Residents press county officials after NextEra, Xcel present proposed transmission lines through Deuel County

Deuel County commissioners on Jan. 20 heard detailed presentations from NextEra Energy, Xcel Energy and Otter Tail Power about proposed transmission projects that would cross parts of the county and connect to existing regional infrastructure.

Company representatives said one proposal would tap an existing small “365” line south of Big Stone and could run roughly 3 miles across three-to-five landowners, while a larger regional plan described by Xcel and Otter Tail would use 765 kV structures roughly 150–175 feet tall, 140–150 feet wide, and require a 250‑foot right‑of‑way. The utilities presented a multi-year schedule that would include route development, landowner easement negotiations in 2026–27, regulatory permitting and construction with an anticipated in‑service date around 2034.

The presentations focused on technical benefits. The utilities said the projects would increase regional transmission capacity and reliability; their materials cited studies showing expanded capacity and reduced curtailment. "765 kV lines are recommended for efficiency, fewer lines, lower impacts, meet growing power demands," one company representative said, and the team described the projects as measures to mitigate identified NERC reliability concerns and permit fuller use of queued generation.

Why it matters: the size of the structures, the width of the required right‑of‑way and the need to secure easements from multiple landowners raised immediate local concerns. Chairman Jay Grabow opened public comment after the presentation and "many people spoke on concerns and questions they had about the proposed transmission line project," according to the meeting record. Residents asked how routing would be decided, whether landowners could refuse easements, and how the county — which has some local generation — would benefit economically.

Commissioners asked the utility teams how Deuel County would directly benefit; the presenters did not provide a county‑specific generation or benefit calculation during the meeting. Commissioners also emphasized that county approvals would follow required state permitting and that the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would have permitting authority for major facilities. Chairman Grabow said the county would not issue a moratorium at that meeting and that legal counsel advised a moratorium follows a process similar to an ordinance amendment; Richardson Law Firm was invited to the Feb. 3 meeting for further counsel.

Public comment and next steps: commissioners did not vote to approve any permits or easements. The utilities identified the next steps as public open houses, filing facility permit applications, routing analysis, environmental surveys and easement negotiations through 2026–2029, followed by engineering and construction phases aimed at a 2030–2034 build window and a 2034 in‑service target. Several residents urged the county to seek more detailed local impact data and to consult counsel before taking regulatory or land‑use actions.

The county’s role at this stage is informational: the presentations were introductory and county staff and commissioners said they would gather additional information and legal guidance before any formal county action.