Brookings County 765kV Transmission Line Subcommittee - Regular Meeting

6 Brookings County 765 kilovolt transmission line advisory committee meeting this meeting is being recorded and Viewable on the Brookings County YouTube channel call this meeting to order. We'll start with introductions Who wants to start Chad Ford member of the Brookings County Planning and Zoning Commission appointed to the committee Kelly Vander Waal Brookings County Commission

Doug Post, Brookings County Commission.

Kyle VanderWaal, Brookings County Zoning Board.

Neil Tryon, Brookings County Zoning Planning.

I'm Bob Hill, Brookings County Development Director. Richard Cowden, Brookings County Deputy Director for Community Development.

Breeland Maher, Brookings County Development Office Technician, and I'll be Secretary for Meeting.

You three over there also.

I'm Todd Kays. I'm the Executive Director of the First Planning District in Watertown.

Marty Stanwyck, County Sheriff. Dan Nelson, State's Attorney. Thank you.

Moving on, approval of the agenda. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Motion by Kyle VanderWaal. Is there a second? Second. Second by Neil Troian. All in favor?

Aye. Motion passes.

We'll conduct this meeting tonight using Roberts rules order in an orderly fashion to get through things quickly and efficiently. Speaking only in turn. Gender item number four invitation for citizens to schedule and time on agenda item for an item not listed. The people that signed up to talk. I'll just call you up in order for your five minutes if that works. Lawrence whip if you would like to come up and clearly state your name into the mic and Limit yourself to five minutes, please Good evening My name is Lawrence whip

I'm with the Rowland Colony. We are a farming community on 481 and 210th Street. Our community is just a little to the west where the proposed 765 power line is being proposed. And as the crow flies, maybe a little over half a mile to the northwest of the proposed substation. I've been attending most of the meetings. I have not spoke yet, but I just want to Tell you that there's been a lot of Brookings County residents and citizens That came up and talked and had a lot of concerns and I support each and every one of them This is a big deal This is a huge power line. It's a huge substation. It should by no means be taken lightly. Nobody knows what it is, what it's going to do, the effects of it. Nobody really knows. The closest one is 800 miles away. And here we are as Brookings County residents. they're proposing it to bring to our County and I just want to go over a few things that are concerning to us I represent the community of 12 families we have a school a preschool a kinder school right next along that road there's playground right there When I read their literature, they had a bunch of sensitive areas that they're going to be avoiding and try to work around. They talked about school, they talk about cemetery, they talk about church, they talk about residential. We're all of the above. We're right there. And on the last meeting I attended, I had the understanding one of the people back there asked, are we going to be ready in September when they go to the PUC? And one of the members said no. And that was very discouraging. We all, all of the people behind me, I'm sure most of them are Brookings County residents. I want to do something. Is it a house? Is it a shop? Is it a barn? Is it what it is? We got ordinance, we got regulations, we got rules. And we have to follow them. We have to abide by them. And that's a good thing. Because if the ordinances and the rules weren't in place, what would our county look like? So my biggest concern is what I've taken out of the meetings is there is little to no ordinance about them large power lines and substations. And I understand how that could be because it came about that started small and got bigger and bigger and and it fell by the wayside. They didn't get put in place. So I would strongly try to encourage you to somehow press the pause button and uh... they're saying and telling me that they want to be good partners and good neighbors so if they they should respect that and just sit back and let the county do what's right for the residents and do what's right for everybody so everybody can feel comfortable just like when i come up here to get a permit for a for a hog barn I gotta follow the rules, I gotta do what I need to do, and that's a good thing, and that should be no different. In fact, in my book, it's probably more concerning than any barn or anything that we've had or done in the county. And we gotta realize In my book, that's just the tip of the iceberg. That thing is going to invite so much stuff in our county, we won't know which way to turn. And by doing that and letting that come in, we got to consider and realize we're going to be pushing other things out in a way that made our county what our county is. And we've got to consider all that stuff. It's not going to stop with one power line. You don't build a 120-acre substation just for one power line. And I consider myself, our community, too close to the substation. And I can't imagine what the people that are living right there next to it what they feel like. It's just, it's simply, that thing should be no closer than a mile or two of any human being. It's very concerning.

Lawrence, that's five minutes.

So I just hope we somehow could push the pause button and let the county do what it needs to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list is Joe stall You signed the wrong sheet you don't want to speak you sure you're just fine Then we'll move to Sheila Olsen

My name is Sheila and I live on 211th Street. It's going to go just by the proposed, it's just going to go east of my house. I'm not excited about it at all and I think my biggest concern is I've been reading everything. Research, research, research. And one of the things I noticed right away was the state of South Dakota does have a ruling on this and they have to prove As it reads on it, I will read it to you because then I'm going to go on. The applicant must establish evidence that this proposed facility will comply with applicable laws, will not pose a threat or serious injuries to the environment or social and economic conditions of the inhabitants. So if they can't prove that this is safe, we don't need it. And that is in the state statute. So I'm not exactly even sure why they would propose it in the state of South Dakota. We know that all they're doing is running it from the north to the south. It is affecting us nothing. It's gaining us absolutely nothing. And where they're heading with it is into southern Minnesota, where they are working night and day to try to get in a data center. And they need to get power there. They've just, Sioux Falls has just let Swift Meat Packing Plant, which is awesome, we need it, build on the northwest side of Sioux Falls, took a bunch of farmland. And if we really thought about where this needs to go, and we think we need it in South Dakota, it at least needs to go down in the corner. Because it needs to go, all the power is heading to Wisconsin and to Chicago, and they're picking up the power off the southern part of Minnesota. What does that have to do with us? Are we going to use any of that power? Probably not. I'm sitting near the substation, not excited at all. I have a daughter that has had a migraine for six years that I cannot control no matter what I've done, and this power is not going to help me. And they need to prove that this is safe. And I don't think they're sharing anything to us that says this is safe. And again, if we are the ones bearing the cost of it, don't we deserve something for it? And there is nothing for it. They're not going to pay these farmers enough money to sustain that through the years. They get a payment, and then they should be renting at least, saying I have to pay continuously. And as I read these, there's no findings on anything. If this is healthy or not healthy, it just needs to be away from humans. And the data center will be the next thing, because if we let this happen, they'll be right in our doors trying to bring a data center. And none of us, no farmer out there wants a data center. So we need to really think about it. You guys really need to move this along and really, really push hard to keep them out of our community. It does not need to be in eastern South Dakota. It at least needs to be in the very corner or into Minnesota. It should not be here. It's not benefiting us at all. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list for public comment is Christina Wesley.

