03-26-12 PUC Xcel Enegy Statement of Need
XcelEnergy* March 9, 2012 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Mimlesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St.
Paul, MN 55101 --Via Electronic Filing--CERTIFICATE OF NEED APPLICATION SCOTT COUNTY --STRUCTUllE #57 115/115 KV CONVERSION AND STRUCTURE #57 -WESTGA’I~ 115 KV UPGRADE DOCI~T No. E002/CN-11-332
Dear Dr. Haar: Northern States Power Company doing business as Xcel Energy submits to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission this Certificate of Need application for approval by the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The Company is proposing 115 kV conversions and upgrades to the 69 kV Scott County -Bluff Creek -Westgate transmission line. The Project is needed
to address overload and low voltage conditions in the Project area during certain transmission line outages. Also, enclosed is a check in the amount of $14,600 for the application processing
fee as required by Minn. R. 7849.0210, subp. 1. Piease contact Mark Suel at 612-330 330 6750 if you have questions or need additional information. SINCERELY, TERESA MOGENSEN Vice President
Transmission Enclosure c: Service List
APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE SCOTT COUNTY – STRUCTURE #57 115/115 KV CONVERSION AND STRUCTURE #57 – WESTGATE 115 KV UPGRADE
PUC Docket No. E-002/CN-11-332 March 9, 2012 Submitted by Northern States Power Company
i COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE Minn. R. 7849.0200, Subp. 2 Title Page Title Page Minn. R. 7849.0200, Subp. 2 Table of Contents xxii-xvii Minn. R. 7849.0200,
Subp. 4 Cover Letter Cover Letter Minn. R. 7849.0220, Subp. 3 Joint Ownership and Multiparty use Section 1.3 Minn. R. 7849.240 Need summary and additional considerations Section 1.2
Subp. 1 Summary of the major factors that justify the need for the proposed facility Section 1.2 Subp. 2 Relationship of the proposed facility to the following socioeconomic considerations:
Section 1.6 A. Socially beneficial uses of the output of the facility Section 1.6.1 B. Promotional activities that may have given rise to the demand for the facility Section 1.6.2 C.
Effects of the facility in inducing future development Section 1.6.3 Minn. R. 7849.0260 Proposed LHVTL and Alternatives Sections 1.1, 1.7, and 3.2 A. A description of the type and general
location of the proposed line, including: Sections 1.1., 1.7, and 3.2 (1) Design voltage Sections 1.1., 1.7, and 3.2 (2) Number, sizes and types of conductors Sections 1.1., 1.7, and
3.2 (3) Expected losses under projected maximum loading and under projected average loading in the length of the line and at terminals or EXEMPT1 1 A copy of the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission Order approving Applicant’s exemption request is attached as Appendix A.
ii AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE substations (4) Approximate length of the proposed line Section 1.0, Section 3.2 (5) Approximate locations of DC terminals or AC substations on
a map Figure 1 (6) List of likely affected counties Section 6.1 B. Discussion of the available alternatives including: __________ (1) New generation Section 3.5 (2) Upgrading existing
transmission lines Section 3.4 (3) Transmission lines with different voltages or conductor arrays Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (4) Transmission lines with different terminals or substations
Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (5) Double circuiting of existing transmission lines Section 3.5.6 (6) If facility for DC (AC) transmission, an AC (DC) transmission line Section 3.5.8 (7)
If proposed facility is for overhead (underground) transmission, an underground (overhead) transmission line Section 3.5.9 (8) Any reasonable combination of alternatives (1) – (7) Sections
3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 C. For the facility and for each alternative in B, a discussion of: __________ (1) Total cost in current dollars Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 (2) Service life
Sections 5.4 (3) Estimated average annual availability Section 5.4
iii AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE (4) Estimated annual O&M costs in current dollars Section 5.4 (5) Estimate of its effect on rates system wide and in Minnesota Section 3.2.1
and Appendix C (6) Effeciency Section 3 and Appendix B (7) Major assumptions made in subitems (1) – (6) Section 3 and Appendix B Minn. R. 7849.0270 Content of Forecast Section 2.2. and
Appendix B Minn. R. 7849.0270, Subp. 1 Peak demand and annual consumption data Section 2.2. and Appendix B Minn. R. 7849.0270, Subp. 2 For each forecast year the following data: EXEMPT
A. Minnesota forecast data EXEMPT B. Estimates of the number of ultimate consumers and annual electrical consumption by those consumers: EXEMPT (1) Farm, excluding irrigation and drainage
pumping EXEMPT (2) Irrigation and drainage pumping EXEMPT (3) Nonfarm residential EXEMPT (4) Commercial EXEMPT (5) Mining EXEMPT (6) Industrial EXEMPT (7) Street and highway lighting
EXEMPT
iv AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE (8) Electrified transportation2 EXEMPT (9) Other EXEMPT (10) Sum of subitems (1) – (9) EXEMPT C. Estimate of the demand for power in system at
the time of annual system peak demand EXEMPT D. System peak demand by month EXEMPT E. Estimated annual revenue requirement per kWh in current dollars Appendix C F. Estimated average
weekday load factor by month EXEMPT Minn. R. 7849.0270, Subp. 3 Forecast Methodology EXEMPT Detail of forecast methodology including: EXEMPT A. Overall methodological framework used
EXEMPT B. Specific analystical techniques used EXEMPT C. Manner in which specific techniques are related in producing the forecast EXEMPT D. Where statistical techniques are used: EXEMPT
(1) Purpose of the technique EXEMPT (2) Typical computations EXEMPT (3) Results of statistical tests EXEMPT 2 Electrified transportation is included in the column labeled “other.”
v AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE E. Forecast confidence levels for annual peak demand and annual electrical consumption EXEMPT F. Brief analysis of methodology including: EXEMPT
(1) Stenghths and weaknesses EXEMPT (2) Suitability to the system EXEMPT (3) Cost considerations EXEMPT (4) Data requirements EXEMPT (5) Past accuracy EXEMPT (6) Other significant factors
EXEMPT G. Explanation of discrepancies EXEMPT Minn. R. 7849.0270, Subp. 4 Discussion of data base used for forecasts including: EXEMPT A. List of data sets including a brief description
of each EXEMPT B. Identification of adjustments made to raw data including nature, reason and magnitude EXEMPT Minn. R. 7849.0270, Subp. 5 Assumptions and Special Information EXEMPT
Discussion of each essential assumption including need and nature of assumption and sensitivity of forecast results to assumptions EXEMPT Discussion of assumptions regarding: EXEMPT
A. Availability of alternative sources of energy EXEMPT
vi AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE B. Expected conversion from other fuels to electricity or vice versa EXEMPT C. Future prices for customers and their effect on demand EXEMPT D.
Data requested in Subp. 2 not historically available or generated by applicant for demand forecast EXEMPT E. Effect of energy conservation programs on long term demand EXEMPT F. Other
factors considered when preparing forecast EXEMPT Minn. R. 7849.0270, Subp. 6 Coordination of Forecasts with Other Systems Section 2.2 and Appendix B A. Extent of coordination of load
forecasts with those of other systems Section 2.2 and Appendix B B. Description of the manner in which those forecasts are coordinated Section 2.2 and Appendix B Minn. R. 7849.0280 System
Capacity Section 2.2 and Appendix B Description of ability of existing system to meet demand forecast including: Section 2.2 and Appendix B A. Power planning programs Section 2.2 and
Appendix B B. Seasonal firm purchases and sales EXEMPT C. Seasonal participation purchases and sales EXEMPT D. For each forecast year load and generating capacity for: EXEMPT (1) Seasonal
system demand EXEMPT (2) Annual system demand EXEMPT
vii AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE (3) Total seasonal firm purchases EXEMPT (4) Total seasonal firm sales EXEMPT (5) Seasonal adjusted net demand EXEMPT (6) Annual adjusted net
demand EXEMPT (7) Net generating capacity EXEMPT (8) Total participation purchases EXEMPT (9) Total participation sales EXEMPT (10) Adjusted net capability EXEMPT (11) Net reserve capacity
obligation EXEMPT (12) Total firm capacity obligation EXEMPT (13) Surplus or defecit capacity EXEMPT E. Summer and winter season load generation and capacity in years subsequent to application
contingent on proposed facility EXEMPT F. Summer and winter season load generation and capacity including all projected purchases, sales and generation in years subsequent to application
EXEMPT G. List of proposed additions and retirements in generating capacity for each forecast year subsequent to application EXEMPT H. Graph of monthly adjusted net demand and capability
with difference between capability and maintenance outages plotted EXEMPT I. Appropriateness and method of determining system reserve margins EXEMPT
viii AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE Minn. R. 7849.0290 Conservation Programs EXEMPT A. Persons responsible for energy conservation and efficiency programs EXEMPT B. List of energy
conservation and effeciency goals and objectives EXEMPT C. Description of programs considered, implemented and rejected EXEMPT D. Description of major accomplishments in conservation
and efficiency EXEMPT E. Description of future plans with respect to conservation and effeciency EXEMPT F. Quantification of the manner by which these programs impact the forecast EXEMPT
Minn. R. 7849.0300 Consequence of Delay EXEMPT Minn. R. 7849.0310 Required Environmental Information Section 6 Minn. R. 7849.0330 Transmission Facilities ___________ Data for each alternative
that would require LHVTL construction including: ___________ A. For overhead transmission lines __________ (1) Schematics showing dimensions of support structures Section 1.7 (2) Discussion
of electric fields Section 4.5 (3) Discussion of ozone and nitrogen oxide emissions Section 4.1 (4) Discussion of radio and television interference Section 4.3
ix AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE (5) Discussion of audible noise Section 4.2 B. For underground transmission facilities: N/A (1) Types and dimensions of cable systems N/A (2)
Types and qualities of cable system materials N/A (3) Heat released in kW per foot of cable N/A C. Estimated right-of-way required for the facility Sections 1.7 and 5.1 D. Description
of construction practices Section 5.2 E. Description of O&M practices Section 5.4 F. Estimated workforce required for construction and O&M Section 5.2 G. Description of region between
endpoints in likely area for routes emphasizing a three mile radius of endpoints including: Section 6 (1) Hydrological features Section 6.6 (2) Vegetation and wildlife Section 6.7 (3)
Physiographic regions Section 6.2 (4) Land use types Section 6.3 Minn. R. 7849.0340 No-Facility Alternative EXEMPT For each of the three levels of demand:
x AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE A. Expected operation of exisiting and committed facilities EXEMPT B. Description of the changes in resource requirements and waste produced including:
EXEMPT (1) Amount of land required EXEMPT (2) Induced traffic EXEMPT (3) Fuel requirements EXEMPT (4) Airborne emissions EXEMPT (5) Water appropriation and consumption EXEMPT (6) Discharges
to water EXEMPT (7) Reject heat EXEMPT (8) Radioactive releases EXEMPT (9) Solid waste production EXEMPT (10) Audible noise EXEMPT (11) Labor requirements EXEMPT C. Description of possible
methods of reducing environmental impact EXEMPT Minn. R. 7829.2500, Subp. 2 Single Page Summary for Interested Parties Filing Summary Exemption Order
xi AUTHORITY REQUIRED INFORMATION WHERE Exemption Order In lieu of Minn. R. 7849.0260 A(3) and C(6) requiring line-specific loss information, Applicants will provide system loss information.
Section 3.2.2 Exemption Order In lieu of Minn. R. 7849.0270, subp. 2 (A-D and F) and Subps. 3-5, requiring information regarding system peak, annual energy consumption, and load factors
for applicant’s service area and system, Applicants will provide data supporting the load serving needs of the substations serving the area served by the proposed Project, including
information related to substation forecast methodology, databases, and assumptions. Section 2.2 Exemption Order In lieu of Minn. R. 7849.0280, (B) through (I) requiring load and capability
information, Applicants will provide information regarding reliability concerns resulting from forecasted peak demand in the local area. Section 2.1 and 2.2 Exemption Order In lieu of
Minn. 7849.0290 requiring conservation information and impact of conservation on forecast data, Applicants will provide a discussion of demand management programs used by Applicants
to manage peak load and how these programs affect the substation loads in the specific project area and a summary of the most recent filing made by Applicants pursuant to the Energy
Conservation Improvement Statutes. Appendix D Exemption Order In lieu of Minn. R. 7849.0300 and 7849.0340, requiring detailed information regarding the consequences of delay and no facility
alternative on three levels of demand and energy consumption, Applicants will identify the threshold level of demand that places service at risk and the incremental change in growth.
Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.5.1and 3.7
Table of Contents Page xii 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY......................................................1 1.1 Proposal .............................................................................
...................2 1.2 Need Overview....................................................................................5 1.3 Cost, Timing & Ownership...............................................
.................7 1.4 Environmental Analysis and Permitting Summary .........................8 1.5 Certificate of Need Criteria ................................................................8
1.6 Socioeconomic Considerations........................................................10 1.6.1 Socially Beneficial Uses of Facility Output.........................10 1.6.2 Promotional
Activities...........................................................10 1.6.3 Effect in Inducing Future Development ............................11 1.7 Transmission Lines – Type, Heights,
and Spans...........................11 1.7.1 115 kV Rebuild between Structure # 57 to Westgate Substation................................................................................11
1.7.2 115/115 kV Conversion between Scott County Substation to Structure #57.....................................................................12 1.8 Need for New Right-of-Way .....................
......................................19 1.9 Substations .........................................................................................20 1.9.1 Scott County Substation Modifications
..............................20 1.9.2 Deephaven Substation Modifications .................................20 1.9.3 Excelsior Substation Modifications .....................................21
1.9.4 Westgate Substation Modifications .....................................22 2 NEED............................................................................................................23
2.1 Overload and Low Voltage Mitigation...........................................23 2.2 Substation Load Data .......................................................................33
3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS..................................................................35 3.1 Study Methodology ...........................................................................35
3.1.1 Modeling Assumptions .........................................................35 3.1.1.1 Glen Lake Load Modeling Assumption.......36
Table of Contents (continued) Page xiii 3.1.1.2 Related Projects Modeling Assumption.......36 3.1.1.3 Minnesota River Generator Modeling Assumption....................................................
..36 3.1.2 Selection of Termination Points ..........................................36 3.2 Transmission Alternatives ................................................................36
3.2.1 Cost Analysis of Options 1 and 2........................................38 3.2.2 Total System Losses (MW) by Option................................42 3.2.3 Rationale for Option
1 ..........................................................42 3.2.4 New Construction Alternative .............................................44 3.3 Other Transmission Voltages .....................
.....................................44 3.4 Upgrading Existing Transmission Lines.........................................44 3.5 Additional Alternatives ..............................................
.......................44 3.5.1 Demand Side Management...................................................45 3.5.2 Distributed Generation .........................................................45
3.5.3 Distributed Generation between Scott County & Westgate ..................................................................................................45 3.5.4 Renewable Energy
Generation.............................................46 3.5.5 C-BED Generation................................................................47 3.5.6 Double Circuiting Existing Transmission
Lines ................48 3.5.7 Non-Certificate of Need Alternatives .................................48 3.5.8 DC Lines ................................................................................
.49 3.5.9 Underground Transmission Line.........................................49 3.6 Rebuilding the Existing 69 kV line..................................................50 3.7 Consequences
of Delay and No Facility Alternative ....................51 4 TRANSMISSION LINE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS.........52 4.1 Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions ..........................................5
2 4.2 Noise ...................................................................................................53 4.3 Radio and Television Interference ...............................................
...58
Table of Contents (continued) Page xiv 4.4 Safety...................................................................................................59 4.5 Electric and Magnetic Fields................
............................................59 4.5.1 Electric Fields .........................................................................60 4.5.2 Magnetic Fields ................................
......................................61 4.6 Stray Voltage ......................................................................................67 4.7 Farming Operations, Vehicle Use,
and Metal Buildings Near Power Lines........................................................................................68 5 TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE .......................
..................................................................................................70 5.1 Right-of-Way Evaluation and Acquisition .....................................70
5.2 Transmission Line Construction .....................................................73 5.3 Right-of-Way Restoration and Clean Up .......................................76 5.4 Maintenance
Practices.......................................................................77 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ................................................79 6.1 Description of Environmental
Setting............................................79 6.2 Geomorphology and Physiography ................................................79 6.3 Land Use and Human Settlement .........................
..........................80 6.3.1 Commercial, Industrial, Residential Land Use ...................80 6.3.2 Displacement..........................................................................80
6.3.3 Aesthetics ................................................................................81 6.4 Socioeconomic..................................................................................
.82 6.4.1 Cultural Values .......................................................................83 6.4.2 Recreation ...............................................................................84
6.4.3 Public Services and Transportation.....................................88 6.5 Land-Based Economies....................................................................89 6.5.1 Agriculture
..............................................................................89 6.5.2 Forestry ...................................................................................90
6.5.3 Tourism...................................................................................90
Table of Contents (continued) Page xv 6.5.4 Mining .....................................................................................91 6.5.5 Archaeological and Historical Resources...............
.............93 6.6 Hydrological Features .......................................................................94 6.6.1 Water Quality................................................................
..........94 6.7 Vegetation and Wildlife ....................................................................98 6.7.1 Vegetation.......................................................................
........98 6.7.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................99 6.8 Rare and Unique Natural Resources.............................................100
xvi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Project Costs ............................................................................................................. 7 Table 2 Structure Design Summary
.................................................................................. 19 Table 3 Performance Criteria.....................................................................................
......... 26 Table 4 Identified Contingencies........................................................................................ 26 Table 5 Actual Substation Load Data (MWs) ....................
............................................... 35 Table 6 Peak Substation Load Forecast (MWs) ............................................................... 35 Table 7 Preferred Option
1 (Planning Cost Estimates)................................................... 40 Table 8 Alternative Option 2 (Planning Cost Estimates)...............................................
40 Table 9 Ultimate Costs of Preferred and Alternative Options....................................... 42 Table 10 Base Case Losses – NSP & GRE.........................................................
.............. 43 Table 11 Consequences of Delay ....................................................................................... 52 Table 12 Common Noise Sources and Levels...................
............................................... 56 Table 13 Noise Standards by Noise Area Classification (dBA)...................................... 57 Table 14 Calculated Audible Noise
(db) for Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Designs (3.28 Feet Above Ground) ................................................................................... 58 Table 15 Calculated
Electric Fields (KV/M) for Proposed Transmission Line Designs (One meter above ground)..................................................................................................
61 Table 16 Calculated Magnetic Flux density (milligauss) for Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Designs (One meter above ground) ................................................. 63
Table 17 Population and Economic Characteristics ........................................................ 83 Table 18 Parks, Recreation Areas, and Preserves Within the 200-Foot-Wide
Project Area ....................................................................................................................................... 86 Table 19 Parks, Recreational Areas,
and Preserves Within One Mile of Project Area 87 Table 20 Landcover Within the Project Area ................................................................... 99 Table 21 Rare and Unique
Resources .............................................................................. 103
xvii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Scott County – Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion & .............................. 4 Figure 2 Photos of Proposed Structure Types .......................................
......................... 13 Figure 3 Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements for Proposed Structure Types ...................................................................................
.................................. 16 Figure 4 System Intact ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 5 Preferred
Option 1................................................................................................ 38 Figure 6 Aggregate Resources in the Project Vicinity.......................................
............... 93
xviii APPENDICES Appendix A: Order Approving Exemption Request, In the Matter of the Application of Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy for a Certificate of Need for the
Upgrade of the Southwest Twin Cities Bluff Creek – Westgate Area 69 kV Transmission Line to 115 kV Capacity, Docket No. E002/CN-11-332 (Nov. 16, 2011). Appendix B: Southwest Twin Cities
Phase 2 Study Update (July 8, 2011). Appendix C: Rate Impact Information Appendix D: Xcel Energy Demand Side Management Data
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 1 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota
corporation (“Xcel Energy,” “Company,” or the “Applicant”), submits this Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) for a Certificate of Need to remove the
existing 69 kV transmission line between the double circuit Structure #57 of Line #5516 (north of the Bluff Creek Substation) and the Westgate Substation and replace it with a new 115
kV transmission line near the cities of Chanhassen, Shorewood, Excelsior, Deephaven, Greenwood, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The approximately 14.6 mile 69 kV transmission
line that Xcel Energy proposes to upgrade runs in a northeast loop beginning from the City of Chanhassen located in Carver County and terminating at the City of Eden Prairie located
in Hennepin County (the “Project”). Structure #57 is the starting point for the rebuild portion of the the Project as this is where the existing double circuit 115/69 kV line (Line #5516/Line
#0734) from the Scott County Substation divides with the 115 kV line (Line #5516) heading east and the 69 kV line (Line #734), which will be proposed rebuilt as part of this Project,
heading north toward the Excelsior Substation. Structure #57 is located north of the Bluff Creek Substation which is located along County Road 18 (Lyman Boulevard) northeast of Hazeltine
Lake in the City of Chanhassen. The end point for the rebuild portion of the Project is the Westgate Substation which is located northeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 212 and
State Highway 5 along Venture Lane in the City of Eden Prairie. The Project also includes converting approximately 5.3 miles of an existing 115/69 kV double circuit transmission line
between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57 to a 115/115 kV double circuit line near the cities of Shakopee and Chaska. This 5.3 miles of 115/69 kV double circuit line was
constructed for for 115/115 kV operation in 1987 and no physical modifications of the existing transmission line or structures are needed to convert to 115 kV. The end point for the
conversion, the Scott County Substation, located north of U.S. Highway 169 between the intersection of County Road 69 and Chestnut Boulevard. This Application is being submitted pursuant
to Minnesota Statute § 216B.243 and Minnesota Rules 7849.0020 – 7849.0400.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 2 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project These upgrades and conversions along with substation modifications,
additions and new transmission line were identified in the Southwest Twin Cities Phase 2 Study Update Review dated July 8, 2011 (also referred to herein as the “Study”) prepared by Xcel
Energy Services Inc. The Study was conducted to address existing and pending load serving problems in the rapidly-developing
regions of Scott, Carver, McLeod, and Hennepin counties located in the western Twin Cities. The Study showed that existing facilities in the western portion of this high-growth region
are not able to meet current demand and will not be able to support projected load growth. The proposal in this Application is one of several transmission projects that will be required
to ensure reliable transmission service in the western metro area during the next several years. While a single Study identified several areas of need with resultant transmission project
solutions for each area of need, this Project addresses a localized need and provides a localized solution to that need. 1.1 Proposal The proposed Project entails converting or upgrading
approximately 20 miles of 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity including the following upgrades and additions for which a Certificate of Need is required: • Change the voltage
of approximately 5.3 miles of 115/69 kV transmission line to 115/115 kV operation between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57; • Removing approximately 4.2 miles of existing
69 kV transmission line and replacing it with a 115 kV transmission line between Structure #57 and the Excelsior Substation; • Removing approximately 3.0 miles of existing 69 kV transmission
line and replacing it with a 115 kV transmission line between the Excelsior Substation and the Deephaven Substation; • Removing approximately 7.4 miles of existing 69 kV transmission
line and replacing it with a 115 kV transmission line between the Deephaven Substation and Westgate Substation; • Modifications to the Scott County Substation and Westgate Substation;
and
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 3 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project • Upgrading the Excelsior Substation and Deephaven Substation for the
115 kV line upgrades. The proposed upgrades are depicted in Figure 1, below.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 4 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 1 Scott County – Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion & Structure
#57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 5 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Applicant proposes to construct the entire 69 kV rebuild between Structure
#57 and the Westgate Substation along existing right-of-way, which will reduce costs and environmental impacts. The existing 69 kV single wood pole structures will be removed and a new
115 kV transmission line will be strung on new steel structures within the right-of-way maintained by Xcel Energy for the existing 69 kV line. If new right-of-way is required, Xcel Energy
typically requires a right-of-way width up to 75 feet wide for the construction of new 115 kV transmission lines. Steel poles with horizontal braced post insulators are proposed to be
used for the majority of the single circuit 115 kV transmission line rebuild between Structure #57 and the Westgate Substation. Other structure types that may be used for the rebuild
include horizontal post, H-frame, and Y-frame structures. For portions of the rebuild, a cantilever design may be used. This design would require installation of a single pole transmission
structure with all arms and conductors installed on the side of the pole that overhanging the public road or public right-of-way. The proposed structures will be approximately 60 to
105-feet tall with average spans of approximately 200 to 400 feet for post structures and 400 to 900 feet for H-frame and Y-frame structures. The reconstructed 115 kV line would use
795 kcmil 26/7 Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported (“ACSS”) conductors. For the conversion from 115/69 kV to 115/115 kV operation between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57,
the existing structures and insulation are sufficient for 115 kV operation, and no physical modifications are required for this section of the line. Xcel Energy anticipates a 2014 in-service
date for the Project.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 6 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 1.2 Need Overview The need for this Project is identified in the Southwest
Twin Cities Phase 2 Study Update Review dated July 8, 2011 (the “Study”). A copy of the Study is included in Appendix B. The Project is needed to address overload and low voltage conditions
in the Project area during certain transmission line outages. There are existing overloads and low voltages that need to be addressed immediately and the Study indicates that, without
the proposed Project, there would be additional overloads of transmission line facilities and low voltages in the Project area in the future. Depending on the duration of a low voltage
condition, equipment such as electronic power supplies could also malfunction or fail when output voltage drops below certain levels, damaging customer equipment such as process controls,
motor drive controls, and automated machines. Thermal overload on transmission lines is not acceptable as it could damage the facilities due to excessive heat, this could also cause
safety concerns due to unsafe ground clearance of transmission lines. In addition overload on facilities, that operate at a voltage greater than 100 kV, is a violation of NERC standards.
