Questions No One Is Willing to Answer

By John Pugleasa Retired Public Health and Human Services Director of Houston County MN and Impacted Landowner

During the permitting process and public “open house” events, applicant power companies Dairyland Power and Xcel Energy have only provided bare minimum “cut and paste” explanations to serious and consequential questions. Instead of meaningful answers rooted in science, the power companies have constantly obfuscated issues to try and placate concerned citizens and local governments. We are not fooled. We demand real answers.

Dairyland and Xcel Energy (and their parent planner MISO) must be responsible and provide the burden of proof of safety. Despite untrue claims of safety at open houses, this Is not possible as they have not done the studies. The absence of evidence of safety is not the evidence of absence.

What are the long term health impacts of exposure to this line? 

Electromagnetic field radiation (EMF), Corona Discharge, and stray voltage have long been identified as health risks associated with high voltage power transmission. 

Who will conduct careful, unbiased study of the long term health impacts of this proposed transmission line?  The applicant power company’s characterize these risks as irrelevant.  Given that this would be the first 765KV line in Minnesota, and one of the largest ever in North America, it would be irresponsible to allow the project to proceed without a thorough and unbiased health impact study.

What are the short and long term environmental impacts of this line to the fragile Driftless region and karst geology?

The Driftless area in SE Minnesota and SW Wisconsin (where this line is proposed to go) is a unique landscape that somehow avoided glaciation, and therefore, glacial drift (I.E Driftless).  The Driftless is also known for it’s karst geology which is characterized by sink holes. underground streams, caves and springs. 

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and the Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA) have worked with landowners and farmers for years to develop strong guidelines for agricultural activity on the surface since it greatly impacts ground water aquifers in karst geology.  Who will objectively study the impact of drilling the large footings required to support the 200 ft. steel lattice structures planned to carry this line?  Why are the interests of power companies greater than protecting the ground water sources that support this area?   

What and/or where is the demand for this massive increase in power transmission?

Demand for electricity in the region this line crosses from the South Dakota Border through Southern Minnesota an SW Wisconsin has been flat for the past decade. Perhaps, demand is greater to the east or the west of this region.  The applicant power companies consistently claim this line will be of great benefit to the communities it passes through.  Ten years of demand data simply does not support this assertion.  Even Potomac Economics (the leading independent market monitor for the electricity industry) sites the projected need for this project as unrealistic.  

Why are the applicant power companies using 2023 cost estimates for the project, while using future projected need and benefit numbers to justify the project?

It is absurd to make a reasonable recommendation or an informed decision on a proposed $22 billion infrastructure project with such wildly inaccurate cost and benefit numbers.  Who will bear the burden of the actual costs of this project if not the rate payers and tax payers?  

Why is there so much emphasis on “Green power generation” while no concern with “green transmission”?

While climate change is politically divisive, the science is compelling, and the result of ignoring this science is reckless and irresponsible.  Policy makers are right in taking bold action to slow this trend as opposed to leaving it to our children to clean up our mess.  Focusing on green energy is good public policy.  However, failing to apply the same environmental commitments to the transmission of power is akin to working hard to clean up the combustion side of an engine while neglecting the exhaust side. 

Why are the applicant power companies unwilling to legitimately consider underground DC options for the line?  Why are the power companies ok with AC line loss (I.E. a “leaky line”)?

Underground DC has been effectively used in other parts of the United States and Europe.  It is particularity effective when moving electricity long distances since DC lines have little if any line loss.  Bottomline, large AC lines all leak power.  This is what causes all the health related issues associated with large power transmission lines.  Underground DC also eliminates the need to drive deep footings into karst geology.

Why are the applicant power companies unwilling to seriously consider siting the line in highway right of ways as required by the Minnesota Next Generation Highway Act?

The Minnesota State Legislature passed this act in 2023 which was enacted in part due to this project (MISO Tranche 2 projects).  The Act is intended to streamline rollout of renewable energy infrastructure though reducing costly land negotiation and acquisition costs, and accelerating project timelines.  Why are power companies unwilling to seriously consider this option?

If this is truly a project that will benefit communities “under the line”, why are the applicant power companies dealing with impacted landowners and communities in a dishonest and disrespectful manner?

The applicant power companies will claim they have had “robust” interaction with all stakeholders.  This may be so with investors and partners who stand to profit substantially from this project.  However, for land owners and community members who live under the line it is a different story.  Questions such as those noted above have been either ignored or brushed aside with glib responses such as “a household toaster will put out more EMF than this line”, or “trust us, this will be good for landowners and communities”.  An industrial infrastructure project of this magnitude requires careful oversight to prevent unanticipated and/or nu-necessary negative outcomes.  This can only be achieved through unbiased study of impacts prior to construction, and honest and open debate regarding the project’s real costs and merits.