Dec. 28th – New Prague Public Hearing

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket — posted by admin on December 20, 2009 @ 10:08 am

The evidentiary hearing is essentially over, but there’s one public hearing left to get your testimony in, voice your concerns, enter in all your exhibits and charts with circles and arrows.

New Prague Public Hearing

December 28, 1 p.m. & 7 p.m.

Knights of Columbus

411 – 4th Ave. S.W.

New Prague, MN

And you can send in Public Comments until at least the end of January — the deadline will be one week after publication of the final EIS, which is now delayed, at least two weeks BECAUSE THEY GOT SO MANY COMMENTS!!!  Send your comments to:

Judge Richard C. Luis

Office of Administrative Hearings

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, MN
55164-0620

fax 651-361-7936

e-mail capx.oah.state.mn.us

Here’s a report on the Henderson hearing from the LeSueur News Herald, from the Hog Wild Saloon:

hendersonhearing

CapX hearing is marathon event locally

By: Paul M. Malchow
Posted: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:17 pm

Judge Richard Luis heard roughly eight hours of testimony in Henderson on Dec. 7 concerning the proposed routes for the CapX power line.
Normally a site for wedding dances and community events, the hall of the Hog Wild Saloon and Eatery in Henderson became a quasi courtroom on Dec. 7 for a public hearing concerning the proposed routes for the CapX 2020 power line.

CapX will be constructing a 345kV power line from Brookings, So.Dak. to Hampton, Minn. The group has submitted to the Public Utilities Commission a preferred route for the power line and an alternative route. The public hearing in Henderson was part of a two-week-long series designed to take testimony pertaining to the two routes.

The preferred route directs the line east across southern Sibley County, across the region known as Sand Prairie, and down into the valley. The line would cut across the southeastern edge of Buck’s Lake and continue through the land now occupied by Le Sueur’s water treatment ponds. Continuing north on the west side of U.S. Highway 169 the line would cross the highway somewhere on the top of the hill and continue east across the north edge of Le Sueur County.

The alternate route runs east-west through northern Sibley County. It crosses the river just northwest of Belle Plaine and continues south. After a short jaunt east just south of the Belle Plaine city limits, the alternate route continues south where it intersects with the preferred route. After entering Le Sueur County, the alternate route travels east.

Over the past month the Minnesota Office of Energy Security has taken comments and suggestions for other alternate routes. These suggestions had been included for discussion at the public hearings.

Presiding over the hearings was Administrative Law Judge Richard Luis. Anyone providing testimony during the hearing was sworn to tell the truth. Any written documentation and photos accompanying the testimonies were presented to attorneys present at the hearing. If approved they were then labeled and catalogued as evidence.

Representing the Minnesota Department of Commerce Office of Energy Security was attorney Karen Hammel and Project Manager Scott Ek. Lead counsel for Xcel Energy and Great River Energy Lisa Argimonti was present at the hearing along with attorney Carol Overland who represents two citizen groups: No CapX 2020 and U-CAN.

Also available to answer questions were Mike Kaluzniak from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Craig Poorker who is the manager of land rights for Great River Energy, and Dr. Peter Valberg who is serving as a consultant for Great River and Xcel.

The Henderson hearing took place in two segments. The first round of testimony was received from 1 p.m. to about 6 p.m.; and the second round was conducted from 7 p.m. to about 11:30 p.m.

Testimony given throughout the day covered a wide range of topics. James Mayer of Winthrop noted a proposed segment of the power line could run near an existing pipeline in Sibley County. Mayer asked if static electricity from the power line would have an adverse effect on the pipeline – mainly possible corrosion on the inside lining of the pipe.
(more…)



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace