PUC Procedures
Once a utility has selected a specific transmission project to address an identified inadequacy, numerous requirements regarding public notice will commence. For the smaller projects, the utility may decide, or even be required, to apply to a local unit of government for a conditional use permit or other authorization. Local officials will have significant input into a final decision on the project in such a situation.
In other cases, with larger projects, a Certificate of Need and a Route Permit will be required from the Public Utilities Commission. The Commission requires an applicant for a Certificate of Need for a high voltage transmission line to file a proposed Notice Plan for notifying the public about the proposed project. Minnesota Rules part 7829.2550. With a Route Permit, notice requirements are spelled out right in the rule. Minnesota Rules parts 7850.2100 and 7850.2300. These requirements include mailing notice to certain individuals and publishing notice of the project in local newspapers. Any person who wants to learn more about a project or desires to comment upon a project and to let governmental officials know of his or her concerns will have an opportunity to do so before the PUC will make a final decision.
4.2 Webinars
In September 2009 the utilities held
six webinars, once for each Transmission Planning Zone.
Each webinar consisted of a number of power point slides
with narration by utility representatives. Each webinar
began with an overview of the transmission system and
general planning techniques, followed by a discussion
of each transmission inadequacy in the zone by Tracking
Number. The webinar presentations are available in their
entirety at www.minnelectrans.com. Persons who missed
the presentation when it was given can watch the presentation
at any time by going to the webpage and following the
instructions for logging on to the particular webinar
of interest.
Interested persons were able to log on
to the webinar on their home or office computers through
use of their e-mail. The only information that is available
about each registrant is the name of the person who logged
in. It is not possible to know how many people were listening
at that person’s computer or whether the registrant
represented a particular group or organization, unless
the person asked a question or was known to the utility
representatives.
The following is a summary of each of
the webinars.
4.2.1
Twin Cities Zone
The webinar for the Twin Cities Zone
was held on Monday, September 14, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
Nineteen people logged in to the presentation. At least
half of the registrants can be identified as utility
employees or state agency people.
After a general discussion of transmission
planning, utility representatives discussed each of the
Tracking Numbers reported for the Twin Cities Zone. Each
utility with transmission facilities in the Twin Cities
Zone had a representative present to describe any projects
under consideration by the utility and to respond to
questions. Several questions were asked via e-mail. Some
questions related to transmission needs for possible
new generation sources, and one question had to do with
transmission needs in south Minneapolis.
4.2.2
Southwest Zone
The Southwest Zone webcast was held on
September 16 at 1:00 pm. Twenty-two people participated
in the webinar and four people attended in person. After
the general presentation, the only questions were from
representatives of the Upper Sioux Community who were
interested in learning more about the possibility of
a line from Granite Falls to the Southwest Twin Cities
area. An Xcel Energy representative explained the recent
studies completed by utilities about potentially upgrading
the existing 230-kV line to a 345-kV line to increase
wind generation outlet. After the webinar concluded,
one in-person attendee asked a question about the status
of specific transmission projects identified in the past
for a generation interconnection project and another
who owns land near the Lakefield Substation recounted
his experiences with utility representatives on a recently
completed transmission project.
4.2.3
West Central Zone
The West Central webcast was presented
at 1:00 p.m. on September 17. Nineteen people attended.
After the presentation, several questions were asked
about the Green Power Express, distributed generation,
placing peaking plants near wind turbines (to increase
access to the transmission grid for small wind projects),
and if electric vehicles are figured into transmission
and load planning, and a comment suggested that the West
Central Zone is missing out on wind generation potential
because of a lack of transmission access. Utility representatives
responded to each question.
4.2.4
Northwest Zone
The webcast for the Northwest Zone was
held on September 16 at 10:00 a.m. Eighteen people logged
on, many of whom were utility personnel or regulatory
staff. Two questions were asked via the webcast chat
function, both of which were about the status of the
CapX 2020 Fargo-St. Cloud/Monticello project.
4.2.5 Northeast
Zone
The webcast for the Northeast Zone was
held on September 15 at 10:00 a.m. Sixteen people logged
on, many of whom were utility personnel or regulatory
staff. No questions were asked after panelists presented
the general transmission planning information and the
zone-specific projects.
4.2.6
Southeast Zone
The Southeast Zone webcast was conducted
on September 17 at 10:00 a.m. and had twenty-two attendees
on the webcast and four in-person attendees. After the
general presentation and zonal project presentation,
three questions were asked and responded to, one about
Phase II of the Distributed Renewable Generation study
and its impacts on Phase I sites; another about Big Stone
II and the impact on CapX 2020 if Big Stone II is cancelled,
and another about the benefits of reconductoring lines
vs. building new ones for wind interconnection.
4.3
Recommendations for Improvement in the Biennial Transmission
Projects Report Process
Zonal Meetings. The
utilities appreciate the fact that the Commission granted
a variance from the requirement to hold an annual public
meeting in each Transmission Planning Zone over the past
two years. Minnesota Rules part 7849.0900. The zonal
meetings for the Biennial Transmission Report process
have never been well-attended. Despite significant effort
and large expenditures, the zonal meetings failed to
attract more than a handful of people. Unfortunately,
holding webinars instead of public meetings did not increase
the attendance a great deal, and while the webinars were
less costly than traveling around the state for zonal
meetings, the webinars still resulted in significant
expense (on the order of $30,000), primarily for publication
of notice in newspapers in each zone. The utilities request
that the Commission continue to exempt the utilities
from this requirement, either through the granting of
another variance or the amendment of the rule.
Planning Activities. The
number of individuals in the general public who are interested
in transmission planning in this state is quite small.
