Memorandum
To:
From: Roger R.
Conant, President, PLTF
Date:
Re: Misstatements
In its documentation sent to
We have always understood we have no innate credibility, and therefore have tried to substantiate all our claims with relevant documentation. We have reviewed our statements as criticized by Xcel, and continues believe that they are accurate. However, you do not need to take our word for it. We encourage you to check them out for yourselves. We always provide copies of the original research to which we refer. That’s why you have received such an immense volume of literature.
We are confident that, after reviewing the full studies, you will determine we have properly represented the studies that we summarized.
We are not saying we have not made mistakes. We probably have, although none so egregious that we have been asked as yet to make a correction.
We are a mere handful of people doing our best to develop the relevant facts. Xcel has essentially unlimited resources. It should therefore be held to the highest standards of accuracy.
Since Xcel brought up the subject, we think it is appropriate to document important instances where Xcel has been factually incorrect.
1. Xcel and CAI have consistently claimed the new line is needed because of increases in demand. The attached chart is the same as the chart in your packet, except it focuses on the five year period immediately preceding Xcel’s applications for CUPs. For the relevant period, instead of the claimed increase, the area’s peak demand for electricity was unchanged or perhaps even exhibited a slight decrease.
2. At the second Sunfish Lake Planning Commission meeting, Xcel asserted there were 17 households within 50 feet of the Southeast Metro Line. Under persistent questioning from Attorney Kuntz, Xcel conceded that CAI’s Table 7-1 (Exhibit 5 in the packet we distributed to you previously) shows there are 208 households within that distance.
3. As noted in the
packet we sent you, Xcel is using 75 foot rights of way for its new lines in
Mr. Callahan: We could get by with a 50-foot right-of-way,
but it goes to land use. In the rural
areas where it’s primary—in this are I believe it’s primarily agricultural
usage. Whether it’s 50 or 75 doesn’t
have that much effect on the utilization of the land. It’s still used for agricultural. The cost of acquiring a 75-foot right-of-way
is not that much different whether it’s 50 or 75 feet.
So in
terms of land use, we purchase 75 feet.
When we get into the metropolitan area where land is very expensive,
land is not as readily available and we have crews available to maintain the
line where we can monitor the lines more closely and the cost are much high to
acquire land, we feel it’s more appropriate to minimize our right-of-way to
acquire what is necessary and not to go beyond that. (Transcript: pp. 38-39)
We asked Xcel to provide examples of new urban lines being
built on 50-foot rights of way. In their
response (Exhibit 2), Xcel cited four instances:
In short, Xcel was unable to validate any part of its lengthy, detailed assertion.
4. We show in the
packet that Xcel’s load projections demonstrate the magnetic fields emitted
from the proposed line will soon return to the current levels. Our data were based upon CAI’s Table 3-1 in
Volume 1 of its detailed report. This reliance
on Table 3‑1 led to a long dialog between Xcel representatives and
Mr. Kuntz (Sunfish Lake Attorney): What I want to know, do you have a projection
of power line for the year 2020 that you’ve submitted to our planning
commission or anyplace else other than what we’ve got at table 3-1 because then
we would like to look at it and understand it more.
Mr. Gonzalez (Xcel transmission engineer): I don’t know
of any specific load forecast going out that many years.
Mr. Perry (Briggs and Morgan attorney representing
Xcel): Are you suggesting, Tim, that by that question that the 2020 number here
came from Xcel?
Mr. Kuntz:
Well, if you look at the page, that’s what it says, and I’ve asked him
is that wrong—
Mr. Perry: I
think the question is the initial – my understanding is the initial numbers
came from Xcel, but when you start extrapolating out, that’s not coming from
Xcel.
…
Mr. Kuntz: Jack Perry says that Commonwealth must
have extrapolated and all I’m asking is do you know whether you did or whether
it was Commonwealth’s extrapolation.
Mr. Gonzalez:
I believe it was a Commonwealth extrapolation, the 2020 because we
really don’t do planning that far out because forecasting isn’t that accurate
that far out. (Transcript pp. 122-123)
The projections in Table 3-1 are
precisely the same projections shown in the table accompanying the EQB’s Findings of Fact adopted
Accordingly, the projections must have been prepared by Xcel no later than mid-1999. Xcel expressed no reservations about the data when presenting it to the EQB.
Xcel’s elaborate and lengthy denial of responsibility for the projections was wrong. The projections were prepared by Xcel and used by it in official documentation.
5. Xcel maintained at the Planning Commission
that the only reason it was burying the line in
Mr. Callahan: The issue in
We provided you a map of the proposed line in
6. Xcel is attempting
to conceptually divide the line into two parts, Phase 1, which stretches from
This also resulted in a lengthy discussion between Attorney Kuntz and Xcel at the first Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Kuntz: Do you have a position as to whether you need
a Certificate of Need from the Public Utilities Commission?
Mr. Callahan: [T]he
Certificate of Need is applicable to lines that are over 100 kV in voltage
under the new amended Power Plant Siting Act and over 10 miles in length. This project from Red Rock substation to
Mr. Kuntz: How come the Commonwealth report listed it as
14.7?
Mr. Callahan: I guess you’d have to ask Commonwealth that
question. What they did though is my
understanding –
Mr. Kuntz: I’m not trying to trick you. I’m just saying I read 14.7 which seems to me
is more than 10 and now you’re telling me it’s less than 10.
Mr. Callahan: I believe what they did is they counted the
mileage of Phase 1 and Phase 2, but in terms of Certificates of Need in the
Siting Act, the Phase 1 is a stand-alone project. This project will be built. Phase 2 is something that will be addressed
in the future, and as of now, there’s not a project.
…
Mr. Kuntz: Has the state said that this is just one
phase, one line 10 miles even though everybody knows it’s supposed to be only
the initial phase?
Mr. Callahan: That discussion was held with the
Environmental Quality Board when we did the environmental review. Because of their rules, you have to make a
determination as to what is the project.
We indicated to them at the time that this was a two-phase project; that
this was a stand-alone project regardless if we ever built Phase 2, and that
this was necessary… And the EQB at the time indicated that they understood that
this was a stand-along project even though we were doing environmental review
that anything found in Phase 2 – I’m not sure exactly what the ruling was, but
they said that they have done phase projects. (Transcript p. 24-25)
The problem with the explanation is that it is totally wrong. Xcel’s original documentation to the EQB was its Environmental Assessment Worksheet. We have asked to have this made part of the record, for it shows Xcel never mention a word in the EAW about a Phase 1 or Phase 2.
In its Findings of Face (Exhibit 4), the EQB describes the project. The EQB clearly is envisioning one project, not two phases. According to the Findings:
The 14.7 mile project
alignment begins at the Red Rock Substation in
We must admit confusion as to why Xcel is distorting the
truth in an attempt to avoid the new provisions of the Power Plant Siting Act,
when its attorney Harold Bagley stated at the
7. At the Sunfish Lake City Council’s December
18 meeting, Xcel misrepresented the status of the
MR. DUNNING: You are burying one near the airport, right?
MR. CLINE (Pat Cline, Xcel’s Community Relations Manager for the South
Central Metro Area): Yes.
We
have provided you documentation (Exhibit 11) of the Bloomington City Council
agenda of December 3, in which the Xcel application was indefinitely postponed. In one of the transcripts quoted above, David
Callahan agreed that the so-called Phase 2 may not be built for years. December 18 is almost two weeks after the
Xcel
also mischaracterized who will pay for the
MR. DUNNING: That's being surcharged to whom?
MR. CLINE: The MAC and the City of
We
have also provided you documentation (Exhibit 8) of the Bloomington City
Council minutes of October 16 where it is stated the cost will be shared
between Xcel,
8. Xcel has frequently maintained the city would automatically be subject to a surcharge if the line were buried. Here is an example from the December 18 Sunfish Lake City Council meeting of an interchange exploring this issue:
MR. CLINE: Pat Cline, community relations manager for Xcel Energy. There is
a process before the Public Utilities Commission called a surcharge tariff, and
it's a vehicle for interested parties who ask to bury power lines and this
particular tariff distribution line, and if it's a city that's requesting and
they agree to have the ratepayers of Xcel in that city pay for if, we would put
a surcharge on their bills. So you take the product and divide it by a
reasonable number of years based on a formula in the tariff, and then you apply
that to each person's bill per month…
----
MS. FARIS: Then this is just a very specific question, but do you have an
idea if you do this rate thing, do you have some sort of an amortization of the
entire bill and what would that be?
MR. CLINE: Yes, that's true. It would be worked out for over some period of
years, months if you will. I asked for a very if you will rough estimate of
what that would be for a given ratepayer in
We
have provided you in the packet (Exhibit 1) of Xcel’s explanation of its
compliance filing in which describes the process by which the PUC will allocate
the costs for a city-ordered burial of a transmission line. It is apparent from the documentation that
Xcel is well aware the allocation of these costs is an open matter. In addition, at the last Planning Commission
meeting, Xcel said that there is a $4.50 maximum on surcharges, so that, even
if the PUC were to order one, Xcel would never accept it in
9. We have presented Xcel data (Exhibit 5) that show there are only 48 metro-area houses within 50 feet of a transmission lines except for the SE Metro Line’s 208 residences. This information was provided to the Steering Committee in response to our request for a listing of such homes. Xcel asserted at the Steering Committee this was a complete list. This made sense, because Xcel was aware it was our objective to show the SE Metro Line is unique in terms of its nearness to homes. It therefore had every incentive to show many homes were near transmission lines.
Xcel maintained at the last Planning Commission Meeting that the list was not complete and was only intended to be a sample of the total number of homes. We do not think this assertion is true because, in the context, this makes no sense. What purpose would Xcel have in giving the Steering Committee a partial list of homes when its objective was best served by showing a maximum number of homes near lines? We believe Xcel was correct when it told the Steering Committee the list was intended to be complete.
10. At the February 4 City Council meeting, Xcel made several assertions regarding the sharing of cost for burying the lines.
a)
Xcel previously denied it was planning to share in the cost of burying
the line in
Vern Wilcox (952-854-1425) is an engineer and a long-time Bloomington City Council member. He says, “that may be the spin they are putting on it now,” but in fact the cost sharing arrangement came out of negotiations between the city, MAC, and Xcel. The city had negotiating leverage because was playing hardball and refusing to let the project proceed, thereby threatening to delay the MAC runway construction. There was no issue of EMF regarding the proposed line, which is not near residences.
b)
Xcel is planning to bury transmission lines in
Steve Johnson is the Minnesota DNR
River Supervisor for that portion of the
Therefore, according to Supervisor Johnson, there is no requirement to bury the currently proposed line from bluff to bluff. He states the line is being buried in the cities “because the people wanted it.”
c)
Xcel claimed an additional reason the line was being buried in
Bret A. Eknes is a rate analyst with the Minnesota PUC (651-296-8667). He states that Xcel has yet to apply for a Certificate of Need for that line, and, therefore, the PUC has had no contact with Xcel regarding that line, and has never commented on how or where the line should be constructed, or if it should be buried.