Permit Application may also be obtained by The existing Orono Substation is located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North,Orono,MN feet(37'6"from centerline of structure)for new 115 kV transmission line construction. contacting Joe Sedarski at 55356.The existing Xcel Energy property consists of approximately 16 acres and In locations with existing rights-of-way or other engineering or site considerations,the Xcel Energy,414 Nicollet Mall(MP8),Minneapolis,MN 55401,(612)330-6435, is located in the SW Ya of the SW Y4 of Section 29 and the NW 14 of the NW 14 of Project maybe designed to fit within smaller right-of-way.There may be circumstances joseph.g.sedarski®xcelenergy.com. Section 32,Township 118 North,Range 23 West.The Project area is bounded by State where Xcel Energy will be required to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire Highway 12(Wayzata Boulevard)and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to easements for the Project in accordance with its authority under state law pursuant to the north,County Road 6(6th Avenue North)to the south and east,with a residential Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117. A copy of the Route Permit Application is also available at the following public property boundary to the west.The property contains an existing substation in the locations: southwest corner of the property that is surrounded by open meadow with scattered Route Permit Process trees.The remainder of the property is comprised of wetland.Adjacent land use A Route Permit from the Commission is required before the Project can be constructed. Orono City Hall consists of large-lot,single-family homes to the west and south,wetland to the north, The Power Plant Siting Act(Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216E)and implementing Planning and Zoning Department and a highway interchange to the east rules in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850 establish the requirements for submitting and 2750 Kelley Parkway Long Lake Library processing a Route Permit application.The statutes and rules also establish notice Orono,MN 55356 1865 Wayzata Boulevard West The Project will include replacement of the existing Orono Substation with a new requirements for various stages of the process. Maple Plain Library Long Lake,MN 55365 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and connect the new substation to existing Xcel 5184 Main Street East Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 by constructing a new double circuit 115kV Xcel Energy has requested the Commission that the Route Permit application be Maple Plain,MN 55359 transmission line.The Project is needed to improve local and system reliability,reduce considered under the alternative permitting process in Minnesota Statutes 0 216E.04 the risk of overloads,and allow for additional load growth in the future. and Minnesota Rules parts 7850.2900 to 7850.3900.The Commission has up to six months from the time the application is accepted as complete to process and make a More specifically,Xcel Energy proposes the following for the Project: decision on the route permit according to Minnesota Statute 4 210E.04,subd.7 and •install approximately 2,041 feet of new double circuit 115 kV transmission line and Minnesota Rule 7850.3900,subp.1. structures from the new Orono Substation to the connection point with existing 115 ",' • , , kV transmission Line 0831 at new transmission Structure 076-1; Within 60 days after the Commission accepts the application m .••4 "4 •remove three existing transmission structures(Structures 076,077,and 078) as complete,the Department of Commerce,Energy Facilities A "°P° s ;" and associated 1,030 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission Line 0831 and Permitting(EFP)staff,will hold a public meeting to provide e°•°`0°detl "y' wT"�"° -drxmEncl.115kwa".OWs installing two new structures and approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit 115 information and seek comments from the public.At this _JD-Usti,WOE<Y•w O,e BD kV transmission line to re-route the existing!ane off of residential property and meeting,members of the public may propose additional route -,r Aid wod°daresa.i.... �- �` ,E onto adjacent Huntington Farm Association("HFA")'property adjacent to the BNSF altematives for consideration in the Environmental Assessment �®vLnB°T°.."-vw0 / railroad; that the EFP staff will prepare.Notice of the meeting,including "'°''"'•''41°"'"'x"f.7.7:F110.111610d •disconnect the existing-Line 0831 at transmission Structure 077,install a new double information on the date,time,and location of the meeting, Aaaa. '°a".0re circuit corner structure,and connect the new double circuit 115 kV transmission line and deadline for public comments will be published in the /l'a"r a as.swla, .'' -1'.