Findings addressed by Xcel, but not Greene in spite of PLTF warning

Judge’s Finding	Xcel Memo	PLTF Warning	Greene Memo
There are only two possible transmission line routes through Sunfish Lake	City elected not to adopt the other alternative route through the City—i.e., along Highway 110 and Delaware Ave. There is no alternative to the proposed line (p. 12) On December 12, 2001, City Council discussed and rejected (4-0) the only other alternative route to that proposed by Xcel Energy.	[T]he 110 route…is not the only available route through the city, as the I-494 is also available…There are many alternatives to the proposed line. (Comments on Xcel p.3 and 4), Xcel and CAI repeatedly suggested something that either knew or should have known was not true: they repeatedly stated the line could not be built along I494. (Comments on SFL Memo, p. 4)	(Not addressed)
In order to counter the information offered by Collier Towle, PLTF members submitted three letters from metro area realtors to the Planning Commission and City Council…. It was unreasonable for City to ignore City Collier Towle's uncontroverted expert opinion, especially in light of the fact that City selected them to prepare it	To support its finding of property value diminution…City relies on…three real estate agents’ anecdotal opinion…(p.xxvii)	One of our (uncompensated) experts maintains the database used by CAI/Xcel’s expert. It concluded that Collier Towle misused the database. (Comments on SFL Memo, item 8) [The reference here is to real estate appraisal specialists, Capital Appraisals.]	(Not addressed)
City has determined that the Project will reduce existing EMF levels by as much as 80%	In fact, City’s EIR Report found the project would dramatically reduce the EMF levels. (pp. xi and 17)	Not true. First, Xcel had disguised the fact that the proposed second circuit would not serve the same substation as the existing circuit. This was only learned at the Mendota Heights hearing. Therefore, the loads on the two lines will not be balanced, and it is not therefore known if there will be any significant cancellation effect from having balanced loads. Secondly, the new lines are rated at 1600 amps each (as opposed to a typical flow of 600 amps through the current line). If utilized at their capacity, the new proposed line would yield dramatically higher magnetic fields than the existing line. [Although not commented by the PLTF, there is no data in the record to support the 80% conclusion.]	(not addressed)
The Project has been subjected to environmental review by the MEQB and MPUC. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has also reviewed it. MEQB staff conducted a review of recent developments in scientific literature regarding EMF including the National Research Council and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences reports released in 1999[8] and concluded that "the current evidence does not indicate that the electric and magnetic fields expected from transmission lines represent a potential for significant environmental effect." Id., Finding 19.	City is bound by these state agencies. (p.18) The municipalities with jurisdiction over the proposal, notably City, are otherwise bound by MEQB’s decision on the project.	The MPUC and MEQB conclusions were based upon studies that are now known to be wrong. The city is under no obligation to ignore the scientific evidence refuting the earlier studies merely because that suits Xcel’s convenience. As for the MDH, the city listened carefully to its representative who testified before the Council. It did not find the representative’s testimony to be convincing. The MDH has no special experience or authority regarding magnetic fields, nor has it conducted any significant review. (Comments on Xcel memo p. 3). The PUC and the MEQB reviewed the SE Metro Line three years ago. You correctly noted that neither was reviewing whether the line should be approved. Had the MEQB approved the EIS, it still would not have passed judgment on the line because it did chose to not appoint itself the Responsible Government Unit (RGU). As a result, the audience for the EIS would have been the same city councils that have reviewed the line. (Comments on SFL Memo p.5)	Not specifically addressed, although the Greene memo did note the MPUC addressed the issue of shutting down the existing line and that the MEQB suggested local communities should deal with the issue.

Findings addressed by Xcel, but by neither the PLTF or Greene

Judge’s Finding	Xcel Memo		Comment	Greene Memo
The existing line does not meet Xcel's double contingency planning requirements,		City attorney admits that City’s EIR Report concludes that the project…is needed to satisfy Xcel Energy’s double Contingency Requirement	Statement from PLTF’s consultant, MSB Associates, says double contingency inappropriate here.		Not addressed
City's zoning code provides, "[a]ny established use or building legally existing prior to the establishment of this Ordinance and which is therein classified as a conditional use may be continued in like fashion and activity. Therefore, Xcel's 75-year-old transmission line has "automatically-received conditional use approval.		City’s Ordinance does not allow for denial. (p. 10)	This does not mean the new line benefits from the grandfathering of the old line.  The key word here is “like.”  The amount of “activity” (as measured by current) would double under the line, and the doubling of the circuits could be construed as not continuing in like fashion.		Not addressed

Finding addressed by only by the PLTF

Judge’s Finding	Xcel Memo	PLTF Warning	Greene Memo
Recognizing that the Gonzales report contemplated an upgrade of the entire Red Rock to Wilson line, City sought an opinion from CAI on the need for the 6.36-mile phase one. By letter dated February 2, 2002, David A Shafer, Electrical Systems Engineer for CAI, responded to the question, "Does limiting the project to Phase I change the need for the line?" by writing, "In my opinion, limiting the project to Phase I would not change the need. This allows the utility to build the project between Red Rock and Rogers Lake now, and still have the future option to build between Rogers Lake and Wilson and, thereby, end up with the same ultimate transmission development."	(not addressed)	In this letter, CAI’s engineer Shaffer does not defend the original conclusions, but, without explanation, suggests that the project is still needed because it does “reinforce the power system into the Rogers Lake substation…and it does not preclude future expansion. .. However, the original CAI report does not suggest that a goal of the proposed line is to reinforce the power system into the Rogers Lake substation (which is already served by lines from the north, east, west, and two from the south). The purpose according to CAI’s analysis is to strengthen weak points in the whole system. These weak points are some distance from the Rogers Lake substation. The fact that he would propose this as a purpose indicates he realizes his original analysis is no longer valid. (Comment on SFL letter, p. 3)	(not addressed)

Findings addressed by neither Xcel, the PLTF, or Greene

Judge’s Finding	Xcel Memo		Comment	Greene Memo
City surveyed the residents of Sunfish Lake (RD 100) and found that most of them would not favor an alternative that resulted in substantial costs to them. Id; Finding 42.		not addressed	The poll did not address and the finding did not describe funding alternative routes.  Rather, the poll asked about working to oppose the proposal.  Finding 42 reads, “The March 2000 questionnaire asked whether residents would be willing to assume an annual financial commitment to actively work to oppose or change Xcel’s transmission line proposal.  Of the 103 respondents, 57 stated they would be willing to make a commitment of five years; of these, 34 would agree to an annual commitment of more than $500.”  The poll said nothing about favoring or not favoring a proposal to finance an alterative.		not addressed
Virtually no one testified before any responsible governmental body to a lack of need for the Project.		not addressed	PLTF President and Engineer Dave Herridge testified at length on the issue of need		not addressed