Without the proposed transmission upgrades, overloading and low voltage conditions will worsen as the area experiences continued growth and development. The loss of the Eden Prairie-Westgate
115/115 kV double circuit transmission line is the most critical transmission line outage identified in the Study. This line is the only tie between Eden Prairie 345/115 kV Substation,
which serves the largest load in the area, and Westgate 115/69 kV Substation. When the Eden Prairie-Westgate 115/115 kV double circuit line is out of service, the 345 kV source to the
area is disconnected. As a result, the entire load at the Westgate Substation would be served from Scott County Substation, resulting in overloads or potential overloads on the transmission
lines in the area and in low voltages between the Minnesota River Substation and the Westgate Substation. Forecast data indicates that an outage of the Westgate – Eden Prairie double
circuit 115 kV line will result in several 115 kV line overloads near Scott County Substation by 2016.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 7 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project The proposed Project would eliminate the overloads on the Scott County
Substation transformer and 69 kV lines. The proposed upgraded 115 kV lines also prevent potential future overloads on the 115 kV lines near Scott County Substation as the proposed Project
would provide a parallel 115 kV path from the Scott County Substation to the Westgate Substation. This Project is designed to meet the near and long-term transmission needs for the area.
Based on the current load forecasts, the proposed Project will meet the area’s needs until 2023. 1.3 Cost, Timing & Ownership Depending on the route of the line and potential need for
additional right-of-way, Applicant estimates the overall cost of the proposed improvements at approximately $26 million (estimate accuracy +/-30%). Therefore, the total Project cost
could be between $18 million and $34 million. Cost estimates for Project segments are provided in Table 1 below. Construction of the upgrades is scheduled to begin in late 2013 with
an anticipated in-service date in 2014. Table 1 Project Costs Proposed Facility Upgrades Cost in Million $ Year Scott County Substation termination $1.5 2014 Westgate Substation termination
$1.3 2014 Deephaven Substation conversion $6.3 2014 Excelsior Substation conversion $4.4 2014 Westgate – Deephaven Line rebuild $5.7 2014 Deephaven – Excelsior Line rebuild $2.8 2014
Excelsior – Scott County Line rebuild $4.1 2014 Total Cost Estimate $26.1 2014
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 8 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Xcel Energy would construct and own the entire proposed Project. As
the proposed transmission lines will neither be jointly owned by two or more utilities nor are designed to meet the long term needs, in excess of 80 MW, of a particular utility that
is not an owner, Xcel Energy is not required to submit additional information regarding any other utility under Minn. R. 7849.0220, Subp. 3. 1.4 Environmental Analysis and Permitting
Summary The Project area contains both urban and rural land uses, as well as natural resource, cultural resource, and recreation areas. Xcel Energy has not identified any environmental
factors that would preclude construction of the proposed facilities. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing right-of-ways and through best management construction practices.
A detailed environmental analysis is provided in Chapter 6. As part of the Certificate of Need process, the the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Energy Facility Permitting (“EFP”) Staff
will also conduct an environmental assessment independent of the information provided in this Application. A Route Permit application will be filed soon after the Certificate of Need
application is filed. Accordingly, members of the public will have several opportunities to participate in both the Certificate of Need and routing processes. 1.5 Certificate of Need
Criteria Minnesota rules and statutes specify the criteria the Commission is to apply in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Need. Minn. Stat. § 216B.243 and Minn. R. 7849.0120.
Minn. R. 7849.0120 provides that a Certificate of Need is to be granted by the Commission to an applicant on a determination that: (A) The probable result of denial would be an adverse
effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy supply to the
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 9 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project applicant, to the applicant’s customers, or to the people of Minnesota
and neighboring states; (B) A more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed facility has not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence on the record; (C) By a preponderance
of the evidence of the record, the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural
and socioeconomic environments, including human health; and (D) The record does not demonstrate that the design, construction, or operation of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification
of the facility, will fail to comply with relevant policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local governments. The Company’s proposal satisfies these
four criteria as discussed below. Denial of the Project would have an adverse effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy supply to the Applicants’ customers
• Denial of a Certificate of Need for this Project would result in adverse effects upon present and future adequacy, reliability, and efficiency because of low voltage conditions and
overloading in the area. Low voltage conditions can damage customer equipment such as process controls, motor drive controls and automated machines. Overload on transmission facilities
reduce the life, or damage the transmission equipment. To remedy this condition, the transmission operators will be forced to curtail service to customers. This would result in outages
for residential, retail, commercial and industrial customers. Outages can be extremely costly and inconvenient. A more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed facility has
not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 10 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project • The Study considered costs, system losses, technical performance,
and other factors. The proposed transmission upgrades, including the size, type, and timing, were identified in the Study as the best performing option among alternatives reviewed. The
proposed transmission lines will provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural and socioeconomic environments • The proposed Project will provide electric
reliability and allow additional load to be added to the area grid. • The Project upgrades will utilize existing rights-of-way to the maximum extent possible, thereby reducing the impact
to the natural and socioeconomic environments. The proposed transmission lines will comply with relevant policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local
governments • Applicant will secure all necessary permits and authorizations prior to commencing construction of the Project. • The Project will comport with State of Minnesota policies
of providing safe and reliable electric service to all customers. 1.6 Socioeconomic Considerations Minnesota Rules 7849.0240, Subp. 2 requires the applicant for a Certificate of Need
to address the socially beneficial uses of the facility output, promotional activities that may have given rise to the demand, and effects of the facility in inducing future development.
Following is a discussion of each consideration: 1.6.1 Socially Beneficial Uses of Facility Output The purpose of the Project is to ensure system reliability in the greater southwest
area of the Twin Cities. Existing low voltage and overloading conditions, as well as worsening conditions in the future, will arise if the Project is not constructed. Low voltage conditions
can damage electronic equipment resulting in significant economic
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 11 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project costs to commercial and manufacturing companies. Overloading conditions
can result in costly outages and inconvenience to area customers. 1.6.2 Promotional Activities Xcel Energy has not conducted any promotional activities or events that have triggered
the need for the Project. The Project is needed due to continued and anticipated growth in this rapidly growing region of the Twin Cities. The Project is required to ensure system reliability
and to allow for future growth and development in the area. 1.6.3 Effect in Inducing Future Development The Project is not necessarily intended to induce future development; however,
it may allow future economic development that otherwise would not be possible if the upgrades are not implemented. The upgrades are being proposed based on existing conditions and forecasted
demand that will continue to cause worsening electrical conditions. The upgrades will ensure system reliability and will also accommodate approximately 30 MW of additional load growth,
beyond 2016, before further upgrades are required around 2023. This is based on an assumed 1% growth rate. 1.7 Transmission Lines – Type, Heights, and Spans 1.7.1 115 kV Rebuild between
Structure # 57 to Westgate Substation Steel poles with horizontal braced post insulators are proposed to be used for the majority of the 115 kV single circuit rebuild transmission line
between the double circuit Structure #57 of Line #5516 (north of Bluff Creek Substation) and the Westgate Substation. Other structure types that may be used along the rebuild route include
horizontal post, H-frame, and Y-frame structures. For portions of the rebuild, a cantilever design may be used. This design would require installation of a single pole transmission structure
with all arms and conductors installed on the side of the pole that overhanging the public road or public right-of-way. Pictures of the proposed structure types are shown below in Figure
2.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 12 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Rock-filled culvert foundations may be required in areas with poor
soils. Selfsupporting weathering or galvanized steel poles on drilled pier concrete foundations are proposed to be used for all long span, angle and dead-end structures. Portions of
the existing 69 kV transmission line between the double circuit Structure #57 of Line #5516 (north of Bluff Creek Substation) and the Westgate Substation have distribution underbuild.
In locations where the Proposed Route can be constructed with the existing distribution line, the structures will be single circuit 115 kV poles with distribution underbuild. The steel
structures proposed for the rebuild portion of the Project will be approximately 60 to 90 feet tall with spans of approximately 200 to 400 feet for post structures and approximately
400 to 900 feet for H-frame and Y-frame structures. This spacing is appropriate to keep the conductor within existing right-of-ways where applicable. Table 2 summarizes the structure
design for the line. The proposed transmission line will be designed to meet or surpass relevant local and state codes including the National Electric Safety Code (“NESC”) and Company
standards. Appropriate standards will be met for construction and installation, and applicable safety procedures will be followed during and after installation. The 115 kV conductor
proposed for the Project will be 795 kcmil 26/7 Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported (“ACSS”). The average service life of high voltage transmission lines is 50 to 60 years. 1.7.2 115/115
kV Conversion between Scott County Substation to Structure #57 The existing 115/69 kV transmission line between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57 utilizes double circuit
structures. These structures will remain in place when this line is converted to 115/115 kV operation. A picture of typical double circuit 115/115 kV structure is shown below in Figure
2.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 13 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 2 Photos of Proposed Structure Types Typical 115 kV Braced
Post Structure
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 14 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Typical Y-Frame Steel Structure Typical 115 kV Horizontal Post Steel
Structure Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Cantilever Design Typical H-Frame Steel Structure Typical 115/115 kV Steel Davit Arm Structure)
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 15 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Typical Single Circuit 115 kV Structure with Distribution Underbuild
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 16 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 3 Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements for Proposed
Structure Types 115 kV Braced Post Structure
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 17 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 115 kV Y-Frame Structure 115 kV Horizontal Post Structure 115 kV H-Frame
structure
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 18 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Double Circuit 115/115 kV Davit Arm Structure Single Circuit 115 kV
Structure with Distribution Underbuild
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 19 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Single Circuit 115 kV Davit Arm Structure with Cantilever Design Single
Circuit 115 kV Braced Post Structure with Cantilever Design Table 2 summarizes the structure design for the line. Table 2 Structure Design Summary Line Type Structure Type Structure
Material Rightof-Way Width (feet) Structure Height (feet) Foundation Foundation Diameter (feet) Span Between Structures (feet) 115 kV Single Circuit Single pole, horizontal post or horizontal
braced post insulator Galvanized steel or weathering steel 75 60-90 Direct embedded for tangents and selfsupporting for angle/dead-end structures Direct embedded in 4 foot diameter culvert
or 5 to 8 foot concrete 200 to 400
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 20 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 115 kV Single Circuit Two pole, HFrame or YFrame Galvanized steel
or weathering steel 75 60-90 Direct embedded for tangent H-Frame and selfsupporting for Y-Frame or angle/dead-end structures Direct embedded in 4 foot diameter culvert or 5 to 8 foot
concrete 400 to 900 115 kV Single Circuit with Distribution Underbuild Single pole, horizontal post or braced post with distribution crossarm Galvanized Steel or Weathering Steel 75
70 to 110 Direct embedded for tangents and selfsupporting for angle/dead-end structures Direct embedded in 4 foot diameter culvert or 5 to 8 foot concrete 200 to 500 115 kV Single Circuit
Single pole, horizontal post or braced post with vertical configuration (Cantilever design) Galvanized Steel or Weatherin g Steel 25 on davit arm side 70-100 Direct embedded for tangents
and selfsupporting for angle/dead-end structures Direct embedded in 4 foot diameter culvert or 5 to 8 foot concrete 200 to 400 1.8 Need for New Right-of-Way The Company proposes to upgrade
the existing 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV within right-of-way that is currently maintained for the existing line. In evaluating the route for the proposed Project, Xcel Energy also
evaluated a route alternative that would follow State Highway 7 (“Highway 7”) and Vinehill Road in response to public comments received during public meetings regarding the proposed
Project (“Highway 7 Alternative”). If the Highway 7 Alternative is selected by the Commission, new right-of-way will be required for the Excelsior-Deephaven segment of the line. New
right-of-way would also be required if the Commission determines that some other route alternative, that does not follow the existing 69 kV line right-of-way, is more appropriate for
the line. For the 115/69 kV to 115/115 kV conversion between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57, no new right-of-way will be required as the existing structures will remain
in place and no physical modifications of the existing line will be required.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 21 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 1.9 Substations 1.9.1 Scott County Substation Modifications The existing
Scott County Substation will be modified as part of the Project. All modifications to the existing Scott County Substation will take place on Xcel Energy property. The existing line
termination for the line to Excelsior Substation that is 115 kV capable but operating at 69 kV will be removed from the 69 kV bus within the Scott County Substation and relocated to
the 115 kV bus. A new 115 kV portion of the substation to tie in a 115 kV line from West Waconia Substation will already be in place and this project will be tying into the 115 kV structures
in that area. The line will terminate on the north end of an existing 115 kV box structure in the new 115 kV yard. Equipment that will be installed include one new 145 kV (operated at
115 kV) circuit breaker, and associated electrical equipment, such as switches, to accommodate accommodate the new 115 kV line. 1.9.2 Deephaven Substation Modifications The existing
Deephaven Substation will be modified as part of the Project. The existing Deephaven Substation is a 69-13.8 kV distribution substation that will be partially demolished and replaced
with a new 115-13.8 kV distribution substation. To facilitate the new 115 kV yard and distribution transformers, an area approximately 40’ x 115’ to the south of the existing substation
and an irregularly shaped area approximately 20’ x 115’ x 105’ outside of the existing north and northeast fence-line will be cleared of trees, graded, and fenced. In addition, the existing
fence will be replaced with a new seven-foot tall fence with a one-foot topper of barbed wire on a 45° outrigger. The new fence will be grounded and counterpoised.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 22 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 115 kV equipment additions at the existing Deephaven Substation will
include two 118-13.8 kV, 50 MVA transformers, two 115 kV circuit interrupters, one 145 kV (operated at 115 kV) circuit breaker, and associated electrical equipment, such as switches,
to accommodate the new 115 kV line. The existing 69-13.8 kV, 28 MVA transformers, 69 kV circuit interrupters, and associated 69 kV and 15 kV switches and the existing 69 kV steel structures
will be removed. The existing distribution structures will remain and additional 115 kV steel structures and electrical equipment will be installed to accommodate the new 115-13.8 kV
transformation. The existing Electrical Equipment Enclosure will be removed and a new 24’ x 40’ Electrical Equipment Enclosure will be installed for the new control and protection equipment
installed during the voltage conversion. Future plans for the substation include the installation of up to four additional 13.8 kV distribution feeders (including new steel structures,
circuit breakers, voltage regulators, and associated equipment, such as switches). 1.9.3 Excelsior Substation Modifications The existing Excelsior Substation will be modified as part
of the Project. The existing Excelsior Substation is a 69-13.8 kV distribution substation that will be partially demolished and replaced with a new 115-13.8 kV distribution substation.
The existing fence will be replaced with a new seven-foot tall fence with a one-foot topper of barbed wire on a 45° outrigger. The new fence will be grounded and counterpoised. New 115
kV steel structures will be erected and new 115 kV equipment will be installed. 115 kV equipment additions at the existing Excelsior Substation include one 115-13.8 kV, 28 MVA transformer,
one 115 kV circuit interrupter, and associated electrical equipment, such as switches, to accommodate the new 115 kV line.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 23 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project The existing 69-13.8 kV, 19 MVA transformer, two 69 kV oil circuit
breakers, the 69 kV capacitor bank, the 69 kV circuit interrupter, and associated electrical equipment, such as switches, and the existing 69 kV and 4 kV steel structures will be removed.
The existing distribution structures will remain. In order to fit the new 115 kV equipment on the substation property, the old generating plant building (which has an area dedicated
as a control room for the existing transmission and distribution protection) will be demolished. A new 24’x40’ Electrical Equipment Enclosure will be installed for the new control and
protection equipment installed during the voltage conversion project. Future plans for the substation include the installation of a second 118-13.8 kV, 28 MVA transformer, one 115 kV
circuit interrupter, one 145 kV (operated at 115 kV) circuit breaker, and associated 115 kV equipment, equipment, such as switches, and two 13.8 kV distribution feeders (including new
steel structures, circuit breakers, voltage regulators, and associated equipment, such as switches). 1.9.4 Westgate Substation Modifications The existing Westgate Substation will be
modified as part of the Project. The existing 69 kV line to Excelsior Substation will be removed and a new 115 kV line to Excelsior Substation will be terminated at Westgate Substation.
The existing 69 kV box structure will be used as a pass through structure for the converted line. In order for this to work, the upgraded line will terminate on the 69 kV structure on
the west side rather than the south side where the 69 kV line presently terminates. Equipment that will be installed include two 145 kV (operated at 115 kV) circuit breakers, and associated
electrical equipment, such as switches, to accommodate the new 115 kV line. One existing 115-69 kV, 47 MVA transformer, one 69 kV breaker, and associated electrical equipment, such as
switches, will be removed.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 24 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 2 NEED 2.1 Overload and Low Voltage Mitigation The Project is needed
to address overload and low voltage conditions in the Study Area, shown in Figure 4, during certain transmission line outages. The analysis of the 2013 summer peak model indicates that
there are existing overloads and low voltages that need to be addressed immediately (See Section 3.7 regarding Consequences of Delay). The analysis of the 2016 model also indicates that,
without the proposed Project, there would be additional overloads of transmission line facilities and low voltages in the Study Area. Depending on the duration of a low voltage condition,
equipment such as electronic power supplies could also malfunction
or fail when output voltage drops below certain levels, damaging customer equipment such as process controls, motor drive controls, and automated machines. Thermal overload on transmission
lines is not acceptable as it could damage the facilities due to excessive heat, this could also cause safety concerns due to unsafe ground clearance of transmission lines. In addition
overload on facilities, that operate at a voltage greater than 100 kV, is a violation of NERC standards. Without the proposed transmission upgrades, overloading and low voltage conditions
will worsen as the area experiences continued growth and development. Electric power systems are planned and operated to be capable of withstanding the most severe contingency that can
occur on the system. In other words, the system must be able to suffer the most serious single contingency (often called the N-1 criterion) without overloads, low voltages, system instability,
or loss of customer load. Figure 4 below shows the current electricity supply system to the Study Area under system intact conditions.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 25 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 4 System Intact
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 26 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 3 provides Xcel Energy’s criteria for transmission system performance.