The utilities can identify on the www.minnelectrans.com
webpage the major transmission planning studies that
are underway and provide a link where people can sign
up to receive notices of planning meetings for studies
of interest. Also, notice of upcoming planning activities
could be posted on the webpage. Recently, the final reports
of major transmission planning studies have been posted
there and this practice can continue in order to provide
a convenient, public location for dissemination of transmission
information.
Specific Projects. The
PUC rules (part 7849.1000) require the utilities to invite
local government and tribal governments and agencies
and other organizations to designate a liaison to be
involved in planning activities with the utilities. These
groups have not responded to the invitation. Local and
tribal government and state agencies have not participated
in general planning activities on a state-wide, or even
a zone-wide, basis. But they are often interested in
local projects. It makes sense, then, to devote efforts
to contacting officials directly about specific situations.
Indeed, that is what is done now. The utilities will
continue to work with local officials to establish mechanisms
that work best in individual situations to keep local
officials and residents advised of developments and to
provide opportunities for input into the process at an
early stage.
Internet. The
Internet is a wonderful tool to provide notice in a timely
fashion and to provide ready access to information. The
MTO group has begun to enhance the use of the Internet
by redesigning the www.minnelectrans.com website, posting
studies and zone specific information throughout, and
providing background on the transmission system and transmission
planning processes. The utilities will continue to look
for ways to utilize the Internet to get information to
the public. The Commission, as well, can consider ways
to utilize its Internet capability to encourage the public
to get involved in transmission issues.
Certification. The
statute directs the Commission to adopt a list of certified
high voltage transmission line projects by June 1 of
each even-numbered year. A transmission line shall be
certified as a priority project if the Commission finds
that the line is necessary to maintain or enhance reliability,
is needed, and is in the public interest. Minnesota Statutes § 216B.2425,
subd. 3. The intent of the legislation was to expedite
the process for certifying high priority transmission
lines.
In practice, however, the procedural
and substantive requirements the Commission established
in Minnesota Rules chapter 7848 for certifying priority
transmission lines do not provide any advantages over
the usual Certificate of Need requirements. Minnesota
utilities elected to follow the certification requirements
specified in chapter 7848 in only one reporting biennium.
As part of the 2005 Biennial Report, Minnesota Power
and Great River Energy requested certification of the
Tower line (Tracking Number 2003-NE-N1) and the Badoura
line (Tracking Number 2003NE-N3). In 2007, and again
with this 2009 Biennial Report, no utility has opted
to pursue the certification option recognized by section
216B.2425.
The Minnesota Transmission Owners invite
the Commission to take another look at the process that
is employed to determine whether a particular transmission
line project qualifies for priority certification. The
Commission could establish a mechanism for identifying
priority transmission projects as part of the Biennial
Report so that between November 1, when the Report is
submitted, and June 1, when the Commission is directed
to adopt a state transmission project list, the Commission
can evaluate the project and compare its features with
the criteria required in the statute for a priority classification.
The Commission could make a general determination
regarding what kind of transmission projects are eligible
for an expedited certification project. Perhaps load
serving situations, or transmission for renewables, are
the type of projects that lend themselves to a shorter,
less comprehensive review that what is required under
a full-blown Certificate of Need proceeding. Perhaps
the Commission could establish a voltage limitation,
so only lines under 345 kV were eligible for certification
rather than a Certificate of Need, or even a length limit
so that certified lines could not be more than a certain
number of miles long. This approach would be similar
to the distinction that is made for the routing of transmission
lines, where an alternative, more expedited process has
been established for certain smaller lines. Minnesota
Rules parts 7850.2800 to 7850.3900.
Once the minimum qualification criteria
were established, the Commission could determine the
extent of the information that must be included in the
Biennial Report on a particular project for which certification
is sought. It is probably not necessary, for example,
to require an econometric load forecast for a load serving
problem in a small area, when other more generic load
forecasting and resource planning data would suffice
in that situation. Also, this approach would eliminate
the step of a separate exemption proceeding that usually
takes several months to complete. Of course, the Commission
could also establish a mechanism for determining that
a particular project did not qualify for the certification
process, and a Certificate of Need, with everything that
a CON requires, was more appropriate.
Importantly, the biennial reporting process
lends itself to sufficient opportunity for the public
to participate in the certification of a particular project.
A utility seeking certification could notify local officials
and citizens in the area of the certification request
in the Biennial Report. The Commission could afford the
public an opportunity to comment on the request, similar
to what it does now when it establishes a public comment
period on the entire Report. The Commission could provide
for the right to request a hearing, if there was something
unique about a load serving project or a wind interconnection
that needed to be examined in such detail that a hearing
was required.
This expedited process would apply only
to whether a project qualifies for placement on the priority
list. The necessary routing process could still be followed
to determine the best route for a certified transmission
line. However, it also makes sense that if a project
qualifies for the expedited certification process, and
the utility is prepared to identify a proposed route
and provide the necessary information about the route
as part of the Biennial Report, that not only could a
decision on certification be made by June 1, but a decision
on a route permit could also be made within that same
timeframe, so that upon adoption of the state transmission
project list by June 1 of each even-numbered year, the
Commission could also make a decision on a route permit
for the line. This approach is consistent with the statutory
provision directing the Commission to combine routing
and need into one joint proceeding. Minnesota Statutes § 216B.243,
subd. 4.
Summary. The
utilities recognize that these concepts need further
attention and development. It might be appropriate for
the Commission to consider amending chapter 7848. The
Minnesota Transmission Owners would welcome the opportunity
to participate with the Commission staff and other interested
parties in establishing procedures for preparing the
biennial report and identifying and approving priority
transmission projects.