Hi, I'm Christina Wesley. I live on 41st 210th Street. I ask all of you to just pump the brakes, pause. Let's take a moment, put yourselves in our shoes, in the family's shoes that have spent decades upon decades of keeping this land in their families for generations, blood, sweat, and tears, planting trees, working hard to keep it there, to give it something for their future generations to hand down to the next generation. Prove to us that this is actually safe. Prove to us that this is not going to cause harm to us, the livestock, the land. What's it going to deplete in our property values? How's it going to affect that? How's it going to affect our future generations' health? Would you want to live next to a substation, have that thing pumping whatever power that it puts out through the air, in the ground, to your livestock, yourself? And what's the benefit? A few might get rich, but a lot will probably get sick. I want to see the proof that this isn't going to cause cancer, cause harm to my kids, hurt these farmers that work so damn hard to put food on the table. We're already losing a lot of our wildlife and pollinators. I ask for more information on the substation. Why is it allowed to be so close to my brother's house, my sister-in-law's house? To Busy Lizzy's operation, her family, her business, it should not be anywhere near anybody's family farms. And what does South Dakota get from it? Anything? No, because it's going to all these other states. We're not the only state that is fighting this. Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Texas, it's everywhere. Everybody's fighting because we know the substation is definitely tied to a data center in the future. Probably the solar and the batteries. and it's just frustrating i don't want it i live i'm gonna i don't want to look at those power lines my dad busted his ass to plant trees to provide for wildlife and for us kids to see that just get destroyed don't agree with it we need a pause moratorium we need more info we all need more info on the substation and these lines What's going to happen if something happens to the substation and there's a fire? Are we going to have enough people to be able to put that fire out? I monitor species in my land, in my backyard, that are on the monitored species list. The northern prairie skink, the red-bellied snake, and occasionally I'll see the regal fritillary butterfly, which I know nobody really gives a crap about pollinators anymore, but we have a lot of neighbors that have beehives. It just scares me and I don't see anything good coming from the lines or the substation. That's all I have right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list is Rufus DeZale.

Yes, my name is Rufus DeZale. I thank you for this opportunity to come before all of you and address our concerns about the power line. My wife Patty and I live over by Elkton and the line is proposed to be built right across our property and it also borders other land that we also own where we have a The acreage where I grew up currently there's nobody living there, but hopefully someday Somebody in our family will build a house there so at that point they would be within a hundred feet of the proposed power line actually a little closer than that and My wife Patty and I have attended both of the meetings for the subcommittee. We've also attended the commissioner meeting the last month and also the zoning meeting and it expressed our concerns that we have. One of the larger ones obviously is where the line would be positioned right beside the road. We have both tillable and pasture acres there and so by having cows there, by having our water tank there, by having a mineral feeder there, by having our fences directly under the power line, we would be greatly affected negatively by this power line being built there. And also there are a lot of concerns about the tillable land as well. To say that there are no risks involved with this power line, that it's completely safe, is by no means true. There are huge risks and dangers associated with it. Doing a lot of research on this topic, I ran across the thing, actually it was from Xcel Energy, and they said, okay, if you're going to be working under the power line, Make sure you wear protective boots and clothing. Okay, can you imagine doing fencing with big rubber gloves on and so on? Okay, that's not going to be very practical. The most disconcerting thing I saw was, okay, if you're working under the power line, which we would have to do, it said make sure you have somebody else with you. Okay, why would they say that? Is it so somebody else can call 911 if something happens because of stray voltage or touching a fence or something like that? Okay, to me that doesn't mean that there aren't risks involved. Setbacks are very important for a lot of different reasons. In our case, setback means the transmission line not being moved away from us, but rather we take our operation and we move away from it to avoid all these risks. The only setback I would like to see would be don't put it on my land, put it on somebody else's. Morally and ethically, I have a hard time saying that because I wouldn't wish this project on anybody. The risks are too great and the benefits are too little. At the last meeting, I invited all of you to come out to our farm, and I would show you where this power line is going to be built. I'd share concerns with you. You could see for yourself how people would be affected along the line. And I'm disappointed that not a single one of you came out. And I understand you're all busy and you have other things to do, but by golly, this is a very important thing that's going to affect a lot of people in Brookings County. So I'd ask that you at least take the time to do that, not just with me, but with everybody else along the line. After all, you do represent the people of Brookings County. I seriously I seriously asked you to consider not granting the conditional use permit required for the project. And like the the first gentleman that spoke tonight, take a pause and stop and think about this project and to try to make a well informed decision, not one made in haste. The landowners I've talked to along motivated by the money that they've been offered for this project but rather they're motivated motivated by more important things and that's by safety the quality of life they have devaluation of the property just to name a few so here again I ask that take a pause consider the project as a whole and And if you do have time, I'll say it again, you know, go out and visit with the people who are directly affected one on one because they can share with you things that they probably wouldn't share in a meeting like this. Thank you.

