Comments on SFL Memorandum
Possible Error
One possible error: “Her [Magda Havas] testimony was submitted in written form on videotape, and in a live appearance before the Steering Committee.” [p.15] In fact, the video tape to which you refer was abstracted from the tape of her appearance before the Steering Committee. The Magnas abstract tape, together with her written testimony and a transcript of that testimony (and, indeed of the whole March 22 meeting), was distributed to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission.
Major Observations
New Research’s
Importance
One key point of our presentations is only lightly touched in the Memorandum.
There is an important reason why the MEQB and PUC reached
conclusions sharply different than the findings of the three planning
commissions and three city councils who reviewed much the same issues. The
MEQB and PUC were looking at different research results than the cities—results
we now know were false!
The MEQB and PUC based their findings primarily upon a memorandum done by the MEQB’s John Hines that pointed to a number of studies, most especially the 1996-1997 NRC study. (The Hines memorandum is in the record.)
All of these studies failed to identify a relationship between EMF and disease. Importantly, all have been reversed, both by their original authors, and, separately, by other researchers including Ben Wartenberg (see below). You refer to the new studies on p. 47 without noting they invalidate the PUC and MEQB’s analyses.
Since the studies began to be reversed, there has been only one thorough recent review of the science, and even that review doesn’t pick up some of the most recent studies. That is the report of the California Project. That is why we so strongly emphasis that report.
The California Project concludes it is likely magnetic fields over 4 mG cause a number of serious disease. The California Report is still in draft form, with the final report due out by the end of the month. However, the studies it sponsored are final and have been published in major peer-reviewed journals.
The UK National Radiological Protection Board also picked up some of the reversal of studies, and it too agrees that magnetic fields are associated with increases in cancer. The WHO classification to which you refer was done before the reversals. Even so, WHO (actually, the IARC, which is part of WHO) found after an exhaustive review there was considerable evidence of a link, which is why the WHO characterized EMF as a Class 2 carcinogen.
Here is the point not reflected in your Memorandum. There is solid reason to believe that, if the PUC and MEQB were to look at the issue de novo, it is likely they would no longer reach the same conclusions they reached three years ago, but would rather agree there is evidence of a link that should be addressed.
The MDH has not changed its position. But it has not seriously reviewed the issue. It has not, for example, conducted more than an extremely superficial review of the new literature. That is why its testimony before the SFL City Council was so unconvincing.
The PUC invited us to come back if the evidence changed, and
we will surely do so when the
You mentioned the NIEHS EMFRapid Study and quoted in part from it. This study also is badly outdated. It was based upon a review of research that examined studies completed and published before Summer, 1998. It is therefore four years out of date. Consequently, it also based its findings upon research that subsequently has been reversed. Nevertheless, as you noted, it expressed reservations over the impact of transmission lines. The EMFRapid study is complete and the review effort long since closed down.
The scientists in charge of the research review for the EMFRapid study was Ben Wartenberg. He performed a similar role for the California Project, which, as noted above, concluded that there certainly is an association between magnetic fields and serious disease. Wartenberg is the author of one of the major research efforts (meta-analysis) that reversed the findings of the older studies.
CAI’s Independence and the Selection Process
Two points about CAI. It was not selected by the mayors. It was selected by Xcel. Xcel successfully insisted on controlling the list of consultants from which the mayors could choose. Therefore, Xcel selected a list of candidates (five, I think). The mayors then were able to choose one from Xcel’s list. CAI was first on the list.
Nor, in any sense of the word is CAI “independent,” as Xcel likes to say. It was retained by Xcel to do the design contract for this line before it was selected by Xcel as a candidate for the mayors’ steering committee. (There is ample evidence of this in the record.) Therefore, CAI has always had a direct economic incentive to see the line go through, because only then could it earn its fee for designing the line. It was additionally retained by Xcel after it completed its report to assist in the formulation of Xcel’s application to the City. (This is acknowledged in Xcel’s application.) It periodically reported to Xcel during its study and it was Xcel who paid CAI for its work for the committee. Xcel was in a position to direct CAI’s activities. Given CAI’s additional direct economic incentive to see the line built, anybody who thinks that CAI would not be responsive to Xcel is impossibly naïve.