- from from the new Orono Substation to Line 0831; newspaper and sent directly to persons on the Commission's p `° V' �,,, •installing fiber optic ground wire with the new 115 kV transmission line and the Project contact list maintained for this Project. xew Paday replaced segment of Line 0831; a " t •except for existing switchgear(which will be reused in the new substation),remove After the Environmental Assessment has been completed, the existing Orono Substation and construct the replacement Orono Substation a public hearing(conducted by an administrative law judge • '4 �`' as a 115-13.8 kV transmission substation to accommodate the new 115 kV line from the Office of Administrative Hearings)will be held on the , reea -4, termination and/or ring busby,installing a 28 MVA,118-14.3 kV transformer,adding Project.Any person may speak at the public hearing,present " " , , .. f • 40 ' transfer tri and )lot relaying,installing fiber optic lines for relaying and transfer documentary n �R' �°'' f' p p y g, g p y g ocu entary evade ce,ask questions of Xcel Energy and EFP N a F e°° � � ;,,��,...;...:;:„:::',..,:::::,........-i.:.7.4 trip,installing breakers,reconfiguring line protection,replacing shield wire with fiber staff,end submit comments. � optic shield wire,and related modifications;and .:. •revise as needed line designations,terminals,breakers,relays,and lineprotection Certificate of Need a ' a••I !Ta i-im no : 6 T t a v ° 9 Y ►� ^Talc• -; yd . .� IF` is still the key ingredient. Even if you don't have kids or they're ( K ,l "�i} t•• --" - _ flown the coop, a good school district and proximity to public �,,� moi^ s a,.;1 t transportation and recreation are still the best bets for retaining p�ii Iii i \_ ' . ,," "� ifD value. e '� / /� ' t " If this will be a retirement move,think about the future and seek r_� , �. - out homes on one level,or at the very least,with the master bed- "• i n L. • - . t 4 S `"" room on the ground floor.For practicality's sake,at least one bath- _, , , 4 ,` room should be handicap-accessible or easily remodeled as such. e s. Even if you don't think you'll need it later on,your visitors might ', r+l;I appreciate the convenience. 1 1 If downsizing to you means less maintenance, you may be tempted by town home or condominium living, but be aware o4 1 VINTAGE LINK . ANTIQUES SALVAGE "hidden costs," like annual or monthly homeowners association fees.Check recent association meeting reports to see if there is a building renovation planned,as you could be hit with an assess- ment fee in the future,too. Jpgcia ///��eatine, , , Q y� There are a lot of considerations in advance of your move,so ask an agent enjoy your new Antique Apps a I s a l S for more advice and lifestyle! by Park Lane Estate Sales ; JIM RETTINGER, CRSS We will reveal the value of your family heirloom or garage sale find! 10am-2pm Limit 4 items per person I'll help you solve,the 1Appraisals $5 per itemSorry,no appraisals on stamps,baseball cards,guns or coins. i donated to the Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Historical Society real estate puzzle :- _ �, f If you need more information to Lfaeral Store of Minnetonka help you solve the real estate puzzle, 1/4 mile west of 494 on Hwy 7 952.935.7131 call me at 952-473-7659. I'll be happy to share my knowledge 0 WAY RT S , . with you at no cost cowtu TO B�K� or obligation. BURNS' G• www.waytogosports.net - a - We buy and sell all sorts of \l'-'-J E J sports gear. ,.-. ;I. OP . Ai WI t . i . ' - l , . '. /1j ; eWi!ø'fir i k „(0, ,,, , i , 14 '‘...„ -, 11, 4141111411111111111111r Large tier - .A, Ni All SEASONS. All SPORTS. ....and we payCAII 9300 TWO LOCATIONS! 8028 Olson Memorial Hwy 4755 Hwy 101 Fark P/ace Storage 4 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Minnetonka, MN 55345 ��//ll '` Winnetka & Hwy 55 Hwy 7 & Hwy 101 Minnetrista • Stillwater • Burnsville - • 763-545-9914 952-378-1014 w w w,parkp/aces t 1 • Community Use of Orono Council Chambers/ Meeting Rooms 1. Application on behalf of Minnesota Department of Commerce—Energy Facility Permitting_ (Name of Organization) for use of Council Chambers (specify portion of building/or rooms) 2. Purpose of use Public Meeting on Xcel Energy's Proposed Orono Substation and 115 kV Transmission Line 3. (a)For SINGLE MEETING: On Tuesday the_26th of July (day of week) (date) (month) Hours 4:30 pm to 9:30 pm (b) For SERIES OF MEETINGS: Beginning Ending (date of first series) (date of last series) Hours to 4. Number of persons expected 40 5. Request permission to bring into building: Posterboard maps, easels,handouts, laptop computers. Possibly a projector depending upon availability in the council chambers. The undersigned who is to be in charge of the event is 21 years of age or over. (S)He agrees that (s)he will be responsible to the City for the use and care of the city property. Name: Suzanne Steinhauer (Please print) Address: Department of Commerce, 85 7th Place East, 5th Floor, St.Paul,MN 55101 (Street) (City) (Zip) Home Phone: Work Phone: 651-296-2888 Email: suzanne.steinhauer@state.mn.us iJ Signature: \1 n/ 6. Approved( ) Not Approved( ) X;4 40/0/al1/4 (Signature) (Date) 2750 Kelley Parkway,P.O.Box 66, Crystal Bay,MN 55323 Phone, 952-249-4600/Fax: 952-249-4616/www.ci,orono.mn,us t • RECEIVED r~Ag..";;;;,m4 .