Thank you, Rufus. That is all I had on the list for public comment for this evening, so we'll move on. Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Is there a motion?

Move to approve the minutes.

Motion by Kelly VanderWaal. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Kyle VanderWaal. All in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes. The schedule of the agenda items. Item number one is the subcommittee restructure.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. We just wanted to make sure Everyone's aware why or the new structure of the subcommittee. Brookings County Commission met after a regularly scheduled, I believe it was August the 4th, county commission meeting, discussed the formation of this subcommittee and the speed of which it was reacting to the different things. So the recommendation was brought forward and voted on by the County Commission that the subcommittee would be restructured to include two county commissioners and three zoning board members. and that any other people that used to be on the original subcommittee would be welcome to attend the meetings and could be called upon as expert witnesses or subject matter experts. At a later time, it would be up to them and the chairman And the County Commission also recommended that we follow Robert's Rules of Order a little bit more in depth than what we had been in the past. And that's why we changed our meetings to this particular location. And everything will be recorded and placed on our YouTube channel in the future.

Is that it? That's it. All right. Thanks, Bob. Moving on then, Agenda Item B. The presentation by Sue Engelman related to the 765 kilovolt transmission lines, including discussion about requesting a moratorium.

I don't get my five minute tonight, right? I can go over five minutes? Yeah. Okay. Sue Engelman, Brookings County. I've previously submitted multiple health detriment articles and findings to the 765 kilovolt subcommittee for inclusion on the Brookings County 765 transmission line advisory committee. And these documents have been published on their website. I have also previously spoke about how detrimental these power towers are. I have recently spoken to many landowners who are affected by the proposed line, and they feel that the 2,000 foot setback adopted by by dual county is not a large enough setback as a safety zone. On behalf of the Brookings County landowners and residents, I'm here tonight to ask the subcommittee to vote on a 1.5 mile setback for the 765 kilovolt AC transmission line. and or ultimately the most beneficial alternative to install the industry standard 525 kilovolt DC line underground. I know this takes more than one meeting to make this happen, so I'm asking for multiple 765 kilovolt subcommittee meetings or county zoning meetings to put this new ordinance in place before Power on Midwest Excel Energy files with the PUC in September or a moratorium be put in place. South Dakota codified law 49-41B-22 states applicant's burden of proof. The applicant, Power on Midwest Excel Energy, has the burden of proof to establish by preponderance of the evidence that the proposed facility will comply with all applicable laws and rules. The facility will not pose a threat of serious injury to the environment, nor to the social and economic condition of inhabitants or expected inhabitants in the siting area. An applicant for an electric transmission line, a solar energy facility, or a wind energy facility that holds a conditional use permit from the applicable local units of government is determined not to threaten the social and economic condition of inhabitants or expected inhabitants in the siting area. The facility will not substantially impair the health, safety, or welfare of the inhabitants. and the facility will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration having been given the views of governing bodies of affected local units of government. An applicant for an electric transmission line a solar energy facility or a wind energy facility that holds a conditional use permit from the applicable local units of government is in compliance with this subdivision. To give everyone a bit of background on the information that I'm going to present, I will be citing information from Dr. Johnson, MD. He is a retired cardiologist, cardiac electrophysiologist, and former Institutional Review Board IRB Chair. In addition, I'll be citing information from Kyle Johnson, a Minnesota landowner, farmer, and environmental business owner. He has filed a former challenge with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission against the proposed Gopher to Badger Link, a 765 kilovolt AC transmission line project. In an effort to condense this presentation, I have already sent all five of the subcommittee members, the 765 subcommittee members, the information that these men have filed to back these 1.5 mile setback, but ultimately the alternative procedure of installing underground industry standard 525 kilovolt DC lines to correspond with the Minnesota PUC where they are being considered today. As you know from previous meetings, I have used the information from the www.know765mn.com website that is provided by Dr. W. Ben Johnson, M.D., the retired cardiologist, and Kyle Johnson, both who are Minnesota landowners whose land lies within the 765 kilovolt line Minnesota maps. Dr. Johnson states in Minnesota PUC docket number E002CN-25-121. I submit these comments as a retired cardiologist specializing in adult cardiac electrophysiology. Throughout my professional career, my focus was the management of complex arrhythmias, the implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators, and the performance of cardiac ablations. At the center of my clinical practice was a deep practical understanding of the autonomic nervous system and its role in cardiac rhythm, stability, and systemic health. Following my clinical retirement, I have spent the last six years in investigating the interference between industrial environmental stressors and human physiology. Specifically, I have focused on the non-auditory, non-thermal adverse health effects of industrial noise, initially regarding wind turbines and more recently, the high voltage transmission environment. While active in my clinical practice, I served as a voting member and as the chair of the citywide Institutional Review Board, IRB, in Des Moines, Iowa area. In this capacity, my primary responsibilities included ethical oversight, leading the committees responsible for the ethical conduct of human research to ensure compliance with federal and local safety standards. Risk benefit analysis, critically evaluating scientific protocols to identify potential biological and physiological stress threats to human subjects. data review, assessing complex technical and medical data to determine the probability and magnitude of harm in proposed research environments. Under Minnesota Rule 1405.0800, the commission allows for expert testimony that assists in understanding the impact of large energy facilities on humans. My background as the IRB Chair qualifies me to provide an objective analysis of the biological risks associated with the 765KVAC lines. These topics would include the adequacy of the applicant's human impact mitigation strategies. the application of precautionary ethical standards in the absence of absolute scientific certainty, and the evaluation of peer-reviewed literature cited. My professional history is safeguarding human welfare through rigorous scientific and ethical review provides a specialized lens that is relevant to the commission's statutory duty to protect public interest. He submitted this technical rebuttal to the Minnesota PUC to identify a critical failure in the applicant's Xcel Energy Environmental and Human Impact Assessment. The proposed 765 kilovolt AC line creates a stochastic noise environment and triggers auditory sensory gating failure and chronic autoimmune activation in the resident population. Current 1974 EPA issuance standards are medically effective and failed to account for the Munsell stress pathway. Vascular inflammation, now recognized in modern cardiology. To meet the bioethical mandate of minimal risk, the WHO health compliance This commission must require either a 1.5 mile safety buffer, and he gives an exhibit A, from the right of way or the undergrounding of the 525 kilovolt HVDC technology as the only viable pathway to protect public health and safety. Kyle Johnson argues that underground HVDC is superior for several environmental and social reasons. Johnson characterizes the energy lost as heat during AC transmission as a hidden and non-rewarding tax on Minnesota consumers, South Dakota as well. because 525 kilovolt HVDC offers a 30 to 40% reduction in line loss compared to the proposed 765 kV AC systems. It yields substantial financial returns. Energy recovery, a 3% reduction in losses over the project's 50 year lifespan represents hundreds of thousands of megawatt hours of found energy that would otherwise vanish into the air as heat. Long term savings, in one 480 mile segment alone, Johnson calculates savings of approximately 450 million based on the static energy prices today, which would increase significantly if energy prices rise. Statutory compliance under Minnesota statutory statute 216B.243, the commission is legally required to prioritize the potential for increasing efficiency. A mandate Johnson argues the current AC proposal fails to meet. Lower cost. Johnson points out that modern converter costs have fallen to roughly 200 million per gigawatt, making them comparable to the cost of the proposed 765 kV AC substations. The efficiency of an HVDC system also provides a domino effect that reduces the need for expensive new power infrastructure. Deferring power plants. By maximizing the amount of power that actually reaches its destination, the state can defer or eliminate the need for new peaker plants. Capacity management. Higher efficiency means less additional generation capacity is required to compensate for the vanishing energy inherent to high voltage AC systems. Recent Minnesota Next Gen Highway legislation encourages the co-efficient location of transmission lines within existing highway right-of-ways, a practice for which underground DC is uniquely suited. According to the Brookings Register, PUC Executive Director Lee Moore outlines outlined roles and responsibilities at the state and local levels regarding the PUC's ability to supersede or preempt any county or municipal land use, zoning or building rules, regulations or ordinances. The PUC will look at the local laws that have been enacted, she said via email. The PUC will not disregard a new ordinance merely because it was enacted after an application was filed. Moore was referring to Power On Midwest project application, which is anticipated to be filed with the PUC in September. Afterward, the PUC can take up to a year to render its decision. She also noted that the project would require the issuance of a county level conditional use permit before it could proceed. The project is required to imply with all applicable county laws pursuant to South Dakota codified law 49-41B-22, which includes a county ordinance. I would like to also remind you as elected or appointed officials of the Brookings County Commission and Zoning Board that you are merely representatives of the Brookings County. You are not to use your opinions or authority to stand against your constituents. Once again, I have been researching this issue since the end of 2025. I have been trained as an electronics engineering technician. I have worked with and around the medical field for many, many years. I have been testifying concerning the proposed 765 kilovolt transmission line at the Brookings County commissioners meetings and zoning board meetings since the first week of March. These two Minnesota men had to file rebuttals with the Minnesota PUC because their county had no ordinance in place to protect their residents prior to Excel filing with the PUC. We need to learn from this and to make sure this doesn't happen in Brookings County. We need this ordinance before Excel files in September. Once more, I am here tonight to ask the subcommittee to vote on a 1.5 mile setback from all residents for the 765 kilovolt AC transmission line and or ultimately the most beneficial alternative for health and finances to install industry standard 525 kilovolt DC underground line along the existing transportation corridors. such as existing highway corridors or existing railway right-of-ways. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move the subcommittee for discussion and procedures to move forward. Get set. We'll now move the subcommittee for discussion and procedures to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, if I could. The state's attorney would like to talk about the Public Utilities Commission. He had a discussion with him, I believe.

