|
(See above links for more information)
Latest Information
 On
December 1, the Dakota County District Court rendered its decision on
the March 4, 2003, the Power Line Task Force's suit against Xcel to require it to obtain
mandated permissions from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and
the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board before proceeding with
construction of the SE Metro Line. We have placed the court's
decision and other information information
regarding this suit to a separate page.
Separately, Sunfish Lake residents have refused to permit Xcel to access
their lands, on the grounds that Xcel's easements do not provide for
access except for minor activities like tree trimming. Xcel has
both
sued the homeowners and
asked for a temporary
restraining order to permit access.
The
Star Tribune ran on April 13, 2003,
a major story on
the Power Line Task Force and the proposed SE Metro Line.
The
Minnesota Appeals Court ruled (on April
9, 2003), that the PLTF appeal of the adverse district court decision is
moot because the issue had been resolved by the settlement agreement
between Sunfish Lake and Xcel.
Here is decision by Judge Rex Stacey that was appealed.
Virtually every fact cited by the Judge is incorrect. There were three written memoranda on this case: 1)
Xcel's original memorandum setting forth its
reasoning, The PLTF
warned the City's
attorneys on April 28 that Xcel had made incorrect factual assertions. The attorneys ignored the
warning. The PLTF attributes the
loss in court the failure of the city's attorneys to address Xcel's
factual misstatements, which were accepted in total by the judge. 2) Sunfish Lake's
memorandum explaining its theory of the case and a
PLTF critique of that
memorandum, and 3) a
reply memorandum from Xcel.
Sunfish Lake and Xcel tried to claim the Stacey could not be appealed.
The Appeals Court
effectively rejected this argument, and allowed the Power Line Task
Force to fully appeal the decision.
The Power Line Task Force did appeal the decision.
The oral arguments for the Sunfish Lake Appeal were presented to the
Appeals Court on January 14. Xcel and the City maintained that the
PLTF could not appeal Judge Stacey's decision `because the Settlement
superceded the decision. The PLTF's attorney claimed that, by
settling without protecting the PLTF's interests, the judge together with
the City and Xcel deprived the PLTF of an enforceable legal right.
Here is a copy of the Task Force's Brief.
Xcel and the City responded to that brief, and the PLTF in turn
responded to
their comments. A decision will be rendered by no later than April
14, but most likely before that date.
The PLTF attorney believes the City can rescind its settlement.
Here is his analysis.
Such a rescission would enhance the PLTF's legal case. However, the
City Council decided to no
The
PLTF attorney believes
the proposed line cannot be built until it receives a site certificate
from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. He further
asserts the line
cannot be built until it receives a Certificate of Need from the Public
Utilities Commission.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press printed on December 17, 2002,
a PLTF letter
that argued Xcel's
proposed new SE Metro power line is unneeded and too expensive.
The Sunfish
Lake City Council
decided on July 2, 2002 to settle with Xcel on the grounds that 1) an
appeal was unlikely to succeed, 2) the city was subject to damages, and 3)
even if it lost, Xcel could reapply to the Public Utilities Commission,
which, the council felt, would approve the line anyway.
Previously, the Council had indicated it would accept the
PLTF offer to absorb
any uninsured city costs for the appeal and damages. Accordingly,
the PLTF had posted $135,250 to cover these costs. This offer was
rejected by the Council. The Council also ignored a petition signed
by more than half the City's voters to appeal the decision.
Nevertheless, the PLTF attorney, Marshall Tanick,
believes the ruling can be
overturned on appeal. Here is a
Sun Current report on the Council's decision. Here is the
minutes of the
first and
second Sunfish Lake Council meetings.
Here
is the settlement that Sunfish Lake executed. It couldn't be
better for Xcel if Xcel wrote the settlement itself. Oh, wait.
Xcel did write the settlement itself.
Only one member of the City Council was reelected in November, and
that member was also the one member who voted against the Settlement.
Additionally, the Mayor, who had vigorously fought to permit the line,
lost his reelection bid.
Xcel has provided information on the approximate location and height of
the poles. This picture shows
these locations and heights.
In
a January 5,
2003, story, the outgoing mayor of Sunfish Lake
blames his defeat on residents who opposed Xcel
Energy's plan to upgrade a power line. The incoming mayor, Molly
Park, characterizes the issue as "done and over," which PLTF's attorney
maintains is not correct.
The
City of Sunfish Lake rejected Xcel's application on the grounds that the
magnetic fields from the line are dangerous, the line would reduce property
values, and the line is not needed. The meetings took place on
February 4 and 5. 2002. Its rationale is spelled out in the
final resolution that contains the city's Findings of Fact. The
City's Planning Commission had previously voted unanimously on
December 13 to recommend rejection of the line.
On February 19, 2002,The Pioneer Press printed an exchange of opinions on
the health impact EMF regarding Xcel's proposed new line. PLTF
president argues
that recent health research shows the line would be dangerous.
Sunfish Lake Mayor Frank Tiffany suggests
the line should be
built in the absence of specific state or federal standards. He
reasons that "Someone's ox has to be gored," so
it might as well be the citizens of his city. Preempting the role of
a judge, Tiffany rules "the court will order us to negotiate a
settlement." He apparently prefers immediate capitulation to a
negotiated settlement.