Any facility loaded above 100% and those approaching 100% are documented. Similarly, low voltage conditions less than 92% or approaching that benchmark are also documented. For substation
performance, transformer loading above 115% and those approaching 115% are documented. The deficiencies identified in the Study Area are listed in Table 4. The deficiencies marked in
red indicate violation of criteria listed in Table 3. While the remaining deficiencies identified do not violate the criteria identified in Table 3, these deficiencies could be potential
violations in the future. Table 3 Performance Criteria Transmission Condition % Line loading % Transformer loading Minimum %Voltage Maximum %Voltage System intact 100 100 95 105 Contingency
110 115 90% for load serving buses 95% for generator buses 105 Table 4 Identified Identified Contingencies (Overloads) Contingency Facility Rating MVA flow Overload Loss of Scott County
– Excelsior 69 kV line Westgate 115-69 kV transformer #2 47 70 130% Loss of Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line 59 60.3 102% Loss of Scott County transformer
#1 Scott County transformer #2 70 76.9 110%
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 27 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 4 Cont. (Overloads) Contingency Facility Rating MVA flow Overload
Loss of Scott County transformer #2 Scott County transformer #1 70 77.3 110% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line 316.3 388.7
123% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Minnesota River – Chanhassen 115 kV line 316.3 349 110% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Chanhassen
– Bluff Creek 115 kV line 316.3 339.4 107% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Scott County– Excelsior 69 kV line 68 70 103% Table 4 Cont. (Low Voltage Conditions)
Contingency Facility Voltage Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Westgate Substation 91.4% Deephaven Substation 91.6% Bluff Creek Substation 92.4% Excelsior Substation
92.9% Minnesota River generating station 94% Chanhassen Substation 93.7%
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 28 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project The Study focused on two major contingencies including loss of the
Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line and the Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit line. At times when these transmission lines or related transformers are out of service, several
overloading and low voltage conditions were identified based on 2016 peak summer load forecasts, as illustrated in Table 4 above. As shown in Table 4, the loss of the Scott County –
Excelsior 69 kV line results in an overload of the Westgate Substation 115-69 kV transformer #2. Figure 5 below illustrates this contingency and the resulting overload.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 29 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 5 Outage of Scott County –Excelsior 69 kV Line
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 30 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project In addition, loss of the Eden Prairie – Westgate 115/115 kV double
circuit line results in overloads on the Scott County – Minnesota River –Chanhassen 115 kV line and low voltages between Minnesota River Substation and the Westgate Substation. The loss
of the Eden Prairie-Westgate 115/115 kV double circuit transmission line is the most critical contingency identified in the Study. This line is the only tie between Eden Prairie 345/115
kV Substation, which serves the largest load in the area, and Westgate 115/69 kV Substation. When the Eden Prairie-Westgate 115/115 kV double circuit line is out of service, the 345
kV source to the area is disconnected. As a result, the entire load at the Westgate Substation would be served from Scott County Substation, resulting in overloads or potential overloads
on the transmission lines in the area and in low voltages between the Minnesota River Substation and the Westgate Substation. Figure 6 illustrates the loss of the Eden Prairie – Westgate
115/115 kV double circuit line and the resulting overloads and low voltages.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 31 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 6 Outage of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115/115 kV line
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 32 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Finally, the loss of one of the transformers at the Scott County Substation
also has the potential to cause overloads on the remaining Scott County Substation transformer. Figure 7 illustrates this Scott County Substation contingency and the resulting overload
condition.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 33 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 7 Outage of Scott County Substation Transformer # 1
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 34 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 2.2 Substation Load Data The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
granted Xcel Energy an exemption to Minnesota Rule 7849.0270 which requires Applicant to submit “peak demand and annual consumption forecasts for the applicant’s service area and system…”
A copy of the Exemption Order is attached as Appendix A. In lieu of the system forecasts required by Minn. R. 7849.0270, Xcel Energy is submitting peak demand forecasts for the substations
within the Study area. Xcel Energy considers this information more informative because it focuses on demand in the region where pending electrical problems were discovered. To assess
the immediacy of the Study area need, planning engineers developed a peak load forecast for the area’s load-serving substations as part of the 2011 Study. NSP’s distribution capacity
planning looks at loads on key elements of the system, such as feeders and transformers, on an annual basis. The load readings are gathered from multiple sources and take out the switching
peaks to get each year’s peak reading. Planning looks at growth trends and predicts load growth from information from area engineers, new load additions and economic factors. For the
study, actual loads from 2004 to 2010 were used to forecast future substation load (Table 5). The loads for Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op and City of Chaska were obtained from Great
River Energy and City of Chaska, respectively. Based on the forecast completed for the Study, the peak load in the Study area is expected to increase by approximately 13 percent between
2011 (388 MW) and 2020 (440 MW) as illustrated in Table 6 below. Based on the 2013 summer peak model analysis the overload on transformer at Westgate and Scott County – Minnesota River
115 kV line appear before 2013 (See Section 3.7 regarding Consequences of Delay). Following issuance of the Study, actual 2011 peak substation load data was compiled. The 2011 actual
substation load total (374.4 MW) for the Study area is slightly lower (3.6%) than the forecasted 2011 total (388 MW). This slight decrease in actual peak substation load does not impact
the need for the Project as there are existing low voltage conditions.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 35 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 5 Actual Substation Load Data (MWs) Substation 2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 Westgate 137.9 156.4 163.4 152.9 160.6 159.1 163.3 Excelsior 17.03 15.2 15.5 12.4 14.7 15.8 12.2 Deephaven 42.87 40.7 42.1 40.2 36.3 41.1 41 Minnesota River 24.48
25.5 26.9 26.0 27.3 27.3 26.7 Chanhassen ------------8.7 7.0 7.1 8.0 10.8 Glen Lake 38.3 41.6 39.4 35.7 38.1 36 35.8 Bluff Creek (NSP) 39.6 36.1 37.2 35.9 34.5 34.1 35.5 Bluff Creek
(GRE and Chaska) 42.3 43.1 39.1 40.1 36.6 35.1 40.2 Totals 342.5 358.6 372.3 350.2 355.2 356.5 365.5 Table 6 Peak Substation Load Forecast (MWs) Substation 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 Westgate 171.28 173.86 176.49 179.17 181.89 184.65 187.47 190.33 193.24 196.20 Excelsior 12.88 13.01 13.14 13.27 13.40 13.54 13.67 13.81 13.95 14.09 Deephaven 43.78
44.22 44.66 45.11 45.56 46.01 46.47 46.94 47.41 47.88 Minnesota River 31.00 36.00 32.00 35.00 36.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 38.00 39.00 Chanhassen 8.40 8.49 8.57 8.66 8.74 8.83 8.92 9.01 9.10
9.19 Glen Lake 43.39 43.82 44.26 44.70 45.15 45.60 46.05 46.51 46.98 47.45 Bluff Creek (NSP) 40.02 40.42 40.82 41.23 41.64 42.06 42.48 42.91 43.33 43.77 Bluff Creek (GRE) 6.48 6.55 6.61
6.68 6.75 6.81 6.88 6.95 7.02 7.09 Bluff Creek (Chaska) 31.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 34.00 35.00 35.00 36.00 36.00 Totals 388 398 399 407 413 417 424 429 435 440
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 36 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This chapter summarizes Applicant’s analysis
of alternative transmission options, as analyzed in the Study. The performance of each option was tested to meet the voltage and line loading criteria for North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (“NERC”) category A, B, and C contingencies. The analysis was performed on the Midwest Reliability Organization (“MRO”) 2010 series 2016 summer peak model. The loads in the
study region were updated using the non-coincident peak loads for each substation. 3.1 Study Methodology When evaluating system performance, engineers rely on performance criteria established
by the industry to ensure reliable performance. The bulk electric system should be planned to meet the NERC transmission planning standards. When evaluating the performance of the electric
system, engineers use computer simulations of the interconnected system to evaluate performance under a range of scenarios to evaluate the performance of alternative solutions. The computer
models consider the capability of each of the transmission elements of the system and simulate the power flows on the system. The primary strengths of the methodology employed in the
Study are its reliance on the latest modeling software and most recent load forecast data available at the time. The methodology incorporated the use of existing rights-of-way to the
maximum extent possible and it considered the likely long-term growth in the region. Lastly, the plans presented in the Study not only address current needs, they also provide the framework
for future development of 115 kV and 345 kV transmission infrastructure in the Study region. 3.1.1 Modeling Assumptions Several modeling assumptions were made in the Study to reflect
recent plans and corrections. These modeling assumptions are discussed below.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 37 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 3.1.1.1 Glen Lake Load Modeling Assumption Glen Lake Substation load
is currently served from Westgate and Gleason Lake substations, with each substation serving approximately 50% of the load. Recent studies have indicated that the loss of Gleason Lake
115-69 kV transformer would lead to severe low voltages at Glen Lake Substation. To mitigate this low voltage, Xcel Energy has proposed to move the load, served by Gleason Lake Substation,
to the Westgate Substation. To reflect this change, the normally open switch between the distribution transformers at Glen Lake load is moved to the north side of the load. To implement
this change in topology, the Westgate Substation transformer serving Glen Lake, has been upgraded to 70 MVA. 3.1.1.2 Related Projects Modeling Assumption The Glencoe – Waconia 115 kV
upgrade (Docket No. E002/CN-09-1390) and the Chaska Area 115 kV upgrade (Docket No. E002/CN-11-826) projects are included in the models to ensure that only the deficiencies between the
Scott County and Westgate substations are identified and addressed by the Study. 3.1.1.3 Minnesota River Generator Modeling Assumption The model assumes that the Minnesota River generator
is offline. This assumption was made because the generator is not considered a base load unit and would be expensive to dispatch out of merit order. 3.1.2 Selection of Termination Points
The selection of termination points for each of the options was based on the areas requiring transmission upgrades for load serving and voltage benefits. As the majority of the load
serving need is between the Scott County and Westgate substations, those locations were chosen as end points for the upgraded 115 kV transmission line. 3.2 Transmission Alternatives
Two options were analyzed to address pending low voltage conditions and overloads in the Study area. The two options were selected based on the assumption that it
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 38 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project would be far less costly to utilize the existing transmission right-of-way.
Applicant’s proposed Project, Option 1, is shown in Figure 4 below. Option 1 upgrades the existing 69 kV line between Structure #57 and the Westgate Substation to 115 kV and converts
the existing 115/69 kV line between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57 to 115/115 kV operation. Option 2, the alternative option, consists of upgrading all facilities in the
Study Area that overload to a higher capacity. This includes upgrading the Westgate 115-69 kV transformer to a higher capacity (70 or 112 MVA), upgrading the double circuit 115 kV transmission
line from Scott County – Minnesota River to 2-795 ACSS conductor and upgrading the Minnesota River – Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 115 kV line to 2-795 ACSS conductor. Figure 5 Preferred
Option 1
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 39 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Both options address the low voltage and overload issues that were
discovered in the Study area and both provide approximately 30 megawatts of incremental load growth before new mitigation measures would be needed in the Study area. Option 1, which
includes upgrading the existing 69 kV line between Structure #57 and the Westgate substation to 115 kV, will eliminate the overload conditions at the Westgate 115-69 kV transformer,
currently serving Deephaven and Excelsior substations, as it will no longer be needed since all load will be converted to 115 kV. Option 1 also eliminates the overload on the Scott County-Minnesota
River-Chanhassen 115 kV transmission line, as a new parallel 115 kV circuit will be created. In addition, the upgrades will prevent pending overloading on the Scott County— Excelsior
and Chanhassen-Bluff Creek transmission lines. Pending low voltage conditions at the Westgate Substation will also be prevented by the 115 kV upgrades. Option 1 will also reduce the
load on the Scott County Substation 115-69 kV transformers because the load at the Excelsior and Deephaven substations will be converted from 69 kV to 115 kV. 3.2.1 Cost Analysis of
Options 1 and 2 In conformity with Minnesota Rule 7849.0260(C), the planning cost estimate of the preferred Option 1 is approximately $26 million. The planning cost estimate for the
alternative Option 2 is approximately $15 million. Since the estimates are +/-30% accurate, the range of costs is between $18 million and $34 million for the preferred Option 1 and $10
million and $19 million for the alternative Option 2. The 2014 Minnesota jurisdiction revenue requirement for the preferred Option 1 is $3.2 million or a cost/kWh of 0.000096. The 2014
Minnesota jurisdiction revenue requirement for the alternate Option 2 is $1.8 million or a cost/kWh of 0.000055. See Appendix C for detailed cost analysis of the Company’s Minnesota
revenue requirement. The planning cost estimates for Option 1 have been updated to anticipated Project cost estimates in Section 1.3 of this Application.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 40 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 7 Preferred Option 1 (Planning Cost Estimates) Facility Option
1 Cost in Million $ Scott County Line termination $1.5 Westgate line termination $1.3 Deephaven substation conversion $6.3 Excelsior substation conversion $4.4 Westgate – Deephaven conversion
$5.7 Deephaven – Excelsior conversion $2.8 Excelsior – Bluff Creek Conversion $4.1 Total Cost Estimate $26.1 Table 8 Alternative Option 2 (Planning Cost Estimates) Facility Option 2
Cost in Million $ Westgate Transformer Upgrade $2.0 Scott County-Bluff Creek Line Upgrade $13.0 Total Cost Estimate $15.0 Both options can be expanded in future years to accommodate
continued growth in the area. Based on the model projections, both options would require expansion in the year 2023 and Option 2 would require expansion in 2030. The ultimate costs,
including future expansion estimates are provided in
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 41 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 9 below.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 42 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 9 Ultimate Costs of Preferred and Alternative Options Facility
Cost in Million $ year Preferred Option Scott County Line termination 1.47 2014 Westgate line termination 1.26 2014 Deephaven substation conversion 6.34 2014 Excelsior substation conversion
4.39 2014 Westgate – Deephaven conversion 5.70 2014 Deephaven – Excelsior conversion 2.77 2014 Excelsior – Bluff Creek Conversion 4.12 2014 Scott County 345-115 kV addition 21.7 2023
Bluff Creek in-out (ring bus)3 -2054 Total Cost 47.75 NPV in 2010 dollars 37 NPV Cost in million $/MW of incremental growth, assuming 200 MW of capability (total incremental load growth/NPV)
0.185 Alternative Option Westgate transformer upgrade 2.03 2014 Scott County – Bluff Creek line upgrade 13.0 2014 Scott County transformer upgrade 4.16 2023 Westgate – Deephaven line
upgrade 2.7 2023 Scott County 345-115 kV addition 21.7 2023 Scott County – Excelsior line upgrade 1.5 2030 Total Cost 45.1 NPV in 2010 dollars 30 NPV Cost in million $/MW of incremental
growth, assuming 168 MW of capability (total incremental load growth/NPV) 0.18
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 43 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Based on the year in which each upgrade is needed, the cost of each
upgrade, and the net present value of each option are identified in the above table. Since the two options have different load serving capability, comparison of cost is not sufficient,
therefore $/MW of incremental load serving capability is used as a comparison tool. 3.2.2 Total System Losses (MW) by Option Table 10 below provides the losses for Base case, Option
1 and Option 2. The losses are based on total losses in NSP and GRE control areas. Table 10 Base Case Losses – NSP & GRE Base Case Option 1 Option 2 NSP 295.5 294.2 295.5 GRE 85.7 85.7
85.7 Total 381.2 379.9 381.1 The results indicate that the losses do not change significantly due to either option, therefore no further analysis was performed to identify the economic
benefit of loss reduction. 3.2.3 Rationale for Option 1 The Company proposes Option 1 for several reasons. In the long run, Option 1 is more economical in terms of ultimate capacity;
it has a total incremental load serving capacity of 200 MW at a cost of approximately $0.185M/MW, as opposed to Option 2, which has a lower total incremental capacity of 168 MW at nearly
the same cost of $0.18M/MW (Study at Page 24). Moreover, as the load grows in the Study Area, Option 1 would provide better load serving benefit to the area because it offers better
voltage support during an Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit 115 kV outage. In addition, Option 1 provides an inherent advantage for future expansion of the area transmission system
because the major substations in the area are primarily 345/115 kV capacity. Option 2, an upsizing of the overloaded facilities, would create an
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 44 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project isolated 69 kV transmission loop between the Scott County and Westgate
substations, which would present future challenges for transmission expansion if the area experiences high load growth. Option 2 is considered an inferior alternative to Option 1, due
to operating challenges: 1) Option 1 provides the better system capability to meet the needs of the system by providing an additional 115 kV line between Scott County and Westgate. After
30 MW of load growth, the loss of the Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line, combined with the loss of one of the Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV lines will result in overloading
the other line. In order to meet the requirements of NERC standards (in particular TPL-003 standard for Category C3 contingencies), either the load in the area has to be shed or the
generator at Minnesota River has to be run after the first contingency. 2) The FERC interpretation of TPL-003 standard would require studying Category C contingencies, for expected maintenance
outages on the bulk electric system. This would require the ability of the system to handle maintenance outages, combined with a category C outage, at least during light load conditions.
Option 2 does not provide the ability to take an outage on the 115 kV line between Scott County and Bluff Creek, as an outage of the Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit would
result in voltage collapse in the area, even during light load conditions. This would make it extremely difficult to schedule maintenance outages on the transmission system, and put
significant burden on the transmission system operators. 3) In case of Option 2, any new large load (approximately 50-60 MW) near Minnesota River Substation could cause the voltages
near Minnesota River Substation to drop close to 95%, for the loss of the Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line. This results in violation of the NERC TPL-002 standard, as the generator
at at Minnesota River Substation cannot be turned on. Option 1 can mitigate this problem by expanding Bluff Creek Substation and connecting the Scott County and Excelsior substations,
into Bluff Creek Substation.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 45 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 3.2.4 New Construction Alternative Applicant did not specifically
analyze an alternative that would include all new transmission facilities. The cost and environmental impacts would be significantly greater than the proposed alternatives, which focus
on using as much existing rightof-way as possible. Applicant’s approach comports with Minnesota Rules 7849.0260 B(2), which appears to favors upgrading existing facilities as opposed
to constructing all new transmission lines and components. 3.3 Other Transmission Voltages An alternative voltage solution was considered by Applicant and presented as Option 2 of this
Application. As previously discussed, Option 2, an upsizing of the overloading facilities, would create an isolated 69 kV transmission loop between the Scott County and Westgate substations,
which would present future challenges for transmission expansion if the area experiences high load growth. Adding new 161 kV lines were not considered because they would require new
115-161 kV transformers to be able to connect the 161 kV lines to the existing transmission system, a significantly more expensive option when compared to 115 kV lines (Option 1). Additionally,
230 kV and 345 kV lines are generally used for transferring large amount of power over long distances or providing a back bone for 161 kV or 115 kV transmission systems. Therefore 345
kV and 230 kV transmission options are not appropriate to address the load serving needs in the Study Area. 3.4 Upgrading Existing Transmission Lines The proposed Project upgrades the
existing 69 kV line between Structure #57 and the Westgate Substation to 115 kV and converts the existing 115/69 kV line between the Scott County Substation and Structure #57 to 115/115
kV operation. 3.5 Additional Alternatives Applicant also considered several additional alternatives to constructing the proposed facilities. These alternatives included: (1) demand side
management programs; (2) generation; (3) double-circuiting and upgrading existing facilities; (4) DC lines; (5)
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 46 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project undergrounding; and (6) a “no build” alternative. These options are
discussed below. In the end, Applicant concluded that the proposed Project best meets the identified needs. 3.5.1 Demand Side Management Applicant presents their efforts to reduce energy
consumption via demand side management (“DSM”) in Appendix D. Xcel Energy’s proposed 2010-2012 Triennial Plan4 represents a budget of over $240 million, energy savings of 1,116 GWh and
demand savings of 315 MW over the three years. Although significant reductions in energy consumption have been realized, such efforts are not a feasible alternative to the proposed transmission
upgrades because there are existing overloads. Demand in the Study area is projected to increase well beyond projected reductions realized from the Applicant’s DSM programs. Thus, while
energy conservation is a tool to help in meeting future needs, it will not be able to address issues related to meeting existing demand at the levels indicated in the Study. 3.5.2 Distributed
Generation Distributed generation is generally considered to be small generation sources, usually less than 10 MW, that are located close to the ultimate users. However, in some cases
generators larger than 10 MW are considered to be distributed generation as well. Distributed generation would not satisfy the identified needs for the Project. 3.5.3 Distributed Generation
between Scott County & Westgate Distributed generation is not considered a viable alternative to the proposed Project as multiple generators were required at different locations to strategically
mitigate the overloads on the 69 and 115 kV transmission lines, 115-69 kV transformers at Scott County Substation, and the low voltages at Westgate Substation. Currently there is approximately
50 MW of generation located at Minnesota River Substation, this generation could potentially mitigate the overload on the 115 kV line between Scott 4 Docket No. E,G002/CIP-09-198.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 47 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project County and Minnesota River substations, but does not help in alleviating
the overload on the 69 kV system serving the Deephaven Substation. In addition, due to the residential nature of the area around Deephaven and Excelsior substations, it would be difficult
to site generation in these areas along with the gas or oil infrastructure and interconnection facilities required to run the generating plant. Therefore this option was not studied.
In conclusion, the proposed transmission option is superior when these additional costs are factored into the distributed generation option. Additionally, any generation alternative
would need to replace the reliability provided by adding transmission. Transmission lines have the ability to operate more than 99% of the time. This reliability
level is one of the benefits of constructing transmission lines. For comparison purposes, peaking generation cannot be be assumed to be available to operate more than 95% of the necessary
hours. Consequently, to replicate the 99% reliability found in transmission, redundant generation would need to be installed. 3.5.4 Renewable Energy Generation Applicant considered the
public policy preference for renewable energy generation. The state policy is embodied in two sections of state law. The first renewable energy preference is contained in Minn. Stat.
§ 216B.243, subd. 3a. This statute provides: Subd. 3a. Use of renewable resource. The commission may not issue a certificate of need under this section for a large energy facility that
generates electric power by means of a nonrenewable energy source, or that transmits electric power generated by means of a nonrenewable energy source, unless the applicant for the certificate
has demonstrated to the commission’s satisfaction that it has explored the possibility of generating power by means of renewable energy sources and has demonstrated that the alternative
selected is less expensive (including environmental costs) than power generated by a renewable energy
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 48 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project source. For purposes of this subdivision, “renewable energy source”
includes hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal energy and the use of trees or other vegetation as fuel. The second renewable energy preference is found at Minn. Stat. § 216B.2422, subd.
4, which states: The Commission shall not approve a new or refurbished nonrenewable energy facility in an integrated resource plan or a certificate of need, pursuant to section 216B.243,
nor shall the Commission allow rate recovery pursuant to section 216B.16 for such a nonrenewable energy facility, unless the utility has demonstrated that a renewable energy facility
is not in the public interest. The Commission has recognized that the renewable energy preference statutes create unique issues when applied to transmission projects. The Commission
has found that the preference is not a bar to granting Certificates of Need for transmission facilities facilities where the proposed transmission facility does not immediately interconnect
to a new generation source and will not interconnect with a specific generation source. As the proposed transmission lines are not proposed for and will not interconnect any particular
generation resource, the renewable energy preference statutes do not establish additional standards that the Applicant must satisfy as part of this Certificate of Need proceeding. In
the Matter of the Application of Otter Tail Power Company for a Certificate of Need for Appleton-Canby 115 kV High Voltage Transmission Line, Order Granting Certificate of Need, Docket
No. E-017/CN-06-677, p. 9 (April 18, 2007). 3.5.5 C-BED Generation In evaluating generation as an alternative, Applicant also considered the use of Community-Based Energy Development
(“C-BED”) generation. C-BED generation, like distributed generation, generally refers to small generation projects. The distinguishing characteristics of a C-BED project are that it
is renewable and that it
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 49 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project meets certain ownership requirements.5 As discussed in the Distributed
Generation section above, use of generation to meet the load supply needs of the Study area is not economical. This conclusion holds true even if the generation used is C-BED generation.