Good evening, Dan Nelson, state attorney for Brookings County. I was or our office was asked at the last meeting to provide an overview of the PUC process, and I know Miss Engelman had touched on some of the comments made by the executive director of the PUC to the newspaper. So myself, along with Mr Epps, who's much more of an expert on the PUC than I am, but I can just advise the board sort of their process in which. they would look at a project like this and then I can do my best to, I guess, answer questions that the subcommittee may have on that process. So the first step would be to file a notice of the intent to apply for an application. And I know there's been discussions about when that would take place, whether it's September or sooner or later, but that would be the first step. And as part of the the PUC they do what's called a public input meeting within 30 days of that application and then Brookings County Would declare as an intervener they have usually within 60 days 60 to 90 days from the date of the application to file as an intervener and what the intervener does is it just places them as a intervening party in the process they're noticed on all the filings and information as it relates to that application and by law the PUC has to make a decision on that application within 12 months and so if it's September of this year it would be September of 2027 that they actually have to make a decision on the application and so the I think the Most important information as it relates here tonight is sort of what happens in that 12 months. And so you have the application, you have the intervening by the Brookings County. And then usually what happens is they set up what's called a a local review committee. And that local review committee by the PUC, that's when they take a look at county ordinances, setbacks, decisions that have been made by zoning and voted on by the county commission as it relates to local rules. And so As it relates to this project, I think obviously the conditional use permit the setbacks or any other ordinances that would affect that project that would be taken up by that local review committee by the PUC and usually. That takes place in those months, usually in a seven month timeframe. So sometime, so if we take next month, for example, that they file the notice of appeal, we file the, or excuse me, they file the application, we file as an intervening party. So that brings us to maybe December, January, February of next year. Between those dates in September, those local review committees are taking testimony. They're looking at county ordinances. And they're having public meetings before the actual contested hearing. So that's sort of the process that takes place at the PUC level. And obviously the PUC has the ability to override county decisions if they find whether a setback or an ordinance or any other decision is too restrictive for the project. And that's within the discretion of the PUC to decide that. And so obviously what's before this subcommittee is whether to make a recommendation to full planning and zoning. or not make a recommendation to full planning and zoning and move this issue up for further discussion in front of planning and zoning before it goes to the county commission. So I'm happy to take any questions on that. And if I don't know, I might have Mr. Epps fill in where I may have left out. Mr.

