Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge MPSC to deny Nelson Road transmission route, citing wildlife and property impacts
Summary
Multiple landowners told the Michigan Public Service Commission that the proposed ITC Nelson Road/Helix transmission route (case U-21471) would impose unnecessary land takings, threaten eagle nesting areas and ignore established corridors; speakers urged the commission to require use of existing corridors or deny the certificate.
During the Dec. 19 public-comment period, several affected landowners addressed case U-21471 (the Nelson Road/Helix transmission project) and urged the commission to require the use of an existing transmission corridor or to deny the certificate for the proposed route.
Carol Sandborn of Lebanon Township told commissioners the proposed routing fails to provide alternate routes required by Public Act 30 and warned that the line would cross Fish Creek and disturb an eagle nest; she asked the commission to "deny the certificate of public use and necessity for these projects."
Val Walide Brennan, who identified herself as an affected landowner with experience in electric-system design, said the proposed route would condemn roughly eight miles of land instead of using a feasible existing corridor identified by ITC. Brennan argued that prioritizing an existing corridor would reduce costs, minimize environmental impacts and better protect ratepayers and landowners.
John Kramer, another nearby farm owner, described decades of conservation work on his property and said additional high-voltage construction would put local eagles and conserved lands at risk. He told the commission the project would run perpendicular to an existing 138-kilovolt line on his property, and that a new 345-kilovolt double circuit there would be unnecessary and harmful to wildlife habitat.
Speakers asked the commission to consider rerouting through state land or deny the certificate if the utility does not adopt less impactful alternatives. Commissioners did not take a vote on the project during the meeting; these remarks were submitted during the public-comment period for the commission's consideration in the docket.