� . JUN 2 0 ?_011 CITY OF ORONO STATE OF MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION June 17, 2011 NOTICE OF COMMISSION MEETING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the items listed on the attached agenda will be heard at the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, June 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM. The meeting will be held in the Large Hearing Room, Suite 350, 121 7th Place East, St. Paul, MN 55101-2147 (map and directions available at www.puc.state.mn.us or by calling 651-296-0406 or 1-800-657-3782, option 3). Occasionally items may need to be rescheduled. Commission staff will make all reasonable efforts to notify you if your item is rescheduled. However, if you wish to confirm this hearing date, please call 651-296-0406 or 1-800-657-3782. The Commission hearing rooms have wheelchair access. If other reasonable accommodations are needed to enable you to fully participate in a Commission meeting (i.e., sign language or large print materials), please call 651-296-0406 or 1-800-657-3782 at least one week in advance of the meeting. Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by dialing 711. BY THE COMMISSION Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary www.puc.state.mn.us PHONE 651-296-7124 A 800-657-3782 A FAX 651-297-7073 A 121 7Th PLACE EAST A SUITE 350 A SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-2147 Public Utilities Commission Agenda Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:30 AM start time Utilities represented: Energy Facilities To view all documents related to the following Agenda items, visit eDockets DECISION ITEM 1 E002/TL-11-223 Xcel Energy In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. Should the Commission accept or reject the application as substantially complete? If accepted, should the Commission authorize the Department to appoint a public advisor and an advisory task force? (PUC: Kaluzniak; DOC: Steinhauer) ORAL ARGUMENT AND DELIBERATION ITEMS **2 IP6701/CN-09-1186 AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Need for a 78 MW Goodhue Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County. Should the Commission find that the Environmental Report on this project adequately addresses the scoping decision of the Director of the Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources? Should the Commission grant a certificate of need for the proposed Goodhue Project? (PUC: DeBleeckere) **3 IP6701/WS-08-1233 AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) Site Permit for the 78 MW Goodhue Wind Project in Goodhue County. Should the Commission adopt the Findings of Fact provided by the Administrative Law Judge? Should the Commission grant a site permit to Goodhue Wind, LLC for the 78 MW Goodhue Wind Project? (PUC: DeBleeckere; DOC: Hartman) * One star indicates agenda item is unusual but is not disputed. **Two stars indicate a disputed item or significant legal or procedural issue to be resolved. (Ex Parte Rules apply) 4 v�4111 E STq F Q• T kt,`1858.*°y ST VII OI MINNESOTA Pl_lil.l(: ti TILITIES COMMISSION June 17, 2011 To: Service List, OES Project List From: Burl W. Haar, Executive Secretary Re: In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind,LLC for Certificate of Need for an up to 78 MW Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County. PUC Docket IP-6701/CN-09-1186 In the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a LWECS Site Permit for an up to 78 MW Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County. PUC Docket IP-6701/WS-08-1233 Please take notice that the Commission will hear oral argument by parties and limited public comment in these related matters during the Commission's regularly scheduled agenda meeting on June 30, 2011. The agenda meeting will be broadcast on the interne; it can be viewed by going to the Commission's main webpage at: www.puc.state.mn.us and clicking on the June 30 Agenda link under upcoming events. On the agenda page, click on the blue `watch webcast' icon to view the meeting. Oral Argument Formal parties to the contested case proceeding are allowed an opportunity for oral argument before the Commission pursuant to Minnesota Rule 7829.2700. Parties will be heard in the following order and within the allotted time. Answers to Commission questions will not reduce the allotted time. The Applicant will be allowed a final rebuttal. 