Chair, Todd Caves with the First Planning District. Just a point of clarification on the local review committee. The local review committee is established by the PUC at the time of the notice of intent. So, for example, if the September comes about and the proposed project submits a notice of intent, Then statutorily they have six months from the notice of intent to make the app a full application Now they maybe could bypass the notice of intent statement and jump right into the full application At which time this local review committee is still set up the local review committee has 12 items STATUTE THAT THEY HAVE TO REVIEW EVERYTHING FROM HOUSING TO ROADS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES, ECONOMICS, TAXES, AND ALSO SOME OF THOSE CITING CRITERIA THAT COMMUNITIES AND COUNTIES WOULD HAVE. BEING THAT THIS PROJECT COVERS THREE SEPARATE COUNTIES, THAT LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD BE MADE UP OF MEMBERS FROM BROOKINGS GRANT AND DUAL COUNTY. IT WOULD CONSIST OF THE CHAIR OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IT WOULD CONSIST OF ANY MAYOR THAT'S AFFECTED ALONG THE ROUTE OF THAT. IT'S A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UTILITY COMPANY AND ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARDS WHERE THE LINE CROSSES THOSE VARIOUS SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THOSE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ON THAT LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. Once they have been selected and the full application has been put in and a docket has been established That committee has up to seven months max to do the review so there would be no formal public hearing ON A CONTESTED CASE ISSUE IN FRONT OF THE PUC UNTIL AFTER THAT LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS SUBMITTED THEIR REPORT. GENERALLY THAT SEVEN-MONTH WINDOW WITHIN ABOUT TWO MONTHS AFTER THAT IS WHEN YOU WOULD SEE THE APPLICATION PROCESS BEGIN AT THE PUC LEVEL. At any point in time, any organization that has party, has claimed party status as an intervener, has the opportunity to provide testimony to the PUC. That usually cuts off about 30 to 60 days prior to the PUC hearing. And so, while it is important to consider changing rules and regulations as they apply, whether they be setbacks or whatever that you're thinking about doing, THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT YOU HAVE PROBABLY AT ANY POINT IN TIME UP TO SEVEN MONTHS OR EIGHT MONTHS FROM THE TIME THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED AND THE LRC STARTS THE PROCESS TO HAVE THAT REGULATION IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE PUC MEETING. SO THAT'S A PERSON THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THESE PROJECTS. OUR OFFICE ASSISTED BROOKINGS COUNTY YEARS AGO WHEN THEY DID THE DEER CREEK STATION PROJECT. WE ASSISTED BROOKINGS AND DUAL COUNTY ON THE STORIA PROJECT OVER THERE. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF OUR PAST EXPERIENCE JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS START TO FINISH.

And Mr. Keyes, it's my understanding that that local review committee, that's the point where they're studying all the different ordinances and setbacks within those affected counties?

That would be one of the dozen things that would be looked at by whoever's doing that. It could be the local review committee just doing the work on themselves. Generally, they contract with a third party ORGANIZATION TO HELP FACILITATE THAT. AND THEN THEY'RE USUALLY MEETING ON A MONTHLY BASIS TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR. AND THEN AT THE END, A REPORT IS WRITTEN AND THE REPORT IS SUBMITTED WHERE the impacts on social economics of the area is then written, and if there's any mitigation requirements that the locals feel are necessary to, if the project was to be approved by the PUC, these are the various minimal things that we would like to see at the local review committee level, which would, in this situation, would cover three different counties, so you're probably gonna have three different views on what that may or may not be.

so You said in there. I want to make sure I got this right that After it goes to the PUC there would potentially be a PUC hearing with it would that PUC hearing be in pier or would it be? Brookings dual County Where would that be?

There will be meetings. There will be public meetings six to eight weeks after the formal application has been submitted. Those meetings would probably be in each one of those counties. I'm gonna guess the PUC, they could just do a single meeting, but my understanding, because it is a multi-county thing, and my experience is that they've had multiple meetings in multiple locations to at least, Have the project explained to the public here from the public if there's any questions in current concerns from that There's a court reporter there. They take they take all that information down and it's been and it's used in their deliberations Reasonable guess to say that there'd probably be one in white and one in Elkton They probably would be a single one in single one. I again that would be a PUC decision Just trying to get a feel I guess here More than likely a single meeting.

In the past, like with Deer Creek Station, the meeting was in the white community center.

The local review committee, now that'll be, being that this is a three-county project, there will probably be meetings at least and if it's over for three to four months is usually an information gathering and meeting those things you probably are going to see at least three to four meetings in each one of those counties over that seven month period so people will have an opportunity to go to any of those places again that that's only at how the local review committee wants to do that they're in control of how they want to the number of meetings and that sort of thing

And then mr. Nelson you said part of their review process is to determine the reasonableness of our ordinance setback and Did I catch that right?

It'll be considered, I'm sorry. Okay.