CAI’s Analysis
You referred to Table 3.1, but failed to note that that table specifically noted that the need for the line was driven by expected increased demand in Bloomington—a demand that can no longer be served by the proposed line. (See the footnote to the table.)
Secondly, it is not necessary to allege CAI’s analysis is no
longer relevant, because even CAI no longer supports its relevance. I send separately a copy of a letter dated
February 2 from CAI’s Dave Shaffer to Mayor Tiffany. It was emailed to me and others by the
mayor. It should be part of the
record. 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
Xcel
has finally applied for a CUP from SFL, and we have had two of three scheduled
public hearings to process the application.
At the hearings, Xcel now states that they are only applying for Phase I
– to double circuit the line from Red Rock to
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
If only Phase I is completed, does it still constitute
the best solution to resolving system deficiencies?
I
have not been in contact with Xcel nor have I attended any of the public
hearings, so I do not know the rational provided by Xcel for building only
Phase I at this time. However, in my
opinion, Phase I would still constitute the best solution since it does
reinforce the power system into the Rogers Lake substation from the Red Rock
345 kV source and it does not preclude future expansion of the system in any
way.
However, the original CAI report does not suggest that a
goal of the proposed line is to reinforce the power system into the
The EMF from the line
In the Memorandum, you note correctly that “Xcel indicated that each of the new lines would actually carry only 400 amps when constructed, thereby reducing EMF emissions” (p. 43). Actually, I am not sure they ever indicated that. What they did was show examples of an 800 amp load being divided into two 400 amp loads.
The present line carries only about 600 amps at peak. Therefore, the numbers to which you refer were presented merely as an example with no suggestion they actually applied to this or any other line.
Of course, we now know that Xcel has hidden from all the planning commissions and city councils the fact that the two circuits on the proposed line will not serve the same substations. One would serve Red Rock and the other would serve the Stockyards substation. Since the lines will not serve the same substations, there is no a priori reason for believing such an even division would occur. More likely would be that, in this example, one line would continue to carry 400 amps and the other line would carry its own additional load.
We only found out the fact the lines would not serve the
same substations in
The Xcel table accompanying the MEQB’s Findings of Fact shows (at the very bottom) that, if the lines are not precisely balanced, much of the reduction in EMF is lost.
You were correct in observing the loads on the line will increase. Xcel agrees, and has put this into the projections used by CAI and presented to the MEQB. The reason that Xcel tried so hard to avoid responsibility for the projections in CAI’s reports (also seen in the appendix to the MEQB Findings) is that the projections show a sharp anticipated growth in the amps going through the line. Therefore, it is not necessary to rely upon conjecture (p. 43) to see the line’s load increasing. Xcel’s own data suggest precisely the same.
After factoring in the facts that the proposed double
circuit line would surely carry a total load greater than the present single
circuit (why have a new line otherwise?) and the fact the loads will not be
balanced, there is no reason to believe
the new line will result in any reduction in magnetic fields, even immediately.
Alternates to the Proposed Line
In the discussion of alternates, you noted that Xcel never
attempted to compromise. It did worse. 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. I494 goes through
If the line were to be built along I494, it would not go near any houses and would pose no risk to health or property values. The I494 alternative might have provided a suitable basis for a compromise solution that would meet everybody’s needs. Xcel in effect subverted meaningful discussions by providing incorrect information.
Other Points
1. 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.