20 min. Applicant Goodhue Wind, LLC 15 min. Goodhue County 15 min. Belle Creek Township 15 min. Goodhue Wind Truth 15 min. Coalition for Sensible Siting 10 min. Rebuttal of Applicants Public Comment The Commission is under no obligation to take public comment at this stage in the permitting process. PHONE(651)296-7124•FAX(651)297-7073•TDD(651)297-1200•121 7th PLACE EAST•SuiTE 350•SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-2147 However, due to the significant public interest in this matter, summary public comments will be heard following oral arguments. Comments should be limited to the scope of the additional record created by the Administrative Law Judge and summarized in the April 29, 2011 Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations. The time allotted for each pre-registered presenter will be three minutes maximum. Persons intending to make public comment and also associated with one of the formal parties listed above should expect their positions will be presented during earlier oral argument by their representative. Persons who register to make public comment are encouraged to provide summary positions on the facts in the case record, and are reminded that all earlier public hearing comments are included in the record, summarized in Appendix A of the September 7, 2010 Report of the Administrative Law Judge, and reviewed by the PUC Commissioners in advance of this meeting. Additionally, the Commission heard extensive public comment at its October 21, 2010 meeting prior to referring a limited scope for further hearings to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Applicants will be allowed 10 minutes for summary rebuttal to public comments. Deliberations Upon conclusion of oral arguments, the official record is considered closed. The Commission will then engage in deliberations and may decide this matter the same day. Commission deliberations are conducted in public. However, no additional testimony is taken during the deliberation phase except as a direct and limited response to a specific question from Commissioners to a party. Public Comment Registration • Persons wishing to provide public comment must sign up in advance by either: o E-mailing the Public Utilities Commission: PublicComments.puc@state.mn.us, or, o Calling the Public Utilities Commission: 651-296-0406 or 1-800-657-3782, Option 1. • Please include your name, telephone number and group affiliation, if any. • Deadline to register is Wednesday,June 29,2011 at 9:30 AM. Addressing the Commission • Public comment will be taken in the order in which registration was received; the person registered must be present at the agenda meeting and may not defer time to another registered speaker. • There will be limited time during the agenda meeting allotted for this matter; therefore, registration is not a guarantee to address the Commission. • Persons registered will not be provided more than three minutes to address the Commission. • Please note that all comments from previous public hearings and Commission agenda meetings have been made available for review by the Commissioners prior to this meeting. In addition to the Administrative Law Judge's FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS, issued on April 29, 2011 (currently available in eDockets), briefing papers for the Commission are being prepared by Commission staff and supplemental written comments will be provided by the Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources, Energy Facilities Permitting staff. These documents will be available approximately one week before the Commission meeting date via eDockets under docket numbers 08-1233 and 09-1186. PLEASE NOTE: Ex parte communication is prohibited [Minnesota Statute, Chapter 216A.037]. Ex parte communication is defined as "oral or written, off-the-record communication made to or by commissioners or commission decision-making personnel, without notice to parties, that is directed to the merits or outcome of an on-the-record proceeding." Questions regarding scheduling of this matter may be directed to Commission staff at the email and phone contacts provided above. Communication with staff is allowed for procedural, scheduling and status inquiries, or other inquiries or requests, as long as they have no bearing on the outcome of the proceeding. This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e. large print or audio) by calling 651-296-0406 or 1-800-657-3782 (voice). Citizens with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by dialing 711.