3.5.6 Double Circuiting Existing Transmission Lines Double circuiting is the construction of two separate circuits on the same structures to reduce the overall amount of right-of-way
required. Double circuiting prevents the need for new right-of-way and expansion of the overall footprint of the transmission system. In the case of the transmission line between Structure
#57 and the Westgate Substation, the Company is taking advantage of existing right-of-way by increasing the conductors from 69 kV to 115 kV. Planning engineers examined whether double
circuiting was an appropriate solution, in part, to the pending electrical deficiencies in the Study area. Double circuiting is not appropriate in this case because upgrading the existing
line as a single circuit is adequate to serve the long-term needs of the Study area. The line from Scott County Substation to Structure #57 is currently double circuited. 3.5.7 Non-Certificate
of Need Alternatives Applicant examined whether transmission improvements that do not require Certificates of Need, including reconductoring existing transmission lines, could meet the
identified needs in the area and determined that reconductoring the existing transmission system in the Project area and upgrading other components to 115 kV capacity is a reasonable
and prudent alternative to constructing significant amounts of new transmission corridors in the Project area. By reconductoring the existing 5 The distinguishing feature of a C-BED
project is the ownership structure. “C-BED project” means a new renewable energy project that is either a stand-alone project or part of a partnership under subdivision 8: (1) has no
single qualifying owner owning more than 15% of a C-BED wind energy project unless: (i) the C-BED wind energy project consists of only one or two turbines; or (ii) the qualifying owner
is a public entity listed under paragraph (b), clause (5), that is not a municipal utility; (2) demonstrates that at least 51% of the gross revenues from a power purchase agreement over
the life of the project will flow to qualifying owners and other local entities; and (3) has a resolution of support adopted by the county board of each county in which the project is
to be located, or in the case of a project located within the boundaries of a reservation, the tribal council for that reservation. Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 2(g) (amended 2007).
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 50 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project transmission system in the Project area, the need for new right-of-way
will be avoided, which will considerably reduce environmental impacts that would be associated if new construction and rights-of-way were being proposed for the entire Project. 3.5.8
DC Lines Applicant further considered the alternative of a direct current (“DC”) line in place of the proposed alternating current (“AC”) facilities. DC transmission lines normally consist
of two current-carrying conductors instead of the three associated with an AC configuration. A DC transmission line’s primary intended purpose is to deliver electricity from a distant
generation location (several hundred miles away) to a load center. Such lines also do not have the capability to provide community service reliability support to an AC system because
there are no intermediate substation connections. Rather, there are converter stations at each end of the line. This characteristic of a DC line makes it unsuitable for the needs sought
to be addressed by the proposed transmission line, which is to improve system reliability due to increased demand. 3.5.9 Underground Transmission Line The alternative of placing the
proposed transmission line underground was also considered, but ultimately rejected because of cost considerations. Generally, for transmission voltages of 115 kV or greater, overhead
construction is the preferred configuration due to costs. Underground transmission lines also have substantially longer construction times and longer repair times than equivalent overhead
lines. For example, an overhead 115 kV transmission line constructed with single pole structures spaced 300 to 400 feet apart cost approximately $350,000 -$500,000 per mile. The same
facility placed underground could cost up to seven to 10 times as much. This cost differential is based on the different design requirements for overhead and underground lines. Overhead
transmission lines rely on the dielectric properties of air to provide insulation, thereby preventing the occurrence of short circuits. The properties of the air also efficiently dissipate
heat away from the conductor surface.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 51 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project When a transmission line is placed underground, the conductors must
be adequately insulated from the ground and each other, and adequately cooled to prevent equipment failure. Thus, the conductors are wrapped with insulating materials and placed inside
oil filled pipes. The oil is circulated through cooling stations every few thousand feet along the line. Some electric cables have been designed with a specially formulated plastic covering
that does not require circulating oil to dissipate heat. However, the amount of current that can be applied to such conductors is limited. Because of the significantly greater expense
associated with underground transmission, the use of underground technology is limited to locations where the impacts of overhead construction are completely unacceptable or where physical
circumstances allow for no other option. Examples include congested downtown centers where where there is no space available between city streets and adjacent buildings for adequate
clearance, or airport approaches where an overhead transmission line cannot be constructed for safety reasons. No circumstance warrants underground construction based on Applicant’s
examination of the environmental and land use setting associated with the proposed Project. 3.6 Rebuilding the Existing 69 kV line Rebuilding the existing 69 kV line to a higher load
carrying capacity would help alleviate the overloads and low voltages on the 69 kV line between Structure #57 and the Westgate Substation. However, the incremental load serving capability
of such an upgrade would be significantly less than that provided by a new 115 kV line. If a higher growth rate is experienced in the area, the newly rebuilt 69 kV transmission line
may need to be prematurely removed before the end of its 40-50 year useful life to be upgraded to 115 kV to meet the higher demand. Alternatively, a new 115 kV line on a new right-of-way
may need to be built to avoid removing the 69 kV line prematurely. Due to these reasons, options involving upgrading the 69 kV line to 115 kV were determined to be more prudent.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 52 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 3.7 Consequences of Delay and No Facility Alternative In lieu of the
requirements of Minn. R. 7849.0300 and 7849.0340 requiring detailed information regarding the consequences of delay and no facility alternative on three levels of demand and energy consumption,
the Exemption Order requires Applicant to identify the threshold level of demand that places service at risk and the incremental change in growth. Based on the results in Table 11 below,
the 2013 year model indicates that the initial overloads in the near term occur on the Westgate transformer #2 and the 69 kV line serving Deephaven substation. In addition to that the
Scott County transformers and the 115 kV line between Scott County and Minnesota River substations is also expected to overload. As the load increases in the area, the overloads and
low voltages progressively get worse. Table 11 Consequences of Delay Overload Outage Facility 2013 2016 Loss of Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line Westgate 115-69 kV transformer #2
127% 130% Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line 101% 102% Loss of Scott County 115-69 kV transformer 1 or 2 Scott County 115-69 kV transformer 1 or 2 102-103% 110% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate
115 kV line Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line 113% 123% Minnesota River – Chanhassen 115 kV line 102% 110% Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 115 kV line 100% 107% Scott County – Excelsior
69 kV line 97% 103% Low voltage Westgate Substation – Voltage 94.8% 91.4% Deephaven Substation – Voltage 93.9% 91.6% Bluff Creek Substation – Voltage 95.2% 92.4% Excelsior Substation
– Voltage 95.2% 95.2% Chanhassen Substation – Voltage 96.2% 96.2%
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 53 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 4 TRANSMISSION LINE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS During operation, transmission
lines are for the most part passive elements of the environment. Their primary impact is aesthetic, i.e., a man made structure in the landscape. Because of the line’s electrical characteristics,
some chemical reactions occur around conductors in the air; noise can occur in some circumstances; interference with electromagnetic signals can occur; and electrical and magnetic fields
are created around the conductors. All of these operating characteristics are considered as part of the design of a transmission line to prevent any significant impacts. 4.1 Ozone and
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Corona consists of the breakdown or ionization of air within a few centimeters of conductors. Usually some imperfection such as a scratch on the conductor or
a water droplet is necessary to cause corona. Corona can produce ozone and oxides of nitrogen in the air surrounding the conductor. Ozone also forms in the lower atmosphere from lightning
discharges, and from reactions between solar ultraviolet radiation and air pollutants, such as hydrocarbons from auto emissions. The natural production rate of ozone is directly proportional
to temperature and sunlight, and inversely proportional to humidity. Thus humidity or moisture, the same factor that increases corona discharges from transmission lines, inhibits the
production of ozone. Ozone is a very reactive form of oxygen molecules and combines readily with other elements and compounds in the atmosphere. Because of its reactivity, it is relatively
short lived. Currently, both state and federal governments have regulations regarding permissible concentrations of ozone and oxides of nitrogen. The state and national ambient air quality
standards for ozone are similarly restrictive. The national standard is 0.075 ppm on an eight hour averaging period. The state standard is 0.08 ppm based upon the fourth highest eight
hour daily maximum average in one year. Both averages must be compared to the national and state standards because of the different averaging periods. Calculations done for a 345 kV
project showed that the maximum one hour concentration during foul weather (worst case) would be 0.0007 parts per million.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 54 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project This is well below both federal and state standards. Lower voltage
lines would have correspondingly lower concentrations. Most calculations of the production and concentration of ozone assume high humidity or rain, with no reduction in the amount of
ozone due to oxidation or air movement. These calculations would therefore overestimate the amount of ozone that is produced and concentrated at ground level. Studies designed to monitor
the production of ozone under transmission lines have generally been unable to detect any increase due to the transmission line facility. There is not a state or national standard for
general oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The national standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one of several oxides of nitrogen, is 0.053 ppm on an annual basis and the Minnesota State Air Quality
Standard for NO2 is 0.08 ppm. The operation of the proposed transmission lines would not create any potential for the concentration of these pollutants to exceed the nearby (ambient)
air standards. 4.2 Noise Transmission Line Noise Transmission lines can generate a small amount of sound energy during corona activity where a small electrical discharge caused by the
localized electric field near energized components and conductors ionizes the surrounding air molecules. Corona is the physical manifestation of energy loss and can transform discharge
energy into very small amounts of sound, radio noise, heat, and chemical reactions of the air components. Several factors, including conductor voltage, shape and diameter, and surface
irregularities such as scratches, nicks, dust, or water drops can affect a conductor’s electrical surface gradient and its corona performance. Noise emission from a transmission line
occurs during certain weather conditions. In foggy, damp, or rainy weather, power lines can create a crackling sound due to the small amount of electricity ionizing the moist air near
the wires. During heavy rain the background noise level of the rain is usually greater than the noise from the
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 55 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project transmission line. As a result, people do not normally hear noise
from a transmission line during heavy rain. Since human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of sound, the most noticeable frequencies of sound are given more “weight”
in most measurement schemes. The A-weighted scale corresponds to the sensitivity range for human hearing. Noise levels capable of being heard by humans are measured in dBA, which is
the A-weighted sound level recorded in units of decibels. A noise level change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to human hearing. A 5 dBA change in noise level, however, is clearly noticeable.
A 10 dBA change in noise level is perceived as a doubling of noise loudness, while a 20 dBA change is considered a dramatic change in loudness. Table 12 below shows noise levels associated
with common, everyday sources. In Minnesota, statistical sound levels (L Level Descriptors) are are used to evaluate noise levels and identify noise impacts. The L5 is defined as the
noise level exceeded 5% of the time, or for three minutes in an hour. The L50 is the noise level exceeded 50% of the time, or for 30 minutes in an hour.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 56 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 12 Common Noise Sources and Levels Sound Pressure Level (dBA)
Noise Source 140 Jet Engine (at 25 meters) 130 Jet Aircraft (at 100 meters) 120 Rock and Roll Concert 110 Pneumatic Chipper 100 Jointer/Planer 90 Chainsaw 80 Heavy Truck Traffic 70 Business
Office 60 Conversational Speech 50 Library 40 Bedroom 30 Secluded Woods 20 Whisper Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2008). Land areas, such as picnic areas, churches, or commercial
spaces, are assigned to an activity category based on the type of activities or use occurring in the area. Activity categories are then categorized based on their sensitivity to traffic
noise. The Noise Area Classification (“NAC”) is listed in the MPCA noise regulations to distinguish the categories. Table 13 identifies the MPCA established daytime and nighttime noise
standards by NAC. The standards are expressed as a range of permissible dBA within a one hour period; L50 is the dBA that may be exceeded 50 percent of the time within an hour, while
L10 is the dBA that may be exceeded 10 percent of the time within the hour.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 57 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 13 Noise Standards by Noise Area Classification (dBA) Noise
Daytime Nighttime Area Classific ation L50 L10 L50 L10 1 60 65 50 55 2 65 70 65 70 3 75 80 75 80 There are approximately 621 residences and businesses are located within 400 feet of
the Proposed Route. The closest residential structure is located approximately 3 feet from the route. This residence is located in Segment 9 along Valley View Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
The closest commercial structure is located approximately 11 feet from the route. This commercial structure is located in Segment 4 along Highway 7 in Excelsior, Minnesota. Noise levels
produced by a 115 kV transmission line are generally less than outdoor background levels and are therefore not usually audible. Noise levels should not be noticeably greater than existing
levels. The EPRI “Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV and Above”, Chapter 6, provides empirically-derived formula for predicting audible noise from overhead transmission lines.
Computer software produced by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) (BPA, 1977) is also frequently used to predict the level of audible noise from power transmission lines that is
associated with corona discharge. Audible noise is predicted for dry and wet conditions, with wet conditions representing a worst case. These procedures are considered to be reliable
and represent International best practice. The Project consists of a rebuild of a 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV and converting a 115/69 kV transmission line to 115/115 kV. Computer
modeling performed by Xcel Energy using the BPA 1977 software under the worst case wet conditions scenario indicated that the audible L5 and L50 noise levels (discussed below) measured
at the edge of the 75-foot-wide right-of-way (37.5 feet from
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 58 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project centerline) would be at 22.2 and 18.7 dBA, respectively, well below
the MPCA nighttime L50 limit of 50 dBA for Noise Area Classification 1. These findings are shown in Table 14. Table 14 Calculated Audible Noise (db) for Proposed 115 kV Transmission
Line Designs (3.28 Feet Above Ground) Structure Type Noise L5 (37.5 Feet From Centerline) (Decibels A-weighted) Noise L50 (37.5 feet From Centerline) (Decibels A-weighted) Horizontal
Post 115kV Steel Pole Single Circuit 22.2 18.7 Y-Frame or H-Frame 115kV Steel Pole Single Circuit 17.9 14.4 Braced Post 115kV Steel Pole Single Circuit With 13.8kV Distribution Underbuild
22.7 20.7 Davit Arm 115kV/115kV Steel Pole Double Circuit 20.1 16.6 Transformer Substation Noise Transformer “hum” is the dominant noise source at substations. The nearest occupied home
to the Deephaven Substation is located approximately 200 feet to the southeast. The nearest non-residential structure to the Deephaven Substation is the Deephaven Elementary School which
located approximately 160 feet to the west. The new transformer specifications requested for this substation design will result in a quieter transformer than what exists today. The nearest
home to the Excelsior Substation is 70 feet to the southeast and the nearest business is 48 feet to the south. The new transformer specifications requested for this substation design
will result in a quieter transformer than what exists today. With respect to the Westgate Substation, the nearest home is 400 feet to the northwest and the nearest business is 100 feet
to the east. The structural features closest to the Scott County Substation are a gravel pit 900 feet to the west and a mobile home park approximately 380 feet to the southeast (across
Highway 169). No change in noise levels from either of these substations are expected from the Project. The substations will be designed and constructed to comply with state noise standards
established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”).
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 59 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 4.3 Radio and Television Interference Corona from transmission line
conductors can generate electromagnetic “noise” at the same frequencies that radio and television signals are transmitted. This noise can cause interference with the reception of these
signals depending on the frequency and strength of the radio and television signal. Tightening loose hardware on the transmission line usually resolves the problem. If radio interference
from transmission line corona does occur, satisfactory reception from AM radio stations previously providing good reception can be restored by appropriate modification of (or addition
to) the receiving antenna system. AM radio frequency interference typically occurs immediately under a transmission line and dissipates rapidly within the right-of-way to either side.
FM radio receivers usually do not pick up interference from transmission lines because: • Corona-generated radio frequency noise currents decrease in magnitude with increasing frequency
and are quite small in the FM broadcast band (88-108 Megahertz); and • The excellent interference rejection properties inherent in FM radio systems make them virtually immune to amplitude
type disturbances. A two-way mobile radio located immediately adjacent to and behind a large metallic structure (such as a steel tower) may experience interference because of signalblocking
effects. Movement of either mobile unit so that the metallic structure is not immediately between the two units should restore communications. This would generally require a movement
of less than 50 feet by the mobile unit adjacent to a metallic tower. Television interference is rare but may occur when a large transmission structure is aligned between the receiver
and a weak distant signal, creating a shadow effect. Loose and/or damaged hardware may also cause television interference. If television
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 60 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project or radio interference is caused by or from the operation of the proposed
facilities in those areas where good reception is presently obtained, Applicant will inspect and repair any loose or damaged hardware in the transmission line, or take other necessary
action to restore reception to the present level, including the appropriate modification of receiving antenna systems if deemed necessary. 4.4 Safety The Project will be designed in
compliance with local, state, and NESC standards regarding clearance to ground, clearance to crossing utilities, clearance to buildings, strength of materials, and right-of-way widths.
Appropriate standards will be met for construction and installation, and all applicable safety procedures will be followed during and after installation. The proposed transmission lines
will be equipped with protective devices to safeguard the public from the transmission lines if an accident occurs, such as a structure or conductor falling to the ground. The protective
devices include breakers and relays located where the line connects to the substation(s). The protective equipment will de-energize the line should such an event occur. Proper signage
will be posted warning the public of the risk of coming into contact with the energized equipment. 4.5 Electric and Magnetic Fields The term electromagnetic fields (“EMF”) refer to electric
and magnetic fields that are coupled together such as in high frequency radiating fields. For the lower frequencies associated with power lines (referred to as “extremely low frequencies”
(“ELF”)), EMF should be separated into electric fields (“EFs”) and magnetic fields (“MFs”), measured in kilovolts per meter (“kV/m”) and milliGauss (“mG”), respectively. These fields
are dependent on the voltage of a transmission line (EFs) and current carried by a transmission line (MFs). The intensity of the electric field is proportional to the voltage of the
line, line, and the intensity of the magnetic field is proportional to the current flow through the conductors. Transmission lines operate at a power frequency of 60 hertz (cycles per
second).
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 61 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 4.5.1 Electric Fields There is no federal standard for transmission
line electric fields. The Commission, however, has imposed a maximum electric field limit of 8 kV/meter measured at one meter above the ground. In the Matter of the Route Permit Application
for a 345 kV Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET-2/TL-08-1474, Order Granting Route Permit (adopting ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions
and Recommendation at Finding 194 (April 22, 2010 and amended April 30, 2010)) (September 14, 2010). The standard was designed to prevent serious hazards from shocks when touching large
objects parked under AC transmission lines of 500 kV or greater. The maximum electric field, measured at one meter above ground, associated with the Project is calculated to be 1.19
kV/m. The calculated electric fields for the Project are provided in Table 15. Table 15 Calculated Electric Fields (KV/M) for Proposed Transmission Line Designs (One meter above ground)
Distance to Proposed Centerline Structure Type Maximum Operating Voltage (kV) -300’ -200’ -100’ -50’ -25 0’ 25 50’ 100’ 200’
300’ Segments 2-10: Horizontal Post 115kV Steel Pole Single Circuit* 121 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.39 1.13 0.51 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.01 Segments 2-10: H-Frame and YFrame 115kV Steel Pole Single
Circuit 121 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.52 1.48 0.68 1.48 0.52 0.09 0.01 0.00
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 62 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Distance to Proposed Centerline Structure Type Maximum Operating Voltage
(kV) -300’ -200’ -100’ -50’ -25 0’ 25 50’ 100’ 200’ 300’ Segments 2-10: Braced Post 115kV Steel Pole Single Circuit With 13.8kV Distribution Underbuild 121/15 0.007 0.016 0.054 0.121
0.197 0.180 0.195 0.145 0.053 0.014 0.007 Segment 1: 115/115 kV Steel or Wood Pole Double Circuit 121 0.012 0.024 0.043 0.151 0.689 1.139 0.689 0.151 0.043 0.024 0.012 *The EF levels
for the cantilever design options being considered on this Project are not significantly different from the braced post or horizontal post design. 4.5.2 Magnetic Fields There are presently
no Minnesota regulations pertaining to MF exposure. Applicant provides information to the public, interested customers, and employees so they can make informed decisions about MFs. Such
information includes the availability for measurements to be conducted for customers and employees upon request. The magnetic field profiles around the proposed transmission lines for
each structure and conductor configuration proposed for the Project are shown in Table 16. Magnetic fields were calculated for each section of the Project under peak and average current
flows as projected for the year 2025 under normal (system intact) conditions. The peak magnetic field values are calculated at a point directly under the transmission line and where
the conductor is closest to the ground. The same method is used to calculate the magnetic field at the edge of the right-of-way. The calculated magnetic fields show that fields decrease
rapidly as the distance from the centerline increases (proportional to the inverse square of the distance from source).
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 63 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project The magnetic field produced by the transmission line is dependent
on the current flowing on its conductors. Therefore, the actual magnetic fields when the Project is placed in service are typically less than shown in Table 16. This is because the table
represents the magnetic field with current flow at expected normal peak based on projected regional load growth through 2025, the maximum load projection timeline available. Actual current
flow on the line will vary with system conditions, so magnetic fields would be less than peak levels during most hours of the year. Table 16 Calculated Magnetic Flux density (milligauss)
for Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Designs (One meter above ground) Distance to Proposed Centerline Segment System Condition Current (Amps) -300’ -200’ -100’ -50’ -25 0’ 25 50’ 100’
200’ 300’ Peak 296 0.44 0.83 2.60 7.68 17.19 32.82 18.21 7.39 2.10 0.55 0.27 Westgate to Deephaven 115 kV Single Circuit Average 178 0.27 0.50 1.56 4.62 10.34 19.73 10.95 4.45 1.26 0.33
0.16 Peak 71 0.11 0.20 0.62 1.84 4.12 7.87 4.37 1.77 0.50 0.13 0.07 Deephaven to Excelsior 115 kV Single Circuit Average 43 0.06 0.12 0.38 1.12 2.50 4.77 2.64 1.07 0.31 0.08 0.04 Peak
31 0.05 0.09 0.27 0.43 1.80 3.44 1.91 0.77 0.22 0.06 0.03 Excelsior to Scott County 115kV Single Circuit Average 19 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.49 1.10 2.11 1.17 0.47 0.13 0.04 0.02 Peak 31 0.13
0.24 0.71 1.83 3.08 3.87 3.00 1.81 Excelsior to 0.72 0.24 0.13 Scott County 115/115 kV Double Circuit Average 19 0.08 0.14 0.44 1.12 1.89 2.37 1.84 1.11 0.44 0.15 0.08 Peak 296/25 0.27
0.56 2.03 5.64 9.67 12.48 10.18 6.12 2.46 0.82 0.43 Braced Post 115kV Steel Pole Single Circuit With 13.8kV Distribution Underbuild Average 178/15 0.16 0.34 1.22 3.39 5.81 7.51 6.12
3.68 1.48 0.49 0.26 *The MF levels for the cantilever design options being considered on this Project are not significantly different from the braced post or horizontal post design.