We've done this work before. Yeah. What ends up happening is the information is presented to the local review committee. Grant County might have this, Dual might have this, Brookings might have this, they might have all the same. I'm gonna say it's probably gonna be disparate between all three of those. And what will end up happening is they will come in and they will just say, all right, These are the requirements each county has. The local review committee doesn't necessarily pass judgment on it. It's more about reporting and how that may impact the siting based upon the proposed location of the line. and then from there, they just are bringing that information to the attention of the South Dakota PUC that there are zoning requirements, there are conditional use permits that need to be had, there may be conditions, each county is gonna be a different thing, so the PUC becomes educated on what each county is gonna be having to do, and then the PUC will make a decision on the reasonableness of the specific regulations by each county.

So if the PUC finds our ordinance and setback to be completely unreasonable, can they totally ignore what we have?

I'm not an attorney. I would defer to Mr. Nelson on that.

He saves the hard ones for me. It's your job. Yeah, I would say that the PUC has obviously a lot of subjective discretion. on what they may or may not find restrictive. And so I'm not gonna sit here and speculate on what a particular setback or ordinance would be in terms of whether it's reasonable or restrictive, because that's the job of the PUC. I mean, these are humans, they're elected officials. They deal with the restrictiveness, the reasonableness. And so I don't have an answer for you. I mean, I think that's part of why they would look into these local reviews to try to gather as much information. And then obviously they're gonna make subjective opinions on that issue. So I guess I really can't answer that for you.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, sir.

There's not a lot of specific case law in the state regarding that sort of a thing. However, there has been some case law where the county has issued a CUP for WHAT CALL IT A TRANSMISSION LINE A WIND FARM I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS EXACTLY AND ONCE I THINK SOMEBODY HAD MENTIONED IT ONCE THE COUNTY IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE CUP WAS THERE AND AND THIS AND THIS THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE THAT LOCAL DECISION IF IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I THINK IS WHAT THAT THERE WAS A CASE IT WAS A BASIN CASE 1980 I WANT TO SAY BUT ANYWAY I'M SORRY

Any other questions from members of the board? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Move on to the discussion on procedures on how to move forward.

I guess we shouldn't all talk at once here.

You know, it's hard keeping you in order.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, Lawrence brought up a great point about if we put in a cattle barn, we got to be 1,320 feet away from anything. And I get it. There's smell there. There's flies. There's whatever. where you don't have that with a power line. But with a power line, you have a lot of other risks. Everything that's outlined here, what the public has brought forward, all that information. I guess for discussion speak, for just somewhere to start, I'd say we probably ought to have a setback of at minimum 1,320 foot.

Is there any discussion from the board?

That makes a lot of sense. I too thought that same thing when Lawrence from Roland talked about that earlier. I think it's important that we sitting here tonight just thinking that we need to stay somewhat consistent in our setbacks. We have that setback already in place. When we did the CO2 pipeline advisory committee, that came out of that as well, 1,320. Quarter mile I'm sure there are some of you that want a larger setback in place, but I think that's an excellent starting point and Yeah, I look here with the rest of the board thinks here tonight as well I Tend to lean more toward the 2,000 foot setback myself just for safety reasons.

I know we we don't know all the facts yet and DUAL COUNTY, SO THERE'S A 2000. I THINK FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE, ONCE IT GOES TO THE COMMUNITIES THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO, IF WE'RE ALL OVER THE BOARD WITH DIFFERENT KIND OF SETBACKS, IT MIGHT BE HARD FOR THEM TO JUST SAY, THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS. EVERYBODY DOESN'T WANT THE SAME THING.

Would tend to lean this the 2,000 foot setback Mr.. Post Yeah, I was just reviewing what some of the setbacks were that we had modeled for the co2 pipeline when we did that ordinance and I think there's great value in following that model in some shape and form whether But I mean, with CAFOs, which was the base of that decision that we had made, we used one specific size. But with CAFOs, we've got several different sets of size that go all the way from a full mile to different, I mean, from municipal areas. And it's different. We've got a whole chart there that breaks out churches and schools and municipal and Private wells lakes and streams, you know, I don't know how much of all that applies to electric or not but I think for Consistency sake that it's it would be good to have one uniform set of rules that were set up for when you're planning in the county whether it's a CAFO a co2 a And then carry that on to all this electrical planning that's looking at coming into as well. And so maybe I'm thinking too far down the line with solar panels and everything else coming into the area as well. But it would definitely, I don't know, maybe Todd can weigh in on that idea too. Whereas some of the court cases in the past, as far as counties having the ability to decide on safety, I know, for a pipeline was over, you know, was something that wasn't legal for us to do in our jurisdiction. Now, I don't know what the rules are on electric transmission and if it's different for different sizes or if it's completely a new area and we're all learning yet.

It's treated similarly but different.

How's that for an attorney answer? Oh, good answer.

When you were talking about the ethanol pipeline, CO2 pipelines that was going on, there's federal siting standards which basically did say that locals in PUC had the control over of it. However, there was some case law that came out of Iowa and Omaha at the federal level that basically said that the Iowa rules and regulations of a specific county there were too overzealous and the federal government kicked those rules out. There's not a lot of case law at this level because we've only got about 2,000 miles of 765 line all throughout the United States. And so I think, again, it is given to the PUC with the ultimate siting authority that they consider local rules in place. And in the end, I still think, I'm not worried from a federal discussion at this point, it's whether or not you think the rules that you provide, the PUC's gonna have to say whether or not they're reasonable. And they have to figure out what that test is, and I think it's not tested. at right now in this state. So regarding the previous gentleman's request on the 2,000 feet, I can tell you I was in Grant County on Monday night, and they're having these same conversations, same groups of people that are coming in and talking about, because they don't have setbacks from transmission lines as well. There and it's kind of I'm hearing similar things here. This is my first time that I was hearing in Grant County I Think if I was to count noses in Grant County today the County Commission it's probably two at 2002 at five hundred and one at a thousand and so I think I think more than likely the conference the compromise will probably be somewhere around that thousand feet in Grant County if they were to vote on it tomorrow and

