Sherburne, that triangle shaped county bordering the Mississippi River, and home of the Sherco coal plant, woke up recently to the CapX 2020 nightmare.

345kv line placement has county folk worried

By Gary W. Meyer, Editor

An alternative route for the line through northwest Sherburne County, once considered a remote possibility, seems to be more a favored option, given discussions before the county board of commissioners Tuesday.
Lynn Waytashek, assistant zoning administrator, was called before the board to update them on the issue.
Her news wasn’t the best.
Alternate D, that follows and existing line running through Haven, Clear Lake and Becker townships, somehow had become the least-costly route for Xcel. The chatter, although not confirmed by Xcel, was that it had become a primary route. Xcel officials recently reported the line would cost $60; cost reductions for the Sherburne County alternative route now had it set at $53-$54 million.
This is in spite of the fact the line would have to cross the river – first from the west into Haven Twp. and secondly – from Xcel property at Becker back across the river to the Monticello nuclear plant.
Waytashek told the Tribune following the meeting the draft environmental review statement (EIS) would continue to be reviewed by administrative law Judge Beverly Jones-Heydinger, who has conducted local hearings on the matter.
She has until late May to render a decision on a route for the line. Following that, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would be charged with a final decision, likely to come this summer.
Sherburne officials, though never invited to be part of the discussion process, finally became involved when Commissioner Felix Schmeising testified before a Clearwater area hearing in early March.
Argument of the locals was for Xcel to keep the line along I-94 through Stearns and Wright counties to Monticello, as it would travel adjacent to the freeway from Fargo to that point.
Four routes were set in early decision-making, with three of them along or adjacent to I-94 to Monticello.
Waytashek said her office has attempted to talk to Darrin Lahr, Xcel spokesman, but he was unavailable to provide further information for the commissioners.
The county officials will continue to seek a meeting with Lahr. Meanwhile, County Attorney Kathy Heaney was asked to study legal procedures which might be available to defend against a Sherburne County line siting.
The county does have the Minnesota DNR on its side in the issue; the DNR is opposed to any unnecessary crossing of the Mississippi River by the line, it was reported Tuesday at the meeting.
Reaction from Schmeising and Commissioner Ewald Petersen to the local-line news was not good.
“We need to get our local legislators in and cry ‘foul’,” said Schmeising. “This is absolutely absurd!
“Hopefully we have made enough of an effort.”
“There’s an odor coming from Denver (Xcel’s headquarters),” said Petersen. He questioned Xcel’s statements they do not have enough land on their Monticello plant site to handle all their issues.
More so, why would they expect a route that travels across the river twice and through Sherburne County cost less than their I-94 routes? he asked.
“This is either a huge folly – or a strategic masterful art,” said Schmeising.

There is no “Route D” in the Scoping Decision (see p. 8 for list of those alternative routes to be covered in the DEIS).  Hmmmmm…  maybe it had another name then?  From the DEIS, “Route D” is described as:

Route D follows the existing Osseo-Monticello-St Cloud 115kV line north out of the Monticello Substation for a distance of approximately 1.75 miles. It then follows a field line northwest for approximately 0.6 miles until it meets back up with the Osseo-Monticello-St Cloud 115kV line.  The route continues along the 115kV line for several miles until it reaches a GRE 115kV line in Haven Township. The route follows the GRE line west and southwest for a distance of approximately 0.7 miles. The route continues southwest until it reaches I-94. At I-94 the route proceeds to the northwest following I-94 until it reaches the ramp for MN-23. At the MN-23 ramp the route heads northeast and north until it reaches MN-23. The route then follows MN-23 to the proposed substation site.

df