Lindstrom challenges Xcel's latest request

Chisago Project affected

01/09/03
by Tammi Milberg
 

LINDSTROM, Minn.–The city of Lindstrom, Minn., along with other parties have filed briefs against a request made by Xcel Energy in November. A deadline for filing briefs was Jan. 6. The city of Lindstrom filed against the request by Xcel Energy to be exempt from providing a certificate of need for a transmission project, also known as the Chisago Project. The exemption was filed by Xcel to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, who will review and make a decision on the request. The decision has already been made by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission for the to move forward. The process in Minnesota differs in that the applicant, Xcel Energy, has to file a certificate of need with their application in each jurisdiction to receive a permit before the project can begin. According to the brief filed by Lindstrom, the city of Lindstrom argues that the upgrade of the existing 69 kV line through the city to a 115 kV line is unnecessary to serve the city's current or projected needs. They also argue that if the exemption is granted to Xcel Energy it "would greatly diminish the information that the applicants would be required to provide as part of their application." The city cites the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 2000. Under the order, the local needs of any entity must be looked at in the broader scope of the system as a whole. The city argues that all requirements for the application for certificate of need should be provided by Xcel Energy including draft environmental report, consumption and demand data and forecasts for each category. The brief further states, "If the commission accepts the applicant's characterization, then the applicants will only be required to disclose demand information on the segregated portion of the system in the affected area. The applicants should not be relieved of their obligation to provide as much of the information, in the prescribed categories, as they internally collect and disseminate. In addition to the requirements, the applicants [should] disclose overall system performance so that demand, generation and transmission can be calculated in order to determine the reliability of the 69 kV transmission line through the city." Other parties have filed briefs against the request by Xcel including the Minn. Department of Commerce, the Minn. Environmental Quality Board and Concerned River Valley Citizens. In order for the project to move forward, approval from both the Minn. Public Utilities Commission, and the Minn. Environmental Quality Board needs to be obtained.

Background The Chisago Project was applied for in 1996 as a 230 kV line running through Chisago County, Minn., through the city of Taylors Falls, Minn., across the St. Croix River, through the city of St. Croix Falls, Wis., and into Polk County, Wis. to the Apple River substation in Amery, Wis. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin initially endorsed the project, while the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board continued hearings. Because of the size of the line and information that PSC members were meeting with Xcel (NSP) representatives, a lawsuit ensued by the city of St. Croix Falls. Taylors Falls also joined the suit and a mediated settlement was reached between the parties.

Another interested group, Concerned River Valley Citizens filed a suit, but pulled out when the mediated settlement was finalized. The result of the mediated settlement agreement was a 161 kV line in Wisconsin and a 115 kV line in Minnesota, the line is to be buried through the cities of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls with minimal lines running across the dam, mitigation funds for improvements to the river valley to be distributed by Xcel Energy to the two cities, removal of the 69 kV line through St. Croix Falls, and visual improvements to the hydro electric dam.

Affects to Chisago Project No build. If the request is denied for Xcel and Xcel cannot provide information as specified for a certificate of need, i.e. prove the need for the line, Xcel wouldn't receive the proper permits to construct the line. If this happens, the mediated settlement agreement between the cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls along with Xcel would be null in void. The result could mean no building of the line. Xcel could not come back with another application.

Build. If Xcel is granted the exemption and can acquire the necessary permits, the line would be constructed as outlined, including the mediated agreement. If Xcel is not granted the exemption but still can show need, the permitting process and line construction would continue.