The purpose of the EIR was to replicate the process and
objectives of the EIS using less formal procedures. The communities could have chosen to order a
full EIS. It is within their authority. But the communities decided they wanted a
simpler and quicker process. The
objective of both is the same: to examine alternatives. The name “EIR” was intentionally chosen to
resemble “EIS.” Xcel could have
suggested the MEQB was correct and no further review was needed. Instead, By agreeing to (indeed proposing)
the EIR process, it implicitly agreed the MEQB decision was incorrect and that
an environmental review was needed. Now,
after agreeing the decision was wrong and acting to reverse it, Xcel is trying
to say that the MEQB’s decision denying an EIS preempted further action.
2. I do not personally believe that Xcel segmented the proposal in order to avoid taking the line before the PUC and MEQB, as you suggest. (This might have been a happy outcome, but I don’t think it was a proximate cause). The record pretty clearly indicates they dropped the Rogers Lake-Wilson link because the MAC decided that, since it was going to defer the construction of the new north/south runway, it would no longer require the burial of that portion of the line that goes south of the airport and would not participate in funding the cost.
3. You cite the
Oakdale decision. I have looked at that
in the past. In a footnote, the
4. You refer to Xcel’s characterization as seeking to “add a second circuit transmission line to this 75-year-old single-circuit line.” We now know it is more than “intentionally misleading.” It is an outright misstatement. The new line will, at its eastern end terminate at a complete different location (Red Rock) than the existing line. It is therefore not adding a second circuit to the existing line. It is an entirely new circuit that is being run across the same right of way. That is a precise example of the sort of language that mislead everybody into thinking the new line would balance the old line.
5. The Xcel representative did not merely “announce” for the
first time Xcel did not intend to build the Rogers Lake-to-Wilson segment
(p.23). There was nothing voluntary
about Xcel’s admission. We (the PLTF) found this out independently, and Xcel,
when challenged, granted this was true.
Had we not independently discovered this important fact, it would never have
come out. It may be worth pointing out
that the record shows that construction began on the now-deferred Phase 2 (in
6. I thought the logic on whether Xcel has to apply for a Certificate of Need is very strong (p 26). However, there is an additional point. It is reasonable to assume the legislature meant what it said in this section, that it section does not apply to a given grandfathered proposal. However, Xcel made three separate proposals to the three impacted cities. The three proposals are all intended to advance the same project, of course. But a proposal is different than a project. Thus, I might propose to build a bridge as part of a highway project. That does not turn the bridge into the highway project. (“Proposal” is defined as “to set forth for acceptance or rejection” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary. Therefore Xcel set forth various aspects of its project in three proposals, one to each of the impacted cities.)
If the legislature had truly meant the phrase to apply to all the cities impacted by a specific project, it would have removed the ambiguity by referring to an “application” made to “any” local unit of government for a specific “project.”
7. Regarding the need for the line (p. 30), it is worth noting that Xcel did present its overall load forecasts, which showed that, over the past few years, there had been no growth in peak load demand. (It’s in the record) Furthermore, in its 2001 Annual Report, Xcel presents a projection for its entire system which shows 2002 peak load to be projected to be less than 2001 peak load.
8. On the property value discussion (p. 49-50), it is, perhaps noting that CAI/Xcel’s expert, Collier Towle, was compensated by Xcel for providing its opinions, while our experts provided their opinions without compensation. One of our (uncompensated) experts maintains the database used by CAI/Xcel’s expert. It concluded that Collier Towle misused the database.
9. Each Council member not only received the entire record as you note (p. 54), they received copies of the original and complete version of all the scientific studies to which we referred.
10. You noted Tim Stoddart’s reservation over the chances of winning. His view is not unrealistic. So far, we have lost in South St. Paul and may well lose in Mendota Heights, not because our case isn’t good, but because we are facing in Xcel a foe that has unlimited resources and a taste for relying on technicalities to overturn councils’ decisions. His statement reflected a not unreasonable lack of confidence in the legal system. It also reflects Mayor Tiffany’s frequently repeated assertions SFL would lose in court if it approved the line. Stoddart was probably in part trying to preserve his working relationship with the mayor by lessening the insult of his decision to vote against the Mayor by saying the Mayor may be correct in his projection of the outcome.
Roger R. Conant