Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carver urges PUC to study alternate route for proposed Great River Energy 115 kV line; city to send comment letter
Summary
City staff briefed council on a proposed Great River Energy 115 kV line that would run through Carver's growth area; the PUC requested additional study of an alternate 'route B,' the comment period closed the next day, and council members asked staff to submit a stronger letter opposing the preferred route and endorsing route B.
City staff told the Carver council that Great River Energy plans a proposed 115-kilovolt transmission line through the city’s northern growth area and that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has asked Great River Energy to study an alternate route (route B).
Erin Smith, the community development director, briefed the council on the project’s basics and the city’s engagement: the preferred route runs through the city’s growth area for 3–5 miles with poles estimated at 75–100 feet tall and a 100-foot easement under the poles that would limit development under the line. She said the city learned about the proposal after Great River Energy began outreach elsewhere and that nine residents who attended a recent open house brought concerns to staff.
Smith said the PUC has asked the company to evaluate route B and that a public comment period was open and scheduled to close the next day. "A comment period is open right now. It closes tomorrow," she said, noting the packet included a Power Engineers study of the alternate route and that staff wanted council feedback on a draft letter for submission.
Council members reacted strongly. Multiple members said the city received late notice of the project and that the community would not receive net benefit from the preferred route; several council members endorsed route B as the preferred alternative and supported sending a forceful letter to the PUC. One council member said the city should be more explicit that it took 'the brunt' of the project's impacts while receiving little direct benefit. Another council member asked staff to clarify technical points in the packet — specifically whether route B would require adding a breaker station and whether the stated $9.5 million estimate referred to a required addition or only a possible future cost.
Staff acknowledged those technical questions: the presenter said the proposed preferred route does not require the breaker, while route B could trigger evaluation of a breaker station, and that the $9.5 million figure reflected an estimated potential cost if a breaker were required but was not included in the current plan. Council members asked staff to sharpen the letter's language and consider a punchier paragraph emphasizing the city's disproportionate costs, and they authorized staff to submit comments to the PUC by the comment deadline.