Considerable Considerable research has been conducted throughout the past three decades to determine whether exposure to power-frequency (60 hertz) MFs causes biological responses and
health effects. Epidemiological and toxicological studies have shown
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 64 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project no statistically significant association or weak associations between
MF exposure and health risks. Public health professionals have also investigated the possible impact of exposure to EMF upon human health for the past several decades. While the general
consensus is that EFs pose no risk to humans, the question of whether exposure to MFs can cause biological responses or health effects continues to be debated. In 1999, the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (“NIEHS”) issued its final report on “Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields” in response to the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. The NIEHS concluded that the scientific evidence linking MF exposure with health risks is weak and that this finding does not warrant aggressive regulatory
concern. However, because of the weak scientific evidence that supports some association between MFs and health effects, passive regulatory action, such as providing public education
on reducing exposures, is warranted. In 2007, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) concluded a review of the health implications of electromagnetic fields. In this report, WHO stated:
Uncertainties in the hazard assessment [of epidemiological studies] include the role that control selection bias and exposure misclassification might have on the observed relationship
between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In addition, virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to support a relationship between low-level [extremely
low frequency] magnetic fields and changes in biological function or disease status. Thus, on balance, the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, but sufficiently strong
to remain a concern. (Environmental Health Criteria Volume N°238 on Extremely Low Frequency Fields at p. 12, WHO (2007)).
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 65 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Also, regarding disease outcomes, aside from childhood leukemia, WHO
stated: A number of other diseases have been investigated for possible association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include cancers in children and adults, depression, suicide,
reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications and neurological disease. The scientific evidence supporting a linkage between ELF magnetic fields and
any of these diseases is much weaker than for childhood leukemia and in some cases (for example, for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence is sufficient to give confidence
that magnetic fields do not cause the disease. (Id. at p. 12.) Furthermore, in its “Summary and Recommendations for Further Study” WHO emphasized that: The limit values in [ELF-MF] exposure
guidelines [should not] be reduced to some arbitrary level in the name of precaution. Such practice undermines the scientific foundation on which the limits are based and is likely to
be an expensive and not necessarily effective way of providing protection. (Id. at p. 12). Although WHO recognized epidemiological studies indicate an association on the range of three
to four mG, WHO did not recommend these levels as an exposure limit but instead provided: “The best source of guidance for both exposure levels and the principles of scientific review
are international guidelines.” Id. at pp. 12-13. The international guidelines referred to by WHO are the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (“ICNIRP”) and
the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (“IEEE”) exposure limit guidelines to protect against acute effects. Id. at p. 12. The ICNIRP-1998 continuous general public exposure
guideline is 833 mG and the IEEE continuous general public exposure guideline in 9,040 mG. In addition, WHO determined that “the evidence for a casual relationship [between ELF-MF and
childhood leukemia] is limited, therefore exposure limits based on
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 66 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project epidemiological evidence is not recommended, but some precautionary
measures are warranted.” Id. at 355-56. WHO concluded that: given the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, and the limited
impact on public health, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear and thus, the costs of precautionary measures should be very low… Provided that the health, social and
economic benefits of electric power are not compromised, implementing very low-cost precautionary procedures to reduce exposure is reasonable and warranted. (Id. at p. 372). In 2010,
ICNIRP revised its continuous general public exposure guideline increasing it from 833 mG to 2,000 mG. The WHO has not provided any analysis of the ICNIRP-2010 continuous general public
exposure guideline to date. Wisconsin, Minnesota and California have all conducted literature reviews or research to examine this issue. In 2002, Minnesota formed an Interagency Working
Group (“Working Group”) to evaluate the body of research and develop policy recommendations to protect the public health from any potential problems resulting from HVTL (High Voltage
Transmission Lines) EMF effects. The Working Group consisted of staff from various state agencies and published its findings in a White Paper on Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Policy
and Mitigation Options in September 2002, (Minnesota Department of Health, 2002). The report summarized the findings of the Working Group as follows: Research on the health effects of
[MF] has been carried out since the 1970s. Epidemiological studies have mixed results – some have shown no statistically significant association between exposure to [MF] and health effects,
some have shown a weak association. More recently, laboratory studies have failed to
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 67 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project show such an association, or to establish a biological mechanism for
how magnetic fields may cause cancer. A number of scientific panels convened by national and international health agencies and the United States Congress have reviewed the research carried
out to date. Most researchers concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove an association between [MF] and health effects; however, many of them also concluded that there is
insufficient evidence to prove that [MF] exposure is safe. (Id. at p. 1.) The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (“PSCW”) has periodically reviewed the science on MFs since 1989
and held hearings to consider the topic of MF and human health effects. The most recent hearings on MF were held in July 1998. Recently, January 2008, the PSC published a fact sheet
regarding MFs. In this fact sheet the PSC noted that: Many scientists believe the potential for health risks for exposure to [MFs] is very small. This is supported, in part, by weak
epidemiological evidence and the lack of a plausible biological mechanism that explains how exposure to [MFs] could cause disease. The [MFs] produced by electricity are weak and do not
have enough energy to break chemical bonds or to cause mutations in DNA. Without a mechanism, scientists have no idea what kind of exposure, if any, might be harmful. In addition, whole
animal studies investigating long-term exposure to power frequency [MF] have shown no connection between exposure and cancer of any kind. (EMF-Electric & Magnetic Fields, PSC (January
2008)). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, based on the Working Group and World Health Organization findings, has repeatedly found that “there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate
a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health effects.” In the Matter of the Application of Xcel Energy for a Route Permit for the Lake
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 68 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Yankton to Marshall Transmission Line Project in Lyon County, Docket
No. E-002/TL-07-1407, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Issuing a Route Permit to Xcel Energy for the Lake Yankton to Marshall Transmission Project at p. 7-8 (Aug. 29, 2008);
See also, In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Tower Transmission Line Project, Docket No. ET-2, E015/TL-06-1624, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order Issuing a Route Permit to Minnesota Power and Great River Energy for the Tower Transmission Line Project and Associated Facilities at p. 23 (Aug. 1, 2007)(“Currently, there is
insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health effects.”). The Commission again confirmed its conclusion regarding health
effects and MFs in the Brookings County – Hampton 345 kV Route Permit proceeding (“Brookings Project”). In the Brookings Project Route Permit proceeding, Applicants Great River Energy
and Xcel Energy and one of the intervening parties provided expert evidence on the potential impacts of electric and magnetic fields on human health. The ALJ in that proceeding evaluated
written submissions and a day-and-half of testimony from these two expert witnesses. The ALJ concluded: “there is no demonstrated impact on human health and safety that is not adequately
addressed by the existing State standards for [EF or MF] exposure.” In the Matter of the Route Permit Application by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy for a 345 kV Transmission Line
from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET-2/TL-08-1474, ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation at Finding 216 (April 22, 2010 and amended
April 30, 2010). The Commission adopted this finding on July 15, 2010. In the Matter of the Route Permit Application by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy for a 345 kV Transmission Line
from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET-2/TL-08-1474, Order Granting Route Permit (September 14, 2010). 4.6 Stray Voltage “Stray voltage” is a condition
that can occur on the electric service entrances to structures from distribution lines. More precisely, stray voltage is a voltage that exists between the neutral wire of the service
entrance and grounded objects in buildings such as barns and milking parlors. Because transmission lines convey power for
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 69 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project subsequent distribution and are not connected to non-utility structures,
stray voltage is not encountered in such lines. 4.7 Farming Operations, Vehicle Use, and Metal Buildings Near Power Lines Insulated electric fences used in livestock operations can pick
up an induced charge from transmission lines. Usually, the induced charge will drain off when the charger unit is connected to the fence. When the charger is disconnected either for
maintenance or when the fence is being built, shocks may result. Potential shocks can be prevented by using a couple of methods, including: i. one or more of the fence insulators can
be shorted out to ground with a wire when the charger is disconnected; or ii. an electric filter can be installed that grounds out charges induced from a power line while still allowing
the charger to be effective. Farm equipment, passenger vehicles and trucks may be safely used under and near power lines. The power lines will be designed to meet or exceed minimum clearance
requirements with respect to roads, driveways, cultivated fields and grazing lands specified by the NESC. Recommended clearances within the NESC are designed to accommodate a relative
vehicle height of 14 feet. There is a potential for vehicles under high voltage transmission lines to build up an electric charge. If this occurs, the vehicle can be grounded by attaching
a grounding strap to the vehicle long enough to touch the earth. Such buildup is a rare event because generally vehicles are effectively grounded through tires. Modern tires provide
an electrical path to ground because carbon black, a good conductor of electricity, is added when they are produced. Metal parts of farming equipment are frequently in contact with the
ground when plowing or engaging in various other activities. Therefore, vehicles will not normally build up a charge unless they have unusually old tires or are parked on dry rock, plastic,
plastic, or other surfaces that insulate them from the ground.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 70 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Buildings are permitted near transmission lines but are generally
discouraged within the right-of-way itself because a structure under a line may interfere with safe operation of the transmission facilities. For example, a fire in a building on the
rightof-way could damage a transmission line. As a result, NESC guidelines establish clear zones for transmission facilities. Metal buildings may have unique issues. For example, metal
buildings near power lines of 200 kV or greater must be properly grounded. Any person with questions about a new or existing metal structure can contact Xcel Energy for further information
about proper grounding requirements.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 71 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 5 TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE In this chapter we
describe the sequence of activities that occur during the process of construction of a transmission line, some of the measures that can be taken to mitigate potential impacts during
construction, and activities associated with normal maintenance of a transmission line. 5.1 Right-of-Way Evaluation and Acquisition Where the Project is expected to use existing rights-of-way
, the right-of-way agent will evaluate all existing easements. If the terms of the existing easement are sufficient and no new right-of-way is needed, the right-of-way agent will continue
to work with the landowner to address any construction needs, impacts, damages or restoration issues. To the extent new right-of-way acquisition is necessary, the right-of-way agent
will work with landowners to determine how to expand existing easements. For those segments of of the Project where new right-of-way will be necessary, the acquisition process begins
early in the detailed design phase. For transmission lines, utilities acquire easement rights across certain parcels to accommodate the facilities. The evaluation and acquisition process
includes title examination, initial owner contacts, survey work, document preparation and purchase. Each of these activities, particularly as it applies to easements for transmission
line facilities, is described in more detail below. The first step in the right-of-way process is to identify all persons and entities that may have a legal interest in the real estate
upon which the facilities will be built. To compile this list, a right-of-way agent or other persons engaged by the utility will complete a public records search of all land involved
in the project. A title report is then developed for each parcel to determine the legal description of the property and the owner(s) of record of the property, and to gather information
regarding easements, liens, restriction, encumbrances and other conditions of record. After owners are identified, a right-of-way representative contacts each property owner or the property
owner’s representative. The right-of-way agent describes the
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 72 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project need for the transmission facilities and how the Project may affect
each parcel. The right-of-way agent also seeks information from the landowner about any specific construction concerns. The next step in the acquisition process is evaluation of the
specific parcel. For this work, the right-of-way agent may request permission from the owner for survey crews to enter the property to conduct preliminary survey work. Permission may
also be requested to take soil borings to assess the soil conditions and determine appropriate foundation design. Surveys are conducted to locate the right-of-way corridors, natural
features, man-made features and associated elevations for use during the detailed engineering of the line. The soil analysis is performed by an experienced geotechnical testing laboratory.
During the evaluation process, the location of the proposed transmission line or substation facility may be staked with permission of the property owner. This means that the survey crew
locates each structure or pole on the ground and places a surveyor’s stake to mark the structures or substation facility’s anticipated location. By doing this, the right-of-way agent
can show the landowner where the structure(s) will be located on the property. The right-of-way agent may also delineate the boundaries of the easement area required for safe operation
of the line. Prior to the acquisition of easements or fee purchase of property, land value data will be collected. Based on the impact of the easement or purchase to the market value
of each parcel, a fair market value offer will be developed. The right-of-way agent then contacts the property owner(s) to present the offer for the easement and discuss the amount of
just compensation for the rights to build, operate and maintain the transmission facilities within the easement area and reasonable access to the easement area. The agent will also provide
maps of the line route or site, and maps showing the landowner’s parcel. The landowner is allowed a reasonable amount of time to consider the offer and to present any material that the
owner believes is relevant to determining the property’s value. This step is often performed prior to full evaluation in the form of an “option to purchase” contract and can be very
helpful in obtaining permission for completion of all necessary evaluations.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 73 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project In nearly all cases, utility companies are able to work with the landowners
to address their concerns and an agreement is reached for the utility’s purchase of land rights. The right-of-way agent prepares all of the documents required to complete each transaction.
Some of the documents that may be required include: easement; purchase agreement; contract; and deed. In rare instances, a negotiated settlement cannot be reached and the landowner chooses
to have an independent third party determine the value of the rights taken. Such valuation is made through the utility’s exercise of the right of eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 117. The process of exercising the right of eminent domain is called condemnation. Before commencing a condemnation proceeding, the right-of-way agent must obtain at
least one appraisal for the property proposed to be acquired and a copy of that appraisal must be provided to the property owner. Minn. Stat. § 117.036, subd. 2(a). The property owner
may also obtain another property appraisal and the company must reimburse the property owner for the cost of the appraisal according to the limits set forth in Minnesota Statute § 117.036,
Subd. 2(b). The property owner may be reimbursed for reasonable appraisal costs up to $1,500 for single-family and twofamily residential properties, $1,500 for property with a value
of $10,000 or less, and $5,000 for other types of properties. To start the formal condemnation process, a utility files a Petition in the district court where the property is located
and serves that Petition on all owners of the property. If the court grants the Petition, the court then appoints a three-person condemnation commission that will determine the compensation
for the easement. The three people must be knowledgeable of applicable real estate issues. Once appointed, the commissioners schedule a viewing of the property over and across which
the transmission line easement is to be located. Next, the commission schedules a valuation hearing where the utility and landowners can testify as to the fair market value of the easement
or fee. The commission then makes an award as to the value of the property acquired and files it with the court. Each party has 40 days from the
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 74 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project filing of the award to appeal to the district court for a jury trial.
In the event of an appeal, the jury hears land value evidence and renders a verdict. At any point in this process, the case can be dismissed if the parties reach a settlement. As part
of the right-of-way acquisition process, the right-of-way agent will discuss the construction schedule and construction requirements with the owner of each parcel. To ensure safe construction
of the line, special consideration may be needed for fences, crops or livestock. For instance, fences may need to be moved, temporary or permanent gates may need to be installed; crops
may need to be harvested early; and livestock may need to be moved. In each case the right-of-way agent and construction personnel coordinate these processes with the landowner. 5.2
Transmission Line Construction Construction will begin after all federal, state, and local approvals are obtained, property and rights-of-way are acquired, soil conditions are determined
and the design is completed. The precise timing of construction will take into account various requirements that may be in place due to permit conditions, system loading issues, available
workforce and materials. Line construction will be carried out by a crew of approximately 10 workers and substation work will be carried out by a crew of approximately 6 workers. The
actual construction will follow standard construction and mitigation practices that have been developed from experience with past projects. These best practices address right-of-way
clearance, staging, erecting transmission line structures and stringing transmission lines. Construction and mitigation practices to minimize impacts will be developed based on the proposed
schedule for activities, permit requirements, prohibitions, maintenance guidelines, inspection procedures, terrain and other practices. In certain cases some activities, such as schedules,
are modified to minimize impacts to sensitive environments. Typical construction equipment used on transmission projects includes: tree removal equipment, mowers, cranes, backhoes, digger-derrick
line trucks, track-mounted drill rigs, dump trucks, front end loaders, bucket trucks, bulldozers, flatbed tractor-trailers,
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 75 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project flatbed trucks, pickup trucks, concrete trucks and various trailers.
Many types of excavation equipment are set on wheel or track-driven vehicles. Poles are transported on tractor-trailers. Steel poles are proposed to be used for the structures for the
Project. Steel pole tangent structures are proposed to be directly embedded into the ground if soil conditions warrant. Rock-filled culvert foundations may be required in areas with
poor soils. This method typically involves digging a hole for each pole, filling it partially with crushed rock and then setting the pole on top of the rock base. The area around the
pole is then backfilled with crushed rock and/or soil. Culvert foundations involve auguring a hole for each pole, installing a galvanized steel culvert, filling the annular space outside
the culvert with hole spoils, filling the culvert partially with crushed rock and then setting the pole on top of the rock base. The annular space between the pole and culvert is filled
with crushed rock. Long span, angle and dead end structures along the route will require concrete foundations. In those cases, holes will need to be drilled in preparation for the concrete
foundations. Drilled pier foundations may vary from five to eight feet in diameter and 20 to 30 feet deep, depending on soil conditions. Steel reinforcing bars and
anchor bolts are installed in the drilled holes prior to concrete placement. Concrete trucks are required to bring the concrete in from a local concrete batch plant. Steel pole structures
are hauled unassembled on pole trailers to the staked location and placed within the right-of-way until the pole sections are assembled and the arms attached. Insulators and other hardware
are attached while the steel pole is on the ground. The pole is then lifted, placed, and secured on the foundation using a crane. Construction staging areas are usually established for
transmission projects. Staging involves delivering the equipment and materials necessary to construct the new transmission line facilities. Construction of the Project will likely include
one or two staging areas. Structures are delivered to staging areas and materials are stored until they are needed for the Project. The materials are then sorted and loaded onto structure
trailers for delivery to the staked location.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 76 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project In some cases, additional space (temporary lay down areas) may be
required. These areas will be selected for their location, access, security and ability to efficiently and safely warehouse supplies. The areas are chosen to minimize excavation and
grading. The temporary lay down areas outside of the transmission line right-of-way will be secured from affected landowners through rental agreements. Typically, access to the transmission
line right-of-way corridor is made directly from existing roads or trails that run parallel or perpendicular to the transmission line rightof-way. In some situations, private field roads
or trails are used. Where easements exist, the Company notifies the property owner that it will access the easement area. Where necessary to accommodate the heavy equipment used in construction,
including cranes, concrete trucks and foundation drilling equipment, existing access roads may be upgraded or new roads may be constructed. New access roads may also be constructed where
no current access is available or the existing access is inadequate to cross roadway ditches. Environmentally sensitive areas and wetland areas may also require special construction
techniques in some circumstances. During construction, the most effective way to minimize impacts to wet areas will be to span wetlands, streams, and rivers. In addition, the Company
will not allow construction equipment to be driven across waterways except under special circumstances and only after discussion with the appropriate resource agency. Where waterways
must be crossed to pull in the new conductors and shield wires, workers may walk across, use boats, or drive equipment across ice in the winter. These construction practices help prevent
soil erosion and ensure that equipment fueling and lubricating will occur at a distance from waterways. Wetlands present within the Project Area are dominated by Palustrine or grassland/meadow
type wetlands with a lesser number of Lacustrine or open water wetlands. Impacts to wetlands will be minimized through construction practices. Construction crews will maintain sound
water and soil conservation practices during construction and operation of the facilities to protect topsoil and adjacent water resources and to minimize soil erosion. Practices may
include: containing excavated
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 77 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project material, protecting exposed soil and stabilizing restored soil. Crews
will avoid major disturbance of individual wetlands and drainage systems during construction. This will be accomplished by strategically locating new access roads and spanning wetlands
and drainage systems where possible. When it is not feasible to span the wetland, construction crews will consider the following options during construction to minimize impacts: • When
possible, construction will be scheduled during frozen ground conditions; • Crews will attempt to access the wetland with the least amount of physical impact to the wetland (i.e., shortest
route); • The structures will be assembled on upland areas before they are brought to the site for installation; or • When construction during winter is not possible, construction mats
will be used where wetlands would be impacted. 5.3 Right-of-Way Restoration and Clean Up During construction, crews will attempt to limit ground disturbance wherever possible. However,
areas are typically disturbed during the normal course of work, which can take several weeks in any one location. As construction on each parcel is completed, disturbed areas will be
restored to their original condition to the maximum extent practicable. The right-of-way agent contacts each property owner after construction is completed to determine whether any damage
has occurred as a result of the project. If damage has occurred to crops, fences or the property, the Company will fairly reimburse the landowner for the damages sustained. In some cases,
the Company may engage an outside contractor to restore the damaged property to as near as possible to its original condition. Portions of vegetation that are disturbed or removed during
construction of transmission lines will naturally reestablish to pre-disturbance conditions. Resilient species of common grasses and shrubs typically reestablish with few problems after
disturbance. Areas with significant soil compaction and
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 78 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project disturbance from construction activities along the proposed transmission
line corridor will require assistance in reestablishing vegetation and controlling soil erosion. Commonly used methods to control soil erosion and assist in reestablishing vegetation
include, but are not limited to: • Erosion control blankets with embedded seeds; • Silt fences; • Hay bales; • Hydro seeding; and • Planting individual seeds or seedlings of native species.
These erosion control and vegetation establishment practices are regularly used in construction projects and are referenced in the construction storm water permit plans. Long-term impacts
are also minimized by utilizing these construction techniques. 5.4 Maintenance Practices Transmission lines and substations are designed to operate for decades and require only moderate
maintenance, particularly in the first few years of operation. The estimated service life of the proposed transmission line for accounting purposes is approximately 50 years. However,
practically speaking, high voltage transmission lines are seldom completely retired. Transmission infrastructure has very few mechanical elements and is built to withstand weather extremes
that are normally encountered. With the exception of severe weather such as tornadoes and heavy ice storms, transmission lines rarely fail. Transmission lines are automatically taken
out of service by the operation of protective relaying equipment when a fault is sensed on the system. Such interruptions are usually only momentary. Scheduled maintenance outages are
also infrequent. As a result, the average annual availability of transmission infrastructure is very high, in excess of 99 percent. The average service life is approximately 40 years.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 79 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project The principal operating and maintenance cost for transmission facilities
is the cost of inspections, which is usually done monthly by air. Annual operating and maintenance costs for transmission lines in Minnesota and surrounding states vary. However, past
experience shows that costs are approximately $300 to $500 per mile for voltages from 69 kV through 345 kV. Actual line-specific maintenance costs depend on the setting, the amount of
vegetation management necessary, storm damage occurrences, structure types, materials used, and the age of the line. The workforce size for maintenance efforts is dependent on the scope
of work to be conducted. Substations require a certain amount of maintenance to keep them functioning in accordance with accepted operating parameters and the National Electric Safety
Code (“NESC”) requirements. Transformers, circuit breakers, batteries, protective relays, and other equipment need to be serviced periodically in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
The substation site must be kept free of vegetation and adequate drainage must be maintained.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 80 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION This section provides a description of
the environmental setting, potential impacts and mitigative measures Xcel Energy has proposed, where appropriate, to minimize the impacts of siting, constructing and operating the Project.
If the proposed transmission lines were removed in the future, the land could be restored to its prior condition and/or put to a different use. The majority of the measures proposed
are part of the standard construction process at Xcel Energy. Unless otherwise identified in the following text, the costs of the mitigative measures proposed are considered nominal.
For the purpose of this Section, the “Project Area” refers to an area that extends a distance of three miles from the proposed route. The six-mile wide Project Area totals 83,340 acres.
6.1 Description of Environmental Setting The proposed transmission line conversion and rebuild is located in Carver, Hennepin, and Scott Counties. Cities affected by the rebuild will
include Chaska, Chanhassen, Shorewood, Excelsior, Greenwood, Deephaven, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. The Project Area begins at the Scott County Substation located in Jackson Township
and proceeds north crossing the Minnesota River in the City of Chaska. The Project Area continues northward to the Bluff Creek Substation and to Structure #57 located on Xcel Energy
115 kV Transmission Line #5516 and follows the existing transmission right-of-way (Line #0734) terminating at the Westgate Substation (located Eden Prairie, MN). The proposed transmission
line conversion and rebuild is located almost entirely within residential or commercial areas. 6.2 Geomorphology and Physiography The Project Area is located within the Big Woods subsection
of the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section (222M), a section within the biogeographic province known as the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province under the Ecological Classification
System System (“ECS”) developed by the Minnesota Department of National Resources (“MnDNR”) and the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) (MNDNR, 2010). The dominant landscape features
in the general area are described as level topped hills bounded by smooth side slopes per the ECS. There are broad level areas between
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 81 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project these hills that contain lakes and peat bogs, with the area’s drainage
controlled by the level of these lakes. The topography of this ECS subsection is gently to moderately rolling. The topography of the Project Area, however, is relatively level and ranges
from 1,025 feet above mean sea level in elevation in the west to 915 feet above mean sea level as the transmission line route travels to the east. The lowest portion of the Project Area
is within Segment 1 where it ranges from 700 to 850 mean sea level as it crosses the Minnesota River. Geologic and topographic information from the MnDNR and the United States Geological
Survey (“USGS”) was analyzed to determine the existing conditions within the Project Area and the potential effects on those conditions. Pre-settlement vegetation consisted primarily
of oak woodland and maple basswood forest with pockets of prairie. With the exception of areas around the Minnesota River, the majority of the Project Area has been nearly entirely developed
for residential and commercial occupancy with only small portions of either upland forest or wetlands. Other portions cross or pass by water features (Minnesota River in Carver and Scott
counties, Bluff Creek and Assumption Creek in Carver County and Purgatory Creek in Hennepin County; Strunk Lake, Harrison Lake, College Lake, Mud Lake, Galpin Lake, Lake Minnetonka,
William Lake, Duck Lake, as well as numerous unnamed lakes and drainages). 6.3 Land Use and Human Settlement 6.3.1 Commercial, Industrial, Residential Land Use Land use in the Project
Area is primarily a mix of both residential and commercial land use with the exception of the portion of the Project in Scott county which is a mix of undeveloped land and rural industrial
uses. The Project Area passes through eight individual municipalities located in Carver and Hennepin counties, and Jackson Township in Scott County. The City of Eden Prairie is the largest
municipality located along the route with a population of over 60,000 (2000 Census). 6.3.2 Displacement
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 82 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project No displacement of residential homes or businesses will occur as a
result of this Project. The NESC and Xcel Energy’s standards require certain clearances between transmission line facilities and buildings for safe operation of the proposed transmission
line. Xcel Energy will acquire a right-of-way for the transmission line that is sufficient to maintain these clearances. 6.3.3 Aesthetics Because the proposed Project will mainly follow
existing 69 kV transmission line routes, the Project will have nominal effects on the visual and aesthetic character of the area. The proposed structures for the 115 kV double circuit
lines will be similar to the other 115 kV transmission lines used on the Xcel Energy system. The structures will be about 60 to 105 feet tall and will have an average span of 325 feet.
A maximum span of 400 feet will be used between the structures, which will still keep the conductor within the right-of-way under blowout conditions. The usual right-ofway required for
these types of structures is 75 feet wide. The existing transmission line structures vary in height between 50 to 90 feet. By comparison, the proposed transmission line structures will
generally be slightly taller, ranging from 60 to 105 feet in height. The overall spacing of the poles will be comparable to the current layout, which varies greatly by engineering and
land use constraints. The finish of the proposed poles will be either galvanized steel or self-weathering steel. The existing transmission line structures in this area are a mix of wood
poles, steel poles and some H-frame construction. The galvanized steel poles will give the transmission line a somewhat cleaner and more modern appearance, while the selfweathering steel
poles will have a greater propensity to blend in with local environment. Like the existing 69 kV transmission line, the new single circuit transmission line will be visible to area residents.
The majority of the landscape in the Project Area is developed residential and light industrial. The visual effect will depend largely on the perceptions of the observers. The visual
contrast added by the transmission structures and lines may be perceived as a visual disruption or as points of visual interest. The transmission lines and substations that already exist
in the Project Area
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 83 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project will limit the extent to which the new line and substation are viewed
as a disruption it the area’s scenic integrity. Mitigative Measures Although the proposed line will alter views of surrounding land uses, Xcel Energy has identified the route that predominantly
uses existing transmission corridors and avoids residences and businesses to the greatest extent practicable. Xcel Energy will work with landowners to identify concerns related to the
transmission line aesthetics. 6.4 Socioeconomic Population and economic characteristics based on the 2010 U.S. Census are presented in Table 17. Table 17 Population and Economic Characteristics
Location Population Minority Population (Percent) Caucasian Population (Percent) Per Capita Income Percentage of Individuals Below Poverty Level State of Minnesota 5,303,925 16.9 83.1
$29,431 10.9 Carver County 91,042 9.3 90.7 $35,987 5.0 City of Chanhassen 22,952 22,952 8.2 91.3 $43,571 2.9 City of Chaska 23,770 16.6 83.4 $33,358 8.4 Hennepin County 1,1,152,425 28.3
71.7 $35,687 11.9 City of Eden Prairie 60,797 20.0 80.0 $48,916 5.0 City of Shorewood 7,307 5.4 94.6 $58,789 1.1 City of Excelsior 2,393 5.9 94.1 $29,127 5.7 City of Greenwood 729 3.4
96.6 $63,200 0.8 City of Deephaven 3,853 2.6 97.4 $58,544 2.6 City of Minnetonka 49,734 11.4 88.6 $47,036 4.2 Scott County 129,928 15.5 84.5 $33,750 4.8
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 84 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Source: 2010 U.S. Census: General Demographic Characteristics According
to the 2010 Census data, Carver County is 90.7 percent Caucasian, while Hennepin County is 71.7 percent Caucasian, and Scott County is 84.5 percent Caucasian. The minority population
percentage averages 4.8% in municipalities encompassing the Project Area. In Carver County, the area proximal to the Project Area has an average household per capita income which is
higher than the average for the county as a whole. This trend is similar in Hennepin County. Within the Project Area, the average percentages of minority populations and low-income populations
are lower than both the county and state averages. Approximately 8 to 12 workers will be required by Xcel Energy for transmission line construction. The transmission crews are expected
to spend approximately 6 months constructing the project. There will be short-term impacts to community services as a result of construction activity and an influx of contractor employees
during construction of the various segments of the Project. Both utility personnel and contractors will be used for construction activities. The communities near the Project should experience
shortterm positive economic impacts through the use of the hotels, restaurants and other services by the various workers. It is not expected that additional permanent jobs will be created
by the Project. The construction activities will provide a seasonal influx of economic activity into the communities during the construction phase, and materials such as concrete may
be purchased from local vendors. Long-term beneficial impacts from the Project include increased local tax base resulting from the incremental increase in revenues from utility property
taxes. 6.4.1 Cultural Values Cultural values include those perceived community beliefs or attitudes in a given area, which provide a framework for community unity. The project area passes
through
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 85 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project eight individual municipalities distributed between two counties,
and Jackson Township in Scott County. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the populations of all three counties derive from a diverse ethnic heritage. However, a majority of the reported
ethnic backgrounds are of European origin. In Carver County, German and Scandinavian heritage comprises 76% of the total population, with German heritage being the most prevalent with
nearly 50%. Hennepin County has a similar, yet less pronounced German and Scandinavian ethnic representation at 55%, with German heritage being nearly 30%. Cultural representation in
community events appears to be more closely tied to geographic features (such as Lake Minnetonka), seasonal events, national holidays, and municipal events than to those based in ethnic
heritage. Examples of regional cultural events include the annual Fourth of July Celebrations in Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, and Excelsior; the Chan Jam Music Festival and Summer Concert
Series in Chanhassen; the Art on the Lake and By the Bay Music Festival in Excelsior; the Arctic Fever event in Excelsior; and the Tour de Tonka regional bike race. Construction of the
proposed Project is not expected to conflict with the cultural values along the route. No impacts to cultural values are anticipated and therefore no mitigative measures are proposed.
6.4.2 Recreation The Project Area crosses eight municipalities. Moving west to east along the Project Area those municipalities include Chaska, Chanhassen, Shorewood, Excelsior, Greenwood,
Deephaven, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. A total of fourteen parks intersect or about the 200-foot-wide Project Area (Table 18). The municipality and uses of the fourteen identified
parks are summarized in Table 18. The Project is not expected to directly impact any of these recreational resources.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 86 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 18 Parks, Recreation Areas, and Preserves Within the 200-Foot-Wide
Project Area Park Amenities Park Municipality Playfield Picnic Shelter Tennis Courts Play Structure Hard Courts Picnic Area Walking Trails Biking Trails Outdoor Hockey Warming House
Parking Fishing Nature Area Restrooms Handicap Garden Boat Access Skate Park Volleyball Court Bluff Creek Chaska X X X X Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Chanhassen X X X X X X X X X X
X X Pinehurst Preserve at Lake Harrison Chanhassen X Bluff Creek Preserve Chanhassen X X Village Hall Park Deephaven X X X X X X X X Burton Park Deephaven X X X X Lake Minnetonka L Regional
Trail Multiple X X Purgatory Park Minnetonka X X X X X X X X Kelly Park Minnetonka X X X X Edenbrook Conservation Area Eden Prairie X X X X X Round Lake Park Eden Prairie X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X Edenvale Conservation Area Eden Prairie X X X Edenvale Park Eden Prairie X X X X X X X X X X Minnesota Carver and X X X X X X X X X
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 87 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Park Amenities Park Municipality Playfield Picnic Shelter Tennis Courts
Play Structure Hard Courts Picnic Area Walking Trails Biking Trails Outdoor Hockey Warming House Parking Fishing Nature Area Restrooms Handicap Garden Boat Access Skate Park Volleyball
Court Valley State Recreational Area Scott Counties All parks, recreational areas, and preserves that lay within one mile of the project area were also identified. A total of 74 parks,
recreation areas, and preserves (identified by municipality) are located within one mile of the Project Area and are summarized in Table 19. Table 19 Parks, Recreational Areas, and Preserves
Within One Mile of Project Area Municipality Area Name Chaska Riverview Park, Bluff Park, Shadow Wood Park, Schalow Park, Wood Ridge Park, and Pioneer Park Chanhassen Bluff Creek Preserve,
Power Hill Park, Prairie Knoll Park, Lake Susan Park, Lake Susan Preserve Sunset Ridge Park, Bluff Creek Preserve North, Stone Creek Park, Chanhassen Nature Preserve, Bluff Creek Elementary
School Park, Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Bluff Creek Headwaters Preserve, Lake Ann Park, Sugarbush Park, Greenwood Shores Park, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, Herman Field Park,
Pinehurst Preserve at Lake Harrison, Pleasant Hill Park, Curry Farms Park. Shorewood Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail, Badger Park, Manor Park, Shuman Woods Park. Excelsior Excelsior
Commons, Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail Greenwood Meadville Park, Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail Deephaven Village Hill Park, Cottagewood Children’s Park, Shuck Park,
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 88 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Municipality Area Name Nocomo Beach, Deephaven Beach Park, Lake Minnetonka
LRT Regional Trail, Burton Park, Cleveland Park, unnamed park. Minnetonka Reich Park, Lake Charlotte, Woodgate Park, Holiday Lake Park, Kelly Gardens Park, Purgatory Park, Spring Hill
Park, Covington Park, Boulder Creek Park, Gro Tonka Park, Elmwood-Strand Park, Mini Tonka Park, Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail Eden Prairie Birch Island Park, Timbercreek Conservation
Area, Edenbrook Conservation Area, Rustic Hills Park, Wyndham Knoll Park, Eden Valley Park, Edgewood Park, High Estates Trail Park, Prairie View School Park, Hidden Ponds Park, Sterling
Field Park, Round Lake Park, Mitchell Marsh Conservation Area, Edenvale Conservation Area, Edenvale Park, Westgate Conservation Area, Willow Park, Pheasant Woods Park, Red Rock Conservation
Area, Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail, Miller Park Carver and Scott Counties Minnesota Valley Recreational Area A total of 28 bikeways intersect the Project Area along its
length. The Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area Trail intersects the Project Area in the Scott County portion of Segment 1. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail intersects the Project
Area in Excelsior near Galpin Lake and generally parallels the Project Area for approximately five miles until the Project Area turns south along Highway 101. Within the City of Chanhassen
bikeways intersect the Project Area at eleven locations, three of which parallel the Project Area for 0.10 to 1.0 mile long segments. Within the City of Excelsior one intersect occurs
where the LRT Trail intersects then runs parallel to the Project Area for approximately one-half mile before entering the municipality of Greenwood. Within the City of Greenwood the
LRT Trail runs parallel to the Project Area for approximately 1 ½ miles before entering the municipality of Shorewood. No other bikeway intersects occur within the City of Greenwood.
The LRT Trail parallels the Project Area through the municipality of Shorewood for approximately one-half mile before entering the municipality of Deephaven. No other bikeways intersect
the Project Area within the City of
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 89 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Shorewood. Within Deephaven, the LRT Trail parallels the Project Area
for 1 ½ miles before entering the City of Minnetonka. A second bikeway intersects the Project Area within the municipality of Deephaven near the Deephaven substation. Within the City
of Minnetonka, the LRT Trail parallels the Project Area for approximately ½ mile until the Project Area turns south along Highway 101. Bikeways intersect the Project Area at seven other
locations within the municipality of Minnetonka. Within the City of Eden Prairie, bikeways intersect the Project Area at four locations. Mitigative Measures The Project will be visible
from the Minnesota River, Strunk Lake, Harrison Lake, Galpin Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Duck Lake, and Round Lake; however direct impact to these resources is not expected. If impacts to
these resources are encountered during construction of the Project, Xcel Energy will work with the appropriate representatives to minimize any impacts. 6.4.3 Public Services and Transportation
The seven municipalities provide water, sewer and electrical service to its residents. Based on comments provided by City staff, no public utility or road improvements projects are currently
planned for the area near the existing Xcel Energy transmission line within the municipalities. Regional transportation studies have been undertaken by Carver and Hennepin Counties and
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”). The Carver County regional study was completed in partnership with Victoria, Waconia, Chanhassen and Norwood Young America (Carver
County Public Works Department, 2009). This study did not identify any improvements or realignments within the Project Area. The Hennepin County Transportation System Plan has identified
proposed improvements nearest the Project Area discuss upgrades to the intersection of Minnesota Highway 7 and 19.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 90 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 6.5 Land-Based Economies 6.5.1 Agriculture Carver County has a strong
economic dependence on agricultural production. According to the 2007 United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Census of Agriculture, Carver County has 800 individual farms,
marking a 2% decrease in total number of farms over the previous five years. Agricultural lands cover 169,367 acres, representing over 70% of all lands in Carver County with an average
farm size of 212 acres. Carver County ranks among the top 20 counties in production of fruits, tree nuts, and berries
(ranking 15th statewide); nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod (ranking 10th statewide); and milk and other bovine dairy products (ranking 13th statewide). Nearly $93 million was
generated from both crop and livestock sales in 2007. Hennepin County has limited economic dependence on agricultural production. According to the 2007 USDA Census of of Agriculture,
Hennepin County has 582 individual farms, marking a 7% decrease in total number of farms over the previous five years. Agricultural lands cover 66,558 acres, representing over 18% of
all land in Hennepin County with an average farm size of 114 acres. Hennepin County ranks among the top twenty Minnesota counties in the production of nursery, greenhouse, floriculture
and sod products (ranking 3rd statewide); and horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys (ranking 3rd statewide). Over $51 million was generated from both crop and livestock sales in
2007. Construction of new transmission structures and removal of existing structures will require repeated access to structure locations to install foundations, structures and conductors.
Equipment used in this process includes drill rigs, concrete trucks, backhoes, cranes, boom trucks and assorted small vehicles. Operation of these vehicles on adjoining farm fields can
cause rutting and compaction, particularly during springtime and otherwise wet conditions. Landowners will be compensated for the use of their land through easement payments. Additionally,
to minimize loss of farmland and rural properties and to
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 91 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project ensure reasonable access to the land near the poles, Xcel Energy intends
to place the poles approximately five feet from, and overhang, the roadway right-of-way. When possible, Xcel Energy will attempt to rebuild the transmission lines before crops are planted
or following harvest. Where possible, spring-time construction will be avoided. However, if construction during spring-time is necessary, disturbance to farm soil from access to each
structure location will be minimized by using the shortest access route. This may require construction of temporary driveways between the roadway and the structure, but would limit traffic
on fields between structures. Construction mats may also be used to minimize impacts on the access paths and in construction areas. Xcel Energy construction teams will work with the
property owner, right of way agent, and transmission line engineers to minimize the impact on property through use of the owner’s knowledge of the property. In addition to payments for
easements acquired, Xcel Energy will compensate landowners for any crop damage and soil compaction that occurs as a result of the Project. 6.5.2 Forestry There are no forested areas
where species are harvested along the proposed transmission line rebuild route or the proposed new transmission line route. The primary tree cover in the area is associated with wetlands,
waterways and homesteads. No economically significant forestry resources are located along the proposed transmission line rebuild route. No impacts are anticipated and therefore no mitigative
measures are proposed. 6.5.3 Tourism Primary tourism activities in the region include camping, recreational use of the regions lakes for fishing and boating, bicycling, and cross country
skiing. Lake Minnetonka is the largest lake in the Project Area and the dominant recreational feature.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 92 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 6.5.4 Mining There are multiple gravel pits, rock quarries and commercial
aggregate sources in the vicinity of the Project Area (see Figure 6). According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Aggregate Unit Office of Materials & Road Research (2002)
there is active gravel pit located within three miles of Segments 2 through 10 of the Project Area. A number of inactive pits and registered prospected sources exist in Segments 2 through
10, but these are located in areas currently commercial or residential districts. These sources are not located in close proximity to the Project and will not be affected by the Project
should development be pursued. Unknown resources that may exist in the near the Project would be situated in close proximity to existing utility and roadway ROW, making development unlikely.
There are seven active pits within three mile of Segment 1 of the Project. Two are bedrock quarries and the other five are aggregate pits, one of which is owned by MnDOT. None of these
active pits are in close proximity to the Project.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 93 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Figure 6 Aggregate Resources in the Project Vicinity
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 94 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Mitigative Measures No impacts to mining operations are anticipated
and therefore no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.5.5 Archaeological and Historical Resources A total of 679 previously recorded cultural resource properties (both archaeological
and historic/architectural) were located within one mile of the proposed Project Area. In September 2010, a review of records at the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”)
and the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (“OSA”) identified 35 archaeological sites and 644 inventoried historic architectural properties are located within one mile of the
Project Area. Of the 35 archaeological sites, 16 consist of prehistoric artifacts scatters, six are single artifact finds, two are historical documentation records of abandoned townsites,
seven are earthworks (which may or may not contain burials), two are cemeteries, one is a historic district containing ruins and artifacts, and one is a mill site. The historic district
has a Considered Eligible Finding (CEF) by the SHPO. The eligibility of the remaining inventoried archaeological sites is unevaluated. Of the 644 historic architectural resources identified
in the records review, five are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 21 have a CEF. The five NRHP properties are: 1) Heck, Albertine and Fred, House, located
in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County; 2) the Excelsior School, located in the City of Excelsior, Hennepin County; 3) Wyer, Allemarinda and James, House, located in the City of Excelsior,
Hennepin County; 4) Excelsior Fruit Growers Association Building, located in the City of Excelsior, Hennepin County; and 5) Peter Gideon Farmhouse, located in the City of Shorewood,
Hennepin County. Only 26 of the 679 cultural resource properties identified are located within the 200 foot Project Area. Nine of those properties are located within the boundaries of
the City of Excelsior and distributed along project Segments 4 and 5. Five are located in the City of Minnetonka along portions of Project Segment 8. Two are located within the City
of Eden Prairie; one each in Segment 9 and 10. Only one of the 26
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 95 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project properties located within the 200-foot-wide Project Area is considered
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This is the bridge on Minnetonka Boulevard that crosses the inlet of Lake Minnetonka (Bridge No. 90608). These properties
will not experience direct impacts resulting from the construction of this Project. The existing transmission route in proximity to listed or eligible properties will consist of transmission
line rebuild. The proposed construction will constitute the replacement of pre-existing features and not create new indirect visual impacts. Mitigative Measures The proposed Project
will avoid impacts to identified archaeological and historic/architectural resources to the extent possible. Should a specific resource impact be identified, Xcel Energy will consult
with SHPO on whether the resource is eligible for listing in the NRHP. While avoidance would be a preferred action, mitigation for Project-related impacts on NRHP-eligible archaeological
and historic resources may include resource investigations and/or additional documentation through data recovery. 6.6 Hydrological Features 6.6.1 Water Quality Floodplains The Project
Area crosses the 100-and 500-year floodplains of the Minnesota River, Lower Lake Minnetonka, and two unnamed Public Water Wetlands (27-895W and 27-874W). In addition, the Project Area
crosses the 100-year floodplain of Bluff Creek, Purgatory Creek, Carson’s Bay of Lake Minnetonka, and Duck Lake (27-69P).
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 96 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Wetlands, Waters, and Watercourses Various large wetland complexes
and small isolated wetlands are located throughout the Project Area, although a higher concentration of wetlands exists near the midsection of the proposed transmission route near the
communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, and Deephaven. Many wetlands are adjacent to the various lakes and streams that are within or lie in close proximity to the Project Area. The National
Wetlands Inventory (“NWI”) was reviewed to assess wetland cover within the Project Area. Note that the NWI has not been field verified and sometimes contains inaccuracies; however, it
is a good tool for initial wetland identification and assessment. Based on NWI mapping approximately 26 percent of the area within three miles of the Project is mapped as wetland. Of
the wetlands present within the Project Area, most are classified as Lacustrine (associated with lakes) and Palustrine type wetlands. The other wetland type within the Project Area is
Riverine, which is associated with rivers. Of the NWI-mapped wetlands within the Project Area, nearly half consist of Palustrine type wetlands and the other half of Lacustrine type wetlands.