If I could ask you one question, if all three counties come with a different setback, the PUC looks at it, are they going to,

Settle on one versus the other are they gonna know I don't think I think when they say is is the setback reasonable is the regulation reasonable and I think if you can because guess what use County Commissioners you had zoning officers will probably end up being deposed or having to be present at a PUC hearing to defend why your setback is this that or the other thing and And I think the big thing that they will probably look at, and this is just based upon experience in other zoning case law throughout the state, is whether or not your rule becomes exclusionary. And what I mean by that is that you adopt a setback that basically takes out any reasonable path for me to snake a line through your county, through Dual County, or through Grant County. And again, I think your point that you're making, if you're all at 2,000 at least, you're all gonna get blamed if one gets blamed. On one end of it, Grant comes in at 750 or a thousand feet and they're easy that they can get it through and I've been told the 2,000 foot setback does allow for a path through dual County with a few encumbrances and all of a sudden you pick I heard a one and a half mile setback for Example and now it kills the project because we can't find a way to string it through They could say that the other two ordinances are more reasonable than yours and that we're gonna discount BROOKINGS COUNTY AND WE'LL MAYBE TAKE THE 2000 FOOT THAT WAS IN DUAL AS THE STANDARD TO GET IT THROUGH BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL FIND A PATH FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S THE BIG THING IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO PICK AN ORDINANCE, PICK A SETBACK, WHAT'S IT BASED UPON? WHAT ARE THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IT MIGHT OCCUR IN YOUR COUNTY?

That very defensibility is kind of where Why we landed where we did with the co2 as well because this is just our planning and zoning in this county this is what we do for everything that Needs a permit And mr.

Chair if I may um IT IS YOUR COUNTY AND YOU NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT YOUR RESIDENTS ARE TELLING YOU. YOU NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, HOW IT COMPORTS WITH YOUR LONG RANGE LAND USE PLANS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF YOUR ZONING REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT. BUT YOU CAN ALSO BE DIFFERENT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. IT'S JUST THAT YOU NEED TO DEFEND THAT POLICY AT SOME POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY WILL ASK YOU THE QUESTION HOW YOU CAME UP WITH IT AND WHAT'S IT BASED ON. One of you will probably end up having to defend that at the PUC.

It's a point time in the contested case hearing Clears mud Would it be out of line to have the power company Let us know what they can get through it. I I'm sure they've researched it.

We do have a representative from the, as we stated in the restructuring, people that were on the old committee could speak as expert witnesses or whatever the official name is, and I believe Mr. Rogers is in the audience if you'd like to hear his thoughts on it.

If the rest of the committee is interested in hearing that.

Mr. Rogers is here. You want to you care to comment on that?

Please step forward Clearly state your name into the mic Hi Timothy Rogers Xcel energy representing the power on Midwest transmission line So we We do have an alignment. The latest numbers I have are from June of this year. We are working with landowners right now, so the route is, of course, in flux, but the latest alignment and our understanding on distances to residences are from around June. So in Brookings County, a 500 foot setback, there would be no impacted landowners. A 750 foot setback, there'd be one impacted residence. At a thousand foot setback, we're at about two or three impacted residences. And if you establish a 2000 foot setback. We're at about 15 to 17 impacted residences. And I would note that if a setback ordinance is established, that we would recommend having a waiver ability for the landowner to waive the ordinance so we can, what we're learning in Dual County is if we're closer than the 2,000 foot setback, the landowner appreciates us being able to Move the line to where they prefer it on their property and it and they may be OK closer than 2000 foot so it gives the landowner the power and the decision making of course.

Do you have? An idea of your proposed route at all. Do you know where that goes?

Yeah, we're very, very close. That is, as Mr. K said, once the application is submitted, we're going to continue to work with the counties and work with the landowners and let the PUC know how things are changing since we submitted our application, which will be in early September. So that's right around the corner. We have a very good idea of the route that we're gonna put in the application, the facility permit application.

Do you know at our June meeting, I believe one of the members of the board at that time had made a comment about where your power lines crossed his land Having excessive power lines are already up on highway 30 Where where do you cross height? Do you know where you cross highway 30 yet or straight? east of white I Would have to look after look I would have to get the I mean how far away from other large power lines Do you want to stay? Would you go over them, go under them? How would that work?

Like a WAPA line, we would have to work with the WAPA administration to figure out what the clearances are to go over perpendicular.

You would try to go over?

Yeah, we do have situations where we need to go over existing power lines. How about parallel existing transmission lines for safety concerns for workers? We don't want to have any overlap of easements. So if we have, for the 765, if it's a 250 foot wide right away, so it's 125 on each side, so the 125 has to, you would add that to whatever the easement is for the existing. So we're not gonna share that right away. So we are looking for opportunities to route along existing lines. But if the existing line is just off the edge of a roadway, that does put us in the fields for sure.

We anticipate having another meeting in September, Tim. Is that something that you could look into, the question that Chairman Ford had about Highway 30?

Yeah, if you could, I got to make sure I understand what your question is in that situation.

Where do you plan on crossing the WAPA? Is basically that fair way to word that?

Okay, very good.

Mr. Chairman, are you only concerned with the 345 WAPA line? Because we've got several 110 lines up there. Well, yes. Each one of those wind companies, we've got lines all over the place up in that township. Yeah.

At what Mr. Hills on wherever we're crossing the large power lines, you know, not your standard residential lines, not your real electric electric line, but if it's dedicated wind energy lines, mostly what we got OK transmission line. The ones going in and out of the Deer Creek substation. That type stuff very good. You're going to be. Reasonably close in a lot of that area, right?

