CapX 2020 meetings are happening across southern Minnesota, last week, this week..

AND REMEMBER NEXT WEEK’S PUC MEETING  – CERTIFICATE OF NEED!

April 15th & 16th

Oral Argument & Deliberation

PUC – 121 – 7th Place East, 3rd Floor

St. Paul, MN  55101

**************************************

**************************************

Seventy people attended power line meeting in Gaylord

April 9th, 2009

Gibbon area farmers Doug Scherer of Moltke Township (front) and Daryl Wendt of Severance Township (partially hidden) looked over an enlarged map showing the preferred and alternate routes for a proposed 237 mile, 345 kV transmission line that may be constructed in Sibley County. An informational meeting was held at Sibley East Junior High Thursday night.

Approximately 70 people attended at public meeting at the Sibley East School in Gaylord Thursday night about the proposed 345 kV transmission project that could be constructed in Sibley County.

An approximate 237 mile 345 kV transmission line is proposed by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy. The transmission would begin at the state’s western border near Hendricks and end south of the Twin Cities metro area near Hampton.

Two possible routes have been identified – a preferred route and an alternate route. The routes would cross portions of Sibley County, along with Lincoln, Lyon, Yellow Medicine, Chippewa, Redwood, Brown, Renville, Le Sueur, Scott, Rice and Dakota County.

In the Gaylord area, the preferred route would be north of County Road 8 until County Road 13, when it would follow County Road 8 for one mile, and then follow 320th Street.

The alternate route would be north of 246th Street. It would follow County Road 10 from Highway 15, and then follow along County Road 12, then just north on County Road 13 for one mile, and then continue on 220th Street and 206th Street.

The proposed project also includes the construction of four new substations at Granite Falls, New Prague, Franklin and Hampton, and the expansion of four existing substations.

The applicants propose to use 130-175 foot high single structure steel poles. They would require a 150 foot right-of-way for most of the route.

Scott Ek, project manager with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security, said that a permit decision takes about one year. A route is expected to be determined in January 2010. If permitted, construction of the transmission line is proposed to begin in 2011 with completion by 2013.

Thursday’s information meeting was held as part of the Environmental Impact Study scoping, to identify alternatives and issues to be covered in the Environmental Impact Study. Comments are invited until Thursday, April 30 at 4:30 p.m. They may be submitted by mail, e-mail, online through the PUC Web site, or by fax.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security may be reached at 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101. Fax: 651-297-55101.

The PUC Web site is http://energyfacilitiespuc.state.mn.us/publicComments.html.

Public meetings will again be held after the draft Environmental Impact Study is completed.

Craig Poorker of Great River Energy, Senior Field Representative Land Rights, said that the main criteria to determine the proposed routes were the proximity to homes and the impact to agriculture. At previous informational meetings, power line officials were told to stay out of the middle of farm fields, and route on property lines or along the roadways.

Ek said that although a preferred route and an alternate route have been named, at this point, the choices are equal. He said they could be named A or B.

When asked why the railroad right-of-way wasn’t used for routing, Poorker explained that the railroad goes through towns that are five or six miles apart that the power line would have to go around.

Duane Kamrath, who lives north of Le Sueur, said that his home would be within about 40 feet from the proposed power line. He expressed concern about losing the scenic view of the Minnesota River Valley from his home, and the environmental impact at Bucks Lake.

Those attending the meeting were urged to submit their comments about the proposed routes.