A
representative of the Minnesota Department of Health testified for Xcel at
the February 4 Sunfish Lake Meeting meeting. The testimony was
incoherent, confused, and consisted almost entirely of unsubstantiated
assertions. The transcript of his testimony is
available here.
There
has been an exchange of letters to the editor in anticipation of the
Mendota Heights meeting. (Sun newspaper 3/6/02)
Mendota Heights engineer
David Herridge notes the line emit higher amounts of magnetic fields
than projected. PLTF president
Roger Conant notes the line could be placed in industrial areas where
it would do no damage and encourages the use of people-friendly solutions.
An Xcel transmission
vice president claims the line is needed, but fails to explain why it
could not be relocated to industrial areas.
The
Planning Commission of Mendota Heights voted unanimously to
recommend denial of Xcel's application to build a new line through that
city. This meeting was the subject of a
report in the Sun Current newspaper.
On
February 20, 2002, the Mendota Heights City Council discussed at length Xcel's application
for a Conditional Use Permit to build a new, double circuited transmission
line through that city.
As
reported in the Pioneer Press,
City
Pages and the
Sun Current (2/27/02), the final decision is scheduled to be
reached at the council meeting of March 7, 2002. At the February 20
meeting, three council members indicated they leaned towards voting to
approve Xcel's application, while two indicated they planned to oppose it.
A number of points were raised by those who favor the line at the February
20 meeting.
Here
is the PLTF response to those points.
On
March 7, 2001, the Mendota Heights City Council by a 3-2 vote denied Xcel's
application for a Conditional Use Permit. The
Pioneer Press and
Sun Current reported on this decision.
In response,
Xcel sued the city.
Xcel lost the suit it launched against Mendota Heights, which tried to rely
upon a technicality to force the city to grant the Conditional Use Permit.
This is reported in the Pioneer Press
and in the
Sun Current.
Xcel appealed this decision. The Appeals Court
found in favor of Xcel, determining that the city did not act within
the 120 days specific under Minnesota Statute 15.99. The PLTF
appealed to the Supreme Court to have the decision reviewed, but the
Supreme Court
declined to consider the appeal.
On June 13, 2001, the South St. Paul Planning Commission
unanimously recommended to the City Council that Xcel's application be
denied.
The South St. Paul City Council
voted 5-2 to deny the line on July 30, 2001, and subsequently
voted unanimously (7-0) on August 6, 2001, to require Xcel to bury the
SE Metro Line as a condition to receiving a Conditional Use Permit.
(Click here for the
resolution.) Furthermore, should the City be required to pay the costs of
the line, the Conditional Use Permit would be automatically denied. Since
Xcel is unlikely to bury the line under these conditions, Xcel's request
was effectively denied.
In
response, Xcel launched a suit against South St. Paul. (Click
here for a
copy of Xcel's complaint and Click
here for the Sun Current newspaper article on the suit.) In this
suit, it maintains 1) South St. Paul violated the state's requirement for
a speedy action by approving its application with unworkable conditions.
Xcel claims this is the same as not making a decision. 2) South St. Paul
did not have the statuary authority to deny Xcel's application, and 3)
South St. Paul's decision was contrary to the facts. Unfortunately, South
St. Paul decided to not fight the suit,
and has agreed to Xcel's demands.
The decisions were made in closed meetings, and no official
information is available on the reasons for this striking reversal in its
decision. However, informed officials state that attorneys retained on
behalf of the city felt the decision to require the line to be buried
exceeded the city's authority, whereas the city would have been within its
authority had it merely rejected the line.
The
South-West Review reports the following in its March 3rd edition regarding
West St. Paul City Council. "In other business last Monday night
[February 25], the city council granted Xcel Energy permission to operate
and repair its electricity distribution system in West St. Paul.
However, the council made some last-minute changes in the wording
of the
ordinance, to prevent the company from installing high-energy power lines
in the city in the future. The move is a precautionary measure,
based on legal disputes in nearby cities over the upgrade of the company's
South East Metro Line."
The
city of Bloomington has indefinitely proposed consideration of its portion
of the SE Metro Line. For details on the proposed line in Bloomington,
click
here and
here. For information on the City Council's action, click
here for the October partial approval and
here for the December deferral.
The city of Albuquerque, NM, is delaying the
construction of a substation because of EMF concerns.
Citizens in Gwinnett County, Georgia,
are requesting a moratorium on power line construction (Nov. 6, 2002).\
Limstrum, MN, is challenging in court Xcel's attempts to avoid
obtaining a required Certificate of Need from the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission, according to
the January 9 edition of the Intercounty Leader.
Responding to
community opposition, on March 16, 2003, Xcel Energy
announced it has come
up with a new plan to carry electricity from Midway to Aurora, Colorado.
In March 2002, Minneapolis-based Xcel unveiled plans to build a
345,000-volt line along Ellicott Highway through Peyton, Ellicott and
Calhan. Hundreds of residents opposed the line, saying the 175-foot towers
would decrease property values, create health hazards and damage the view
of the mountains. Xcel's first plan motivated residents to form the
Eastern Plains Citizens Coalition, a nonprofit corporation that
opposes the line. Bill Miller, vice president of the coalition, said
members are encouraged by the new proposal.
|
Sunfish Lake
