MEMORANDUM

FROM         :         Marshall H. Tanick

TO               :         Power Line Task Force

DATE          :         January 28, 2003

RE               :         MEQB Route Permit

Xcel Energy has announced that in April, 2003 it will begin construction of its planned new double circuit, 115kV, 14.6 mile transmission line in Sunfish Lake and Mendota Heights.  This new line is to be located on the site of its present single-circuit 115 kV line that runs from the Stockyards substation in South St. Paul through the Rogers Lake substation in Mendota Heights, terminating at the Wilson substation in Bloomington. 

Xcel first announced its plans in 1999.  Pursuant to the then applicable law, transmission line siting decisions were subject to local community control.  Accordingly, in the fall of that year, Xcel applied to Mendota Heights for the necessary Conditional Use Permits. In the year 2000, it similarly applied to South St. Paul.  It applied to Bloomington for the requisite permits in September 2000.

As of August 1, 2001, South St. Paul had rejected Xcel’s application, Mendota Heights had yet to rule, and Bloomington had approved a small part of the application.  There had been de minimis or no construction of the planned line, and no application had been made to Sunfish Lake.

            The August 1, 2001, date is important because the statutory framework for siting power lines changed on that date.  The new statute states that:

No person may construct a high voltage transmission line without a route permit from the [Minnesota Environmental Quality] board.  A high voltage transmission line may be constructed only along a route approved by the board...”

--Minn. Stat. §116C.57, subd. 2. 

            The term “high voltage transmission line” is defined as

a conductor of electric energy and associated facilities designed for and capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more.

--§116C.52, Subd. 4.

            Section 116C.52 Subd. 8, defines “Route" as “the location of a high voltage transmission line between two end points.  The route may have a variable width of up to 1.25 miles.”  There is no minimum route length.

There is not, nor has there ever been, a provision for the MEQB’s grandfathering of power lines for which planning was underway before the effective date of the 2001 law.  Xcel has previously claimed that such a provision applied to this line,[1] but the provision it cited applied only to the Public Utilities Commission’s process for establishing a list of priority electric transmission projects, not its certificate of need process.  See Minn. Stat. §216B.2425, subd. 6, and Minn. Stat. §216B.243. 

An attempt was made to have the 2002 Legislature amend Minn. Stat. §216B.243, which relates to the need to acquire a certificate of need for a “large energy facility” from the PUC.  Language was proposed to exempt from the certificate of need process projects for transmission lines with capacities between 100 and 200 kilovolts for which application was pending before a local unit of government, the MEQB, or the PUC on August 21, 2001.[2]  The proposed amendment was struck from the language of the bill before it was passed.[3]

I want to emphasize that the exemption discussed above applies only to the MPUC process, not the MEQB.

Minnesota Statutes §116C.575 provides for an alternative review process by the MEQB.  This process is similar to that provided by §116.57.  In requires that the MEQB issue a route permit, but it has somewhat reduced requirements for documentation.  The “alternative review process,” however, requires the permit applicant to notify the MEQB chair at the time of application whether it wishes to proceed under §116C.57 or §116C.575.  This was not done.

Additionally, Minnesota Statute §116C.576 provides that Xcel could, as an alternate to §116C.57 and §116C.575, apply to the local communities for siting permission.  The communities can, if they choose, request the MEQB to assume jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. §116C.576, Subd.1(b).

Accordingly, Xcel’s failure to apply for, and receive from either the MEQB or the local communities the mandated route permit means any construction on this new line would violate the law.

In my view, therefore, action can and should be taken to prevent any siting or construction of this new transmission line until and unless a route permit is sought and received, from either the MEQB or the local communities as required by Minn. Stat. §116C.57, §115C,575, and §116C.576.

 


[1]               Xcel Energy’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of “Undisputed” Facts, p. xxvi, April 12, 2002.

[2]               H.F. No. 2972, 2nd Engrossment:  82nd Legislative Session (2001-2002) Posted on March 22, 2002.

[3]               H.F. No. 2972, 3rd Engrossment:  82nd Legislative Session (2001-2002) Posted on May 19, 2002.