Yes. It is a constraint for sure. Wind turbines and existing lines, that's part of our analysis on trying to find the least impactful route through the counties. Yep.

Could you speak to the safety aspect of it all this evening, Tim? We've had some residents here tonight that are concerned about safety. What can you tell the group tonight about the safety of this project?

We are we are bringing our medical expert in at the next meeting in September. For this Commission and he will present a lot of the issues that we heard and I will direct him to Doctor Ben Johnson's testimony in Minnesota and.

I'm hoping he can provide a lot of good health and safety information to this committee Are there any other questions from members of board for him at this time Thank you, thank you mr. Chairman I think with From looking at everything from my level I THINK ONCE THE SEPTEMBER MEETING IS OVER THAT WE MAY VERY WELL BE TO THE POINT, GET THE MEDICAL INFORMATION OUT THAT MIGHT HELP US ON THE SETBACK, DO WE WANT TO DO THE 2013-20 OR WHICHEVER ONE WE WANT, THAT IT MIGHT BE TIME TO SUNSET THE COMMITTEE AND MOVE THE ORDINANCE OVER TO THE ZONING MEETING IN OCTOBER, TO THE ZONING BOARD IN OCTOBER.

After the next meeting?

After the September meeting. Get the September meeting. We've heard from medical advice from Dr. Johnson. Get the medical advice from Xcel Energy or their representative, and then at that time finish up any loose ends that we have and then turn it over to the whole zoning board so we can beat out those setbacks. I think we're to that point.

This committee at the next meeting would make a recommendation to the zoning, and then the zoning would entertain that at the zoning board's October meeting.

And I'll discuss this issue with the county commission Tuesday at the county commission meeting and see if they have any different advice on that, but that's what I would recommend. Does the board have any comments on it?

I'm curious if we want to just discuss the moratorium word at all, if that is an effective item in this case, or if the timing does not warrant a moratorium, or if we want to consider one or not. How does that even work?

Bob, do you know the- Well, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of imagination, but the moratorium discussion would have to be at the zoning board. At the zoning board, at that level. It starts at that level. That's where it's going to start. As a county development director, that's where you want to start the discussion. And then if the complete zoning committee votes to move it, then we would go to the county commission.

So would that be recommended by this committee, or does that not necessarily have no effect on it?

We don't have a majority quorum of the zoning meeting, so we could discuss it all you want today, and that's fine. But we couldn't make a recommendation to the zoning board at this stage. We want more information, in my opinion, on it. Mr. Case.

Technically in the state of South Dakota. There is no such thing as a zoning moratorium The enabling legislation calls them temporary zoning regulations Which gives County Commission's the ability up to a year to? Study and issues and adopt zoning rules and regulations procedurally how that would work is that whether this subcommittee or the Planning and Zoning Board or the County Commission wanted to initiate them, we'll call it moratorium, but a temporary, I'll call it a freeze, what they could do is they could direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, make a recommendation to the County Commission. The County Commission would then have to have a public hearing. It's an ordinance amendment. It would take two readings, and then it would be published in the paper. So you're still probably talking start to finish if everything was to start next month, it's election day or thereafter before any sort of temporary moratorium sort of thing is imposed. Currently your zoning rules do allow for transmission lines as a permitted use. IN THE IN THE COUNTY SUBSTATIONS ARE A CONDITIONAL USE AND SO IF IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE NOT COMING TO ANY SORT OF AGREEMENT AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING LEVEL OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION LEVEL ON WHAT THE RULE COULD OR SHOULD BE The time to initiate a temporary hold but if you start the process inside of You know another month after your next meeting and you have discussions at the planning and zoning level at October You still have an ordinance in place more than likely by the end of the year. So that just kind of How timing would work?

Thank you would it be accurate to say that you know the moratorium as far as I the PUC in a specific date of being filed by. It would be just automatically thrown out as being too restrictive and not. If that was being, you know, the way you described it,

That would just be you know, it's more than likely more than likely what would happen again I'm not going to speak for the three elected officials of the PUC They would take that into the consideration in there and deliberations of whether or not you have anything in there I think if you had a moratorium in place and that went into say January and now we're into next August having a Contested case hearings on this I would hope that as an interviewer status you would say we've been studying this for nine months We have to hope to have something and done by the end of the year and this is one of the things that we're leaning towards so that at least the PUC would have an understanding of where you they think you might be landing, right? We don't know what the heck we're doing come next August and the PUC says well, what are you thinking? And well, we don't know we haven't come to any sort of agreement on it and

Mean the PUC can still act absent your moratorium Any other discussion from the board at this time Are we all kind of in a point of we've got an idea somewhere between 1,300 and 2,000 feet is where we're thinking. Wait to see next month what the other doctor says and move forward from there. Just ballparking where we're at with what they've got, get the answers to the questions that we had for this evening.

I THINK IF WE CAN STAY ON TRACK LIKE BOB SAID, BE READY TO MAKE A SUGGESTION TO THE ZONING AT THE END OF OUR NEXT MEETING, SEPTEMBER MEETING.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HOPING? I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE EVERYBODY IS AT HERE.

GETS THE BALL ROLLING TO THE COMMISSIONERS A LOT QUICKER THAT WAY.

That seems like a fair assessment of this evening.

I feel like we've actually made progress tonight versus the last two. If there's no other discussion advancing the procedures to move forward here, the next item on the agenda is a motion for adjournment until the September 10th meeting. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion by post. Is there a second?

Just for clarification, they'll be at 7.30 in this room again then.

Thank you. Seconded by Kelly Vanderhall. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Meeting adjourned until September 10th.