Riverine wetlands make up about one percent of the NWI-mapped wetlands. The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, mosses or lichens
(Cowardin et al. 1979). Of those wetlands the majority contain emergent vegetation with some displaying a mixture of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Some of the Palustrine wetlands
have an open water components and contain unconsolidated bottoms. Lacustrine wetland systems are found in the shallow protected areas of lakes with water depth in the deepest part of
the wetland basin greater than 6.6 feet. The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel. The Riverine System is bounded by the landward side
by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 97 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project wetland dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses, or lichens. In braided streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. The MnDNR Public Waters Inventory
(PWI) identifies Public Wetlands, Waters and Watercourses. Notable Public Watercourses within the Project Area include the Minnesota River, Assumption Creek, Bluff Creek, Minnehaha Creek,
and Purgatory Creek. Numerous Public Waters and Public Water Wetlands exist within three miles of the Project. Notable Public Waters include Lake Hazeltine, Lake Minnewashta, Lake Minnetonka,
and Christmas Lake. The proposed transmission line rebuild will have minor, mostly short term effects on surface water resources. Most potential effects on surface waters will be related
to reconstruction of the transmission line across wetlands proximal to the existing transmission corridor. The Project could require wetland and water resource approvals from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), MnDNR, and several Local Government Units (LGU’s). These agencies administer regulatory programs of the federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors
Act, the Minnesota Public Water Resources Act and Utility Crossing Licenses, and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Mitigative Measures Xcel Energy will minimize impacts to
public waters and wetlands to the greatest extent possible. Xcel Energy will apply erosion control measures identified in the MPCA Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual, such
as using silt fence, to minimize impacts to adjacent water resources. During construction, Xcel Energy will control operations to minimize and prevent material discharge to surface waters.
If materials do enter streams, they will be promptly removed and properly disposed of to the extent feasible. Disturbed surface soils will be stabilized at the completion of the construction
process to minimize the potential for subsequent effects on surface water quality. Permanent
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 98 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project impacts to public waters and wetlands will be avoided wherever feasible
by maximizing the typical span length over these areas. The transmission line rebuild may require waters and wetlands permits, letters of no jurisdiction, or exemptions from the USACE,
MnDNR Division of Waters, and LGU’s that administer WCA. After coordination and application submission, authorization from the USACE would likely fall under a Letter of Permission (LOP-05-MN)
or the utility line discharge provision of a Regional General Permit (RGP-3-MN). The MnDNR Division of Waters requires a Public Waters Work Permit for any alteration of the course, current,
or cross-section below the ordinary high water level of a Public Water or Watercourse. No such alterations are anticipated. The cities of Chanhassen, Greenwood, Deephaven, Eden Prairie,
Minnetonka, Chaska, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and Jackson Township (Scott County) are all LGU’s that administer the WCA in the Project Area. It is possible that
the BWSR representatives for Carver, Scott, and Hennepin Counties will coordinate with the LGU’S so that one entity administers the WCA over the entire Project Area. As a utilities project,
it is likely that wetland impact minimization will allow the Project to be eligible for a WCA de minimis or utilities exemption. If that is not the case, WCA permits will be required.
Minnesota Statutes Section 84.415 requires Xcel Energy to obtain a license from the MnDNR Division of Lands and Minerals for the passage of any utility over, under, or across any state
land or public waters. Therefore, Xcel Energy will either confirm the applicability of existing licenses for these crossings or obtain new utility crossing licenses prior to construction.
The MPCA regulates construction activities that may impact storm water under the Clean Water Act. In the event that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) NPDES”)
construction storm water permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) is required for the Project, Xcel Energy will obtain the permit and SWPPP. An NPDES permit is required
for owners or operators for any construction activity disturbing: 1) one acre or more of soil; 2) less than one acre of soil if that
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 99 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project activity is part of a “larger common plan of development or sale”
that is greater than one acre; or 3) less than one acre of soil, but the MPCA determines that the activity poses a risk to water resources. 6.7 Vegetation and Wildlife 6.7.1 Vegetation
Land cover in the Project Area consists primarily of low to high intensity development including residential, commercial, light industrial, open space, and roadways. The Project consists
of improvements to existing infrastructure which is in place largely along existing roadways. Table 20 below summarizes land cover within the six-mile wide Project Area. Table 20 Landcover
Within the Project Area Cover Type Area (acres) Percent Cover of Project Area Forest/Shrubland 16,142 19% Developed/High Intensity 2,565 3% Developed/Low Intensity 16,002 19% Developed/Medium
Intensity 5,962 7% Developed/Open Space 12,096 15% Herbaceous & Woody Wetlands 3,500 4% 4% Open Water 12,360 15% Pasture/Hay/Cropland 14,453 17% Barren land 260 <1% Source USDA, NASS
Cropland Data Layer (2011) Other significant land cover types within the Project Area are wetlands and open water forest, agricultural land. Reed canary grass, cattail, cottonwood, sandbar
willow, and sedges are the primary species in wetlands. Common species in forested areas include sugar maple, American elm, box elder, green ash, bur and red oak, and eastern cottonwood.
Transmission line construction impacts to trees and woodlands will be minimized because the transmission line rebuild will follow existing right-of-way. For a discussion on impacts to
agriculture, please see Section 6.5.1. Mitigative Measures To minimize impacts to trees in the Project Area, Xcel Energy will limit tree clearing and removal to the transmission line
right-of-way, areas that limit construction access
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 100 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project to the Project Area, and areas that impact the safe operation of
the facilities. 6.7.2 Wildlife The croplands, wetlands, and woodlands in the area provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. Wildlife and other organisms that inhabit the Project Area
include small mammals such as mice, voles, and ground squirrels; large mammals such as whitetailed deer; waterfowl and other water birds like pelicans and egrets, songbirds, raptors,
upland gamebirds; and reptiles/amphibians such as frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles. Wildlife that resides within the construction zone will be temporarily displaced to adjacent
habitats during the construction process. It is anticipated that fish and mollusks that inhabit the local watercourses will not be affected by transmission line rebuild. The reconstructed
transmission line may affect raptors, waterfowl and other bird species. Birds have the potential to collide with all elevated structures, including power lines. Avian collisions with
transmission lines can occur in proximity to agricultural fields that serve as feeding areas, wetlands and water features, and along riparian corridors that may be used during migration.
The electrocution of large birds, such as raptors, is more commonly associated with small distribution lines than large transmission lines. Electrocution occurs when birds with large
wingspans come in contact with two conductors or a conductor and a grounding device. Xcel Energy transmission and distribution line design standards provide adequate spacing to eliminate
the risk of raptor electrocution and will minimize potential avian impacts of the proposed Project. Mitigative Measures It is anticipated that most wildlife displacement and habitat
impacts will be temporary. Consequently, no wildlife population mitigation measures are proposed. Xcel Energy has been working with various state and federal agencies for over 20 years
to address avian issues as quickly and efficiently as possible. In 2002, Xcel Energy Operating
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 101 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Companies, including Xcel Energy, entered into a voluntary Memorandum
of Understanding (“MOU”) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) to work together to address avian issues throughout its service territories. The MOU sets forth standard reporting
methods and the development of Avian Protection Plans (“APP”) for each state that Xcel Energy serves. APPs include designs and other measures aimed at preventing avian electrocutions,
as described in guidance provided by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (“APLIC” 2006) and the guidelines for developing APPs (APLIC and USFWS, 2005). The APP for the Minnesota
Territory is complete and retrofit actions for areas with potential avian impacts are underway across the territory. Xcel Energy also addresses avian issues related to transmission projects
by working with resource agencies such as the MnDNR and the USFWS to identify areas that may be appropriate for marking transmission line shield wires with bird diverters attempting
to avoid areas known as primary migration corridors or migratory resting areas. The Project has been assessed for areas with potential avian issues. Areas where bird diverters might
be warranted have been identified. These areas include spans of transmission line that run adjacent to Carson’s Bay and St. Alban’s Bay of Lake Minnetonka and Galpin Lake. In most cases,
the shield wire of an overhead transmission line is the most difficult part of the structure for birds to see. Xcel Energy has successfully reduced collisions on certain transmission
lines by marking the shield wires with SFDs, which are pre-formed spiral shaped devices made of polyvinyl chloride that are wrapped around the shield wire. 6.8 Rare and Unique Natural
Resources A request for a Natural Heritage Database Search and comments regarding rare species and natural communities for the Project Area was submitted to the MnDNR on February 23,
2010. The results of the MnDNR Natural Heritage Database Search are included in Appendix. In February, 2012, the MnDNR confirmed there were no new records within the Project Area and
that the letter dated April 2, 2010 is still valid.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 102 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project The following assessment is based on MnDNR response, a review of
the Natural Heritage Database that is licensed to Xcel Energy by the MnDNR, and other state and federal rare species and natural community information. There are 65 known occurrences
of rare species and sensitive natural communities within two miles of the Project Area as indicated in Table 21 below. These include 26 occurrences of 14 vertebrate species, eight occurrences
of five invertebrate species, 18 occurrences of 13 vascular plant species, one animal community, ten terrestrial communities, and two ecological features. Twenty-five of the 65 records
are located within 0.5 mile of the Project Area and include the Bald eagle, Red-shouldered Hawk, Western Fox snake, Blandings’s Turtle, Paddlefish, Shovelnose sturgeon, Rock pocketbook,
Yellow sandshell, Marsh Arrow-grass, Sessile-flowered cress, Small White Lady’s slipper, Sterile sedge, a bat concentration, a Seepage meadow/Carr, a Calcareous fen (Southern), one native
plant community (undetermined class), and ice deposition (quaternary) (Minnesota DNR, 2010). It should be noted that 42 of the 65 records are within two miles of Segment 1, a portion
of the Project where no structural changes or disturbance will occur as part of the Project.
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 103 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Table 21 Rare and Unique Resources Common Name Scientific Name Type
MN Status 1 Last Obs. Proximity (Miles) American Brook Lamprey* Lampetra appendix Vertebrate Not Applicable 2000 0.5-1.0 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Vertebrate SPC 2008 1.0-1.5
Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus Vertebrate SPC 2008 0.0-0.5 Black buffalo* Ictiobus niger Vertebrate SPC 2003 1.5-2.0 Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Vertebrate THR 1994
0.0-0.5 Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Vertebrate THR 1987 1.0-1.5 Blue sucker* Cycleptus elongatus Vertebrate SPC 1989 1.5-2.0 Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius Vertebrate
THR 1992 1.5-2.0 Gopher snake* Pituophis catenifer Vertebrate SPC 1932 1.5-2.0 Least Darter Etheostoma microperca Vertebrate SPC 1992 1.0-1.5 Least Darter Etheostoma microperca Vertebrate
SPC 2006 0.5-1.0 Least Darter Etheostoma micropea Vertebrate SPC 2006 0.5-1.0 Least Darter Etheostoma micropea Vertebrate SPC 2006 1.5-2.0 Milk snake* Lampropeltis triangulum Vertebrate
Not Applicable 1929 1.5-2.0 Paddlefish* Polyodon spathula Vertebrate THR 2004 0.0-0.5 Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus Vertebrate SPC 1941 0.5-1.0 Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus Vertebrate
SPC 1991 1.5-2.0 Red -shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Vertebrate SPC 1989 0.0-0.5 Red -shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Vertebrate SPC 1996 0.0-0.5 Red -shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Vertebrate
SPC 1993 0.0-0.5 Red -shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Vertebrate SPC 1994 0.0-0.5 Shovelnose Sturgeon* Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Vertebrate Not Applicable 1987 0.0-0.5 Shovelnose Sturgeon*
Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Vertebrate Not Applicable 1999 0.0-0.5 Shovelnose Sturgeon* Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Vertebrate Not Applicable 1982 0.5-1.0 Shovelnose Sturgeon* Scaphirhynchus
platorynchus Vertebrate Not Applicable 1998 0.5-1.0 Western Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina Vertebrate Not Applicable 1939 0.0-0.5 Mucket* Actinonaias ligamentina Invertebrate THR 1989 1.0-1.5
Mucket* Actinonaias ligamentina Invertebrate THR 1989 1.0-1.5 Regal fritillary* Speyeria idalia Invertebrate SPC 1975 1.5-2.0 Rock Pocketbook* Arcidens confragosus Invertebrate END 2006
0.0-0.5 Rock pocketbook* Arcidens confragosus Invertebrate END 1989 1.0-1.5 Wartyback* Quadrula nodulata Invertebrate END 2000 1.0-1.5 Yellow Sandshell* Lampsilis teres Invertebrate
END 1989 0.0-0.5 Yellow Sandshell* Lampsilis teres Invertebrate END 1989 1.0-1.5 American Ginseng* Panax quinquefolius Vascular Plant SPC 1995 0.5-1.0 American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius
Vascular Plant SPC 1995 1.0-1.5 Beaked Spike-rush* Eleocharis rostellata Vascular Plant THR 1992 0.5-1.0 Dragon’s Mouth Arethusa bulbosa Vascular Plant Not Applicable 1931 1.5-2.0 Dwarf
Trout Lily Erythronium propullans Vascular Plant END 2007 1.5-2.0 Dwarf Trout Lily Erythronium propullans Vascular Plant END 2007 1.5-2.0
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion 104 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project Common Name Scientific Name Type MN Status 1 Last Obs. Proximity
(Miles) Dwarf Trout Lily Erythronium propullans Vascular Plant END 2007 1.5-2.0 Dwarf Trout Lily Erythronium propullans Vascular Plant END 2007 1.5-2.0 Dwarf Trout Lily Erythronium propullans
Vascular Plant END 2007 1.5-2.0 Hair-like Beak-rush* Rhynchospora capillacea Vascular Plant THR 1990 0.5-1.0 Kitten-tails* Besseya bullii Vascular Plant THR 1979 1.5-2.0 Marsh Arrow-grass*
Triglochin palustris Vascular Plant Not Applicable 1995 0.0-0.5 Sessile-flowered Cress* Rorippa sessiliflora Vascular Plant SPC 1891 0.0-0.5 Small White Lady'sslipper* Cypripedium candidum
Vascular Plant SPC 1995 0.0-0.5 Sterile Sedge* Carex sterilis Vascular Plant THR 1995 0.0-0.5 Twig-rush* Cladium mariscoides Vascular Plant SPC 1992 0.5-1.0 Valerian* Valeriana edulis
var. ciliata Vascular Plant THR 1992 0.5-1.0 Whorled nut-rush* Scleria verticillata Vascular Plant THR 1990 0.5-1.0 Bat Concentration* Bat Colony Animal Community Not Applicable 2000
0.5-1.0 Ice deposition (quaternary) Not Applicable Other Not Applicable 1977 0.0-0.5 Kettle (quaternary) Not Applicable Other Not Applicable 1980 1.5-2.0 Native Plant Community* Not
Applicable Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 1.0-1.5 Dry Hill Prairie (Southern)* Dry Hill Prairie (Southern)Type Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 0.5-1.0 Native Plant
*Community Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 0.5-1.0 Native Plant Community* Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class Terrestrial
Community Not Applicable 1995 0.5-1.0 Native Plant Community* Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 0.5-1.0 Native Plant Community Native
Plant Community, Undetermined Class Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 1.0-1.5 Northern Poor Fen Northern Poor Fen Class Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1992 1.5-2.0 Calcareous
Fen* (Southeastern) Calcareous Fen (Southeastern)Type Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 0.0-0.5 Native Plant* Community Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class Terrestrial
Community Not Applicable 1995 0.0-0.5 Seepage Meadow/Carr* Seepage Meadow/Carr Terrestrial Community Not Applicable 1995 0.0-0.5 1SPC = State-listed Special Concern, THR = Threatened,
END=Endangered (Minnesota DNR 2007) *Denotes records within 2.0 miles of Segment 1. Fifty-two additional records of rare species were identified when reviewing the area between two and
three miles from the Project. Many are additional records of species
Scott County–Structure #57 115/115 kV Conversion
105 March 9, 2012 & Structure #57 – Westgate 115 kV Upgrade Project 4398559v8 already recorded within two miles of the Project such as American Ginseng, Kittentails, and the shovel nose
sturgeon. Additional rare species recorded between two and three miles include, but are not limited to, the Common Moorhen, Hill’s thistle, Smooth Rock-cress, Black sandshell, Butterfly,
Pistolgrip, and Round pigtoe. Of the 52 records between two and three miles, 30 are invertebrate species of the freshwater mussel family Unionidae. Mitigative Measures The Project and
construction process will be designed to avoid encroachment and effects on rare species and unique natural resources to the extent practicable. If rare species or unique natural resources
will be affected, Xcel Energy will coordinate with the MnDNR and consider modifying either the construction footprint or the construction practices to minimize impacts. A field survey
was completed in November of 2010 to search for previously unrecorded Bald Eagle nests in proximity to the Project Area. This survey revealed that no new nests were identified. In the
event that an eagle nest is later located and determined to be occupied, efforts will be made to minimize potential impacts from construction activities which may include alteration
of pole locations or scheduling construction to avoid nesting season.
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Ellen Anderson Chair J. Dennis O'Brien Commissioner Phyllis Reha Commissioner David Boyd Commissioner Betsy Wergin Commissioner Mark
Suel Government & Regulatory Affairs Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 SERVICE DATE: November 16, 2011 DOCKET NO. E-002/CN-11-332 In the Matter of the Application of
Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy for a Certificate of Need for the Upgrade of the Southwest Twin Cities Bluff Creek – Westgate Area 69 kV Transmission Line to 115 kV Capacity
The above entitled matter has been considered by the Commission and the following disposition made: Granted the Applicant’s Exemption Request. The Commission agrees with and adopts the
recommendations of the Department of Commerce which are attached and hereby incorporated in the Order. BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary This document can be
made available in alternative formats (i.e. large print or audio) by calling 651.296.0406 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at
1.800.627.3529 or by dialing 711. Appendix A 1 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
August 3, 2011 Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147 RE: Request for Certificate of Need
Exemption Request Approval Docket No. E002/CN-11-332 Dear Dr. Haar: Attached are the comments of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources (Department) in the
following matter: Exemption Request: Southwest Twin Cities Bluff Creek-Westgate Transmission Line Upgrade from 69 KV to 115 KV Capacity. The petitioner is: Mark Suel Government & Regulatory
Affairs Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 The Department recommends approval with modifications and is available to answer any questions the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission may have. Sincerely, /s/STEVE RAKOW Rates Analyst SR/ja Attachment Appendix A 2 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF ENERGY RESOURCES DOCKET NO. E002/CN-11-332 I. BACKGROUND On April 19, 2011
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel or the Company) submitted the Company’s Notice Plan: Southwest Twin Cities Bluff Creek—Westgate Transmission Line Upgrade
from 69 kV to 115 kV Capacity (Notice Petition). The Notice Petition provided a plan to notify potentially affected members of the public about the proposal, under Minnesota Rules part
7849.2550. In response to the Notice Petition, comments were filed by the Minnesota Department of Commerce-Division of Energy Resources (Department) and reply comments were filed by
Xcel. The Notice Petition is currently pending before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission). On June 17, 2011 Xcel submitted the Company’s Request for Exemption Request:
Southwest Twin Cities Bluff Creek—Westgate Transmission Line Upgrade from 69 kV to 115 kV Capacity ((Exemption Petition) to obtain exemption from certain data requirements of Minnesota
Rules part 7849. In response to the Exemption Petition, on June 24, 2011 the Commission issued a notice specifying that comments are due July 18, 2011 and reply comments are due August
1, 2011. On July 1, 2011, the Minnesota state government shut down. As a result, the due dates were modified to extend the due dates by 30 days, to August 17 and August 31, respectively.
Below are the comments of the Department regarding the Exemption Petition. Appendix A 3 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Docket No. E002/CN-11-332 Analyst assigned: Steve Rakow Page 2 II. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS A. BACKGROUND Xcel proposes to construct a 115 kV transmission line in the Southwest Twin Cities
area. According to the Company, the proposed project would upgrade approximately 14 miles of 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity as follows: • converting approximately 3.6 miles
of 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV transmission line between the Bluff Creek and Excelsior Substations; • converting approximately 3 miles of 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity
between the Excelsior and Deephaven Substations; • converting approximately 7.5 miles of 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity between the Deephaven and Westgate Substations; and
• upgrading the Excelsior and Deephaven Substations to 115 kV capacity. The proposed facilities would qualify as large energy facilities (LEF) under Minnesota Statutes §216B.2421, subd.
2 (3). Minnesota Statute §216B.243, subd. 2 requires that LEFs obtain a Certificate of Need (CN). Minnesota Rules part 7849 includes the filing requirements for a CN for an electric
transmission facility. The Exemption Petition states that the proposed 115 kV lines will: • maintain reliable service in the southwestern part of the metropolitan area; and • allow future
growth and development in the area. B. XCEL’S REQUEST In the Exemption Petition, Xcel requests exemption from providing data relevant to the following portions of Minnesota Rules: •
7849.0260, subp. A(3) and C(6); • 7849.0270, subp. 2 (A-D and F) and Subp. 3-5; • 7849.0280, (B) through (I); • 7849.0290; • 7849.0300; and • 7849.0340. Minnesota Rules 7849.0200, subp.
6 states: Before submitting an application, a person is exempted from any data requirement of this chapter if the person (1) requests an exemption from specified rules, in writing to
the commission, and Appendix A 4 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Docket No. E002/CN-11-332 Analyst assigned: Steve Rakow Page 3 (2) shows that the data requirement is unnecessary to determine the need for the proposed facility or may be satisfied
by submitting another document. The Department examines each specific exemption request separately. The required criterion is whether Xcel has shown that “the data requirement is unnecessary
to determine the need for the proposed facility or may be satisfied by submitting another document” as discussed above. C. ANALYSIS OF EXEMPTION REQUESTS 1. Minnesota Rules 7849.0260,
subp. A(3) and C(6) These rules require an applicant to provide estimated “losses under projected maximum loading and under projected average loading in the length of the transmission
line and at the terminals or substations.” Xcel proposes to supply system loss information in lieu of line-specific losses. The Department agrees that line losses for the system are
more relevant to the analysis than line losses for individual lines. The Department notes that, to make the proper decisions in a societal framework, it is necessary to know what happens
to system losses when a line is added. To count only the losses on the line in question might lead to the selection of one alternative because it has lower losses on that line but has
higher system line losses; therefore selection of such an alternative would force the system to produce more energy than some other alternative. Thus, the proposal to use data for the
system as a whole in this proceeding is appropriate. In summary, the Department recommends that the Commission approve Xcel’s proposed exemption to Minnesota Rules 7849.0260 A(3) and
C(6) with the provision of the proposed alternative data. 2. Minnesota Rules 7849.0270, subp. 2 (A-D and F) and Subps. 3-5 These rules require an applicant to provide information regarding
its system peak demand, annual energy consumption, and load factors for the applicant’s service area and system. Xcel requests this exemption since the proposed facility is designed
to serve customers in the local area rather than Xcel’s system. Instead, Xcel proposes to provide data supporting the load serving needs claimed by the Company. The Department agrees
that the data Xcel proposes to provide, “detailed substation-specific demand projections,” is the appropriate data regarding the need to address reliability in the southwest twin cities
area. The Department also agrees that provision of information regarding substation forecast methodology, databases, and assumptions is appropriate. Information specific to the local
area is more relevant to the claimed need than system-wide information. Appendix A 5 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Docket No. E002/CN-11-332 Analyst assigned: Steve Rakow Page 4 In summary, the Department recommends that the Commission approve Xcel’s proposed exemption to Minnesota Rules 7849.0270,
subp. 2 (A-D and F) and Subps. 3-5 with the provision of the proposed alternative data. 3. Minnesota Rules 7849.0280, (B) through (I) This rule requires the applicant to provide information
that describes the ability of its existing system to meet forecasted demand; in essence, load and capability (L&C) information. Instead of L&C data Xcel proposes to discuss the reliability
concerns resulting from forecasted peak demand in the local area. The Department agrees with Xcel that the Company’s proposed discussion, focusing on transmission adequacy, is more relevant
than the required data, which focuses on generation adequacy. Therefore, the Department recommends that the Commission grant the exemption with the provision of the proposed alternative
data. 4. Minnesota Rules 7849.0290 This rule requires the applicant to provide conservation program information and quantification of the impact of conservation programs on forecast
data. Instead Xcel proposes to submit: … a discussion of demand management programs used by Xcel Energy to manage peak loads and how these programs affect the substation loads in the
specific project area … would be more useful to the need analysis. In addition, we propose to provide a summary of the 2009 filing made by Xcel Energy pursuant to the Energy Conservation
Improvement Statute. As with section II C 2 above (forecast data), the Department agrees that the data Xcel proposes to provide is the appropriate data regarding the need to address
reliability in the southwest twin cities area. Therefore, the Department recommends that the Commission grant the exemption with the provision of the proposed alternative data. 5. Minnesota
Rules 7849.0300 and 7849.0340 Minnesota Rules 7849.0300 requires detailed information regarding the consequences of delay on three specific statistically based levels of demand and energy
consumption. Minnesota Rules 7849.0340 requires a discussion of what the impact would be on existing generation and transmission facilities at three levels of demand specified in part
7849.0300 for the no-build alternative. Instead, Xcel proposes to provide information on the consequences of delay in the context of the potential impacts of delay on the local community
service reliability. Specifically, Xcel proposes “to identify the threshold level of demand that places service at risk and the effect of incremental change in growth rather than evaluate
system performance at three discrete demand levels.” Appendix A 6 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Docket No. E002/CN-11-332 Analyst assigned: Steve Rakow Page 5 The Department agrees with Xcel that the Company’s proposed data, focusing on demand in the local area, is relevant to
the claimed need and provides better information than the required data. Therefore, the Department recommends that the Commission grant the exemption with the provision of the proposed
alternative data. III. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends that the Commission approve the Company’s request for exemption from the required data with the provision of
the proposed alternative data. /ja Appendix A 7 of 7 Appendix A Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Appendix B Southwest Twin Cities Phase 2 Study Update
1 Southwest Twin Cities Phase 2 Study Update (Chaska – Chanhassen – Excelsior – Deephaven -Minnetonka corridor) Xcel Energy Services Inc 07/08/11 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of
Need Application E002/CN-11-332
2 Table of Contents 1. Background................................................................................................................. 5 2. Model updates..................................
...........................................................................6 3. Analysis...............................................................................................................
........ 8 3.1 Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 System deficiencies...............................
.................................................................... 8 3.2 Mitigation Plans ........................................................................................................
9 3.3 Summary of performance of 115 and 69 kV options.............................................. 22 3.3 Other consideration.........................................................................
........................ 23 3.4 Economic analysis .................................................................................................. 24 3.5 Loss analysis .............................
.............................................................................. 25 4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................
......... 26 Appendix A....................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix B ..........................................
............................................................................. 40 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
3 Executive Summary This study is an update to the Southwest Twin Cities Load serving study for the areas between Minnetonka and Chaska. The current study was performed using the latest
models and load forecast. The study also incorporates proposed changes to the transmission system at Glen Lake substation, Highway 212 Corridor project along with West Creek data center
load. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
4 Certification I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota
Srinivas Vemuri Date: 7/08/11 License # 48351 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
5 1. Background This study is an update to the load serving study performed for the Chaska – Chanhassen – Excelsior – Deephaven – Minnetonka – Eden Prairie corridor in 2009. This study
is performed to re-evaluate the deficiencies in the study area using the most recent load forecast provided by the stakeholders. This study includes evaluation of additional transmission
alternatives to meet the load serving needs in the area. Throughout this study it is assumed that the Glencoe – West Waconia – Chaska -Scott County 115 kV conversion project is in-service.
This assumption helps eliminate any deficiencies that would be addressed by the projects that are currently being pursued. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
6 2. Model updates The study update was performed using the 2010 series MRO 2016 summer peak model. The following changes were made to the system topology to reflect recent plans and
corrections. Glen Lake load is currently served from Westgate and Gleason Lake substations, with each substation serving approximately 50% of the load. Recent studies have indicated
that the loss of Gleason Lake 115/69 kV transformer would lead to severe low voltages at Glen Lake substation. To mitigate this low voltage, NSP has proposed to move the load, served
by Gleason Lake substation, to Westgate. To reflect this change, the normally open switch between the distribution transformers at Glen Lake load is moved to the north side of the load.
In order to implement this change in topology, the Westgate transformer serving Glen Lake, has been upgraded to 70MVA. In the 2009 study for this area, the rating of Westgate – Deephaven
69kV line was assumed to be 62 MVA, but the actual rating of this line is limited to 53.2MVA, due to substation equipment. Since the line substation equipment can be easily upgraded,
the next limiting element of (0.3 miles of 4/0 CU) transmission conductor was used to rate the line. Therefore the rating of the line was dropped from 62 MVA to 59 MVA. The Southwest
Twin Cities Phase 1 and Highway 212 Corridor 115kV conversion projects are included in the base models. These projects include new 115 kV lines from Glencoe to West Waconia, and a new
115 kV line from West Waconia to Chaska to Scott County substation. The Highway 212 Corridor project model included retirement of Chaska downtown substation and addition of West Creek
substation along with the proposed data center load. These projects are included in the models to ensure that only the deficiencies between Scott County and Westgate alone are identified
and addressed through this study. The models also assume that the Minnesota River generator is offline, this is a valid assumption as this generator is not considered a base load generating
unit, and would be expensive to dispatch out of merit order. Table 2.1 below shows the updated load forecast based on non-coincident peak loads in the area. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate
of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7 Table 2.1 Substation 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Westgate 171.28 173.86 176.49 179.17 181.89 184.65 187.47 190.33 193.24 196.20 Excelsior 12.88 13.01 13.14 13.27
13.40 13.54 13.67 13.81 13.95 14.09 Deephaven 43.78 44.22 44.66 45.11 45.56 46.01 46.47 46.94 47.41 47.88 Minn River 31.00 36.00 32.00 35.00 36.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 38.00 39.00 Chanhassen
8.40 8.49 8.57 8.66 8.74 8.83 8.92 9.01 9.10 9.19 Glen Lake 43.39 43.82 44.26 44.70 45.15 45.60 46.05 46.51 46.98 47.45 Bluff Creek (NSP) 40.02 40.42 40.82 41.23 41.64 42.06 42.48 42.91
43.33 43.77 Bluff Creek (GRE) 6.48 6.55 6.61 6.68 6.75 6.81 6.88 6.95 7.02 7.09 Bluff Creek (Chaska) 31.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 34.00 35.00 35.00 36.00 36.00 The forecast for NSP’s
substations was provided by NSP’s distribution capacity planning. The forecast is based on load on key elements of the system, such as feeders and transformers on an annual basis, and
load readings from multiple sources. Adjustments were made to eliminate artificially high results due to load switching between substations. This provided the yearly peak load served
at each substation. Distribution capacity planning then created load forecast based on load growth trends, predicted load growth from information provided by area engineers, new load
additions and economic factors. The load at Minnesota River, Bluff Creek (GRE and Chaska) and Chanhassen were provided by the respective entities. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of
Need Application E002/CN-11-332
8 3. Analysis 3.1 Criteria Table 3.1 below provides NSP’s criteria for system performance. For study purposes, to identify deficiencies in the study area, any facility loaded above 100%
or close to 100% is documented. Similarly any low voltage condition with voltage less than 92% or close to 92% are documented. This is done to ensure that any future problems in the
study area are also identified. Table 3.1 % Line loading % Transformer loading Minimum %Voltage Maximum %Voltage System intact 100 100 95 105 Contingency 110 115 92% (Twin Cities) 90%
(outside Twin cities) 105 3.2 System deficiencies The deficiencies identified in the study region are listed in Table 3.2. The deficiencies marked in red indicate violation of criteria
listed in Table 3.1. The remaining deficiencies indentified do not violate the criteria, identified in Table 3.1, however these deficiencies could be potential violations in the future.
Table 3.2 Contingency Facility Rating MVA flow Overload/Voltage Loss of Scott County – Excelsior Westgate 115/69 kV transformer 47 70 130% Loss of Scott County – Excelsior Westgate –
Deephaven 69 kV line 59 60.3 102% Loss of Scott County TR 1 Scott County TR 2 70 76.9 110% Loss of Scott County TR 2 Scott County TR 1 70 77.3 110% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double
ckt 115 kV line Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line 316.3 388.7 123% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Minnesota River – Chanhassen 316.3 349 110% Loss of
Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 316.3 339.4 107% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Scott County–Excelsior 69 kV line 68 70
103% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double ckt 115 kV line Westgate 91.4% Deephaven 91.6% Bluff Creek 92.4% Excelsior 92.9% Chanhassen 93.7% Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need
Application E002/CN-11-332
9 Although the Scott County – Bluff Creek 115 kV line can be re-rated to 361MVA with minimal upgrades, Table 3.2 indicates that the flows on the Scott County – Minnesota River exceed
388 MVA during contingency conditions, therefore upgrading the line to 361 MVA would not mitigate this overload. In addition, increasing the rating of this line does not address the
voltage deficiencies identified in Table 3.2. Therefore upgrades required to rerate the line to 361 MVA were not explored. 3.2 Mitigation Plans The following sections provide mitigation
options for deficiencies identified in Table 3.2. These sections also provide results of PV analysis using PSSE 30.3.2, and AC-FCITC results using PSS MUST 9.2. The PV and FCITC analyses
were performed to determine the approximate incremental load serving capability of each of the options, and possible future upgrades that may be needed to continue supporting the load
growth in the study area. Option 1 Figure 3.1 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
10 This option is to convert the 69 kV line between Westgate, Deephaven, Excelsior and Scott County to 115 kV. This would eliminate the overload on Westgate 115/69 kV transformer, currently
serving Deephaven and Excelsior substations, as it will no longer be needed. This option also eliminates the overload on Scott County – Minnesota River – Chanhassen 115 kV line, as a
new parallel 115 kV circuit is created by this option. In addition, load would be reduced on the Scott County 115/69 kV transformers, as the load at Excelsior and Deephaven would be
converted from 69 kV to 115 kV. Similarly the future overload on Excelsior – Scott County, Chanhassen – Bluff Creek and low voltages at Westgate would be mitigated by the new 115 kV
circuit. The loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate is considered the most critical contingency for this area due to the loss of 345 kV source. This outage would result in high flows on the
115 kV lines between Black Dog – Scott County – Bluff Creek and low voltages at Westgate, as the entire load is served from Scott County which is fed from Blue Lake and Black Dog substations.
After the conversion of Excelsior and Deephaven substations to 115kV, the Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit outage would determine the incremental load serving capability
of the system in this area. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.08 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.72 1.17 0.63 Bus: 603114 [WSTGATE7 115.00] 0.92 . C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.2 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate
of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
11 Figure 3.2 above provides the results of PV analysis. The loads listed in Table 3.3 below were scaled up with the Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit line out of service and the
voltages at Westgate were plotted against the load increment. Figure 3.2 indicates that the load in the region can be increased by 40 MW before the voltages at Westgate drop to 92%.
Table 3.3 Loads Westgate Excelsior Deephaven Glen Lake Minnesota River Chanhassen Bluff Creek Based on the results of PV analysis, transfer limit analysis was performed on the area by
monitoring the transmission line flows while increasing the loads listed in Table 3.3. Table 3.4 below provides the transfer limit analysis results for load increment of up to 60 MW.
Table 3.4 Contingency Facility DF Emergency rating Incremental Load Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV Ckt 1 or 2 Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV Ckt 2 or 1 62.5% 349.5 -0.3
Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit Black Dog – Savage 115 kV line 28% 185.4 -5.4 Loss Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit Scott County – Scott county
tap 115 kV line 44.1% 185.4 29.4 Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit Black Dog – Glendale 115 kV line 30.8% 185.4 57.2 Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double
circuit Scott County – Minnesota River 95.3% 348 63.5 The Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit outage would result in overloading the 115 kV line between Black Dog and Scott County
and high flows on the 115 kV line from Scott County to Minnesota River. The overload on Black Dog – Savage 115 kV line is currently being mitigated by upgrading the conductor of the
line, and it not considered an overload. Scott County – Scott County tap 115 kV line would exceed its emergency rating after reaching 29 MW. From PV and transfer limit Appendix B Appendix
B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
12 analyses, it can be concluded that this option would provide an incremental load serving capability of approximately 29 MW. The overload on Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV line could
be mitigated by re-rating the line to 361 MVA in the near term, by performing minimal upgrades. The long term plan to relieve the overload on this line is to introduce a new 345 kV source
at Scott County substation that is discussed below in Option 1A below. Option 1A In addition to the low voltages and overloads caused by the double circuit 115 kV line, shown in Table
3.4 and Figure 3.2. Several studies have indicated that the Eden Prairie transformers are reaching their capacity limit under certain contingencies. To mitigate these problems, a new
345/115 kV source would be needed at Scott County substation in the future. The Helena – Blue Lake 345 kV line could be tapped at Scott County substation, thereby providing a new 345/115
kV source to the area. This would eliminate the low voltages shown in Figure 3.2 beyond 40MW load growth, and overloads identified in Table 3.4 beyond 29 MW. Figure 3.3 below provides
the PV curve with option 1 along with the new 345/115kV source at Scott County substation. It can be noted from the figure that the incremental load serving capability of this option
would increase from 40MW to 178MW before the voltage at Westgate drop to 92%. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
13 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1.04 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.88 1.08 0.84 Bus: 603114 [WSTGATE7 115.00] 178 0.92 C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.3 Table 3.5 below shows the transfer limit analysis with option
1 along with new 345/115 kV source at Scott County substation. It can be seen from the table that the Westgate transformer and the 69 kV line serving Glen Lake substation would overload
without any contingency. These violations could be ignored as the load is uniformly scaled among all the substations listed
in Table 3.3. As the load at Glen Lake is radially served from Westgate substation, the facilities serving this substation would overload when the load at the substation exceeds the
rating of the transformer and line serving it. Therefore these overloads are not relevant to the current study and would have to be studied separately. Table 3.5 Contingency Facility
Normal Rating Incremental load DF Emergency rating Incremental Load Base Case Westgate 115/69 kV transformer 70 78.9 MW 28.82% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit Scott
County – Minnesota River 115kV line 316 65.5 MW 77.20% 348 89.6 MW Base Case Glen Lake – Westgate 69 kV 66 102.4 MW 19.55% Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit Minnesota
River – Chanhassen 115 kV line 316 160.16 59.81% 348 179.3 MW Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
14 Ignoring the overload on the facilities serving Glen Lake substation, it can be noticed that the Scott County – Minnesota River – Chanhassen 115 kV line would be the next limiting
element after 89.5 MW of load growth in the study area. Option 1AB The 115 kV line overloads listed in Table 3.5 are caused by unequal loading on the two 115 kV lines between Scott County
and Westgate. The difference in flows on the two lines can be reduced by connecting the Scott County – Excelsior 115 kV line (part of option 1) into Bluff Creek substation and converting
Bluff Creek 115 kV bus into ring configuration. This would significantly reduce the flows on Scott County – Minnesota River – Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 115 kV circuit. 0 50 100 150 200
250 300 1.04 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.88 1.08 0.84 Bus: 603114 [WSTGATE7 115.00] 200 0.92 C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.4 above provides the PV curve, for the loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate
double circuit 115 kV line, with option 1A and the ‘in-out’ on Scott County – Excelsior 115 kV kV line into Bluff Creek substation. It can be seen that the incremental load serving capability
of the system increases from 178 MW to 200 MW with the expansion of Bluff Creek substation into a ring bus. Table 3.6 below provides the transfer limit analysis to identify all the overloads
with this upgrade. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
15 Table 3.6 Contingency Facility Normal Rating Incremental load DF Emergency rating Incremental Load Base Case Westgate 115/69 kV transformer 70 78.9 28.8% Base Case Westgate – Glen
Lake 69 kV line 66 102.5 19.5% Similar to option 1A the overloads on Westgate transformer and the 69 kV line serving Gleason Lake can be ignored as the overloads are on the facilities
serving Glen Lake load alone and do not impact the regional 115kV system, these overloads have to be mitigated through a separate study in the future. There were no new overloads identified
with 200 MW of load increment, therefore the low voltage at Westgate is considered the limiting deficiency for this option. Highway7 route for option 1 Based on the information gathered
from public meetings, alternatives to existing 69kV line route between Deephaven and Excelsior substations were explored. Due to the existing development in this area, it would be extremely
difficult to find new routes for option 1. This section describes the possible alternative routes for proposed option 1. Option 1C: One of the suggested alternative routes for option
1 is to continue to follow Highway 7 from Excelsior substation towards East, up to Highway 7 and CR101 intersection. With this route, in order to serve Deephaven substation, approximately
1 mile of double circuit 115 kV line (in-out) from the intersection of Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road to Deephaven substation has to be built. The map for option 1C is shown below in Figure
3.5 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
16 Figure 3.5 Option 1D: This alternative route to option 1 would involve following HWY7, towards east of Excelsior substation, up to the intersection of HWY7 and Vine Hill Road. From
this intersection, a single circuit 115 kV line would have to be built up to Deephaven substation. From Deephaven substation towards East, the existing 69 kV line towards Westgate could
be followed. The map for option 1D is shown below in Figure 3.6. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
17 Figure 3.6 For transmission planning purposes, the performance of options 1C and 1D would be similar to option 1 and does not significantly impact the results shown in Tables 3.4
through 3.6 and Figures 3.2 through 3.4. Option 2 The alternative to converting the existing Scott County – Excelsior – Deephaven – Westgate 69 kV line to 115 kV is to upgrade all the
facilities that overload, to a higher capacity. Based on Table 3.2, this option would involve the following initial upgrades: • Upgrade Westgate 115/69 kV transformer to higher capacity
(70 or 112 MVA) • Upgrade the double circuit 115 kV line from Scott County – Minnesota River to 2-795 ACSS conductor. Table 3.7 and Figure 3.7 below show the thermal and voltage performance
of the system after the initial upgrades listed above. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 1.20 0.60 Bus: 603114 [WSTGATE7 115.00] 0.92 C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.7 Table 3.7 Contingency Facility Normal Rating Incremental
load DF Emergency rating Incremental Load Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 1 or 2 Eden Prairie – Westgate 2 or 1 318 60.2 349.5 13.3 Westgate – Eden Prairie 115 kV double ckt outage Minnesota
River – Chanhassen 115kV line 316 94.9 348 0.8 Westgate – Eden Prairie 115 kV double ckt outage Bluff Creek – Chanhassen 115kV line 316 86.72 348 11.5 Loss of Excelsior – Scott County
69 kV Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line 19.8 65 29.5 Westgate – Eden Prairie 115 kV double ckt outage Scott tap – Scott County 115 kV line 168.5 45.67 184.4 30.9 It can be seen from the
Table 3.7 and Figure 3.7 that the incremental load growth attained by rebuilding the existing 115 kV line from Scott County to Minnesota River and upgrading the Westgate transformer
is less than 1 MW due to the overload on Minnesota River – Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 115 kV line. Mitigating Westgate – Eden Prairie line overload in Appendix B Appendix B Certificate
of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
19 Table 3.7 by upgrading the line to higher capacity is not considered viable solution as the outage of this double circuit is still a critical contingency. The mitigation plan for
this overload is to provide a new 345 kV source at Scott County substation, which is discussed in option 2AB. Option 2A In order to mitigate the overloads shown in Table 3.7, the Minnesota
River to Bluff Creek 115 kV line has to be upgraded to 2-795 ACSS conductor. It should be noted that this line is double circuited with the Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line, therefore
the entire double circuit may need to be re-built in order to attain higher capacity on Scott County – Bluff Creek 115 kV line. Table 3.8 and Figure 3.8 below provide the incremental
load serving capability with the upgrade of 115 kV line from Minnesota River to Bluff Creek to 2-795 ACSS. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 1.20 0.60 Bus: 603114
[WSTGATE7 115.00] 34 0.92 C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.8 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
20 Table 3.8 Contingency Facility DF Emergency rating Incremental Load Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 1 or 2 Eden Prairie – Westgate 2 or 1 60.0 349.5 13.7 Scott County – Excelsior
69 kV line Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line 19.8 65 29.4 Westgate – Eden Prairie 115kV double ckt outage Scott County – Scott County tap 44.24 185.4 33.7 Westgate – Eden Prairie 115kV
double ckt outage Excelsior – Scott County 69kV line 24.14 74.3 52.3 Option 2AB Based on Table 3.8 and Figure 3.8, the incremental load growth of option 2A is approximately 30 to 34
MW due to overload on Westgate – Deephaven, Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line and low voltages at Westgate. To mitigate the limitations listed for option 2A, similar to option 1A,
a new 345/115 kV source has to be built at Scott County substation. In addition, Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line has to be upgraded to higher capacity. This would eliminate the low voltages
at Westgate, the overload on Scott County – Scott County tap 115 kV line and the overload on Westgate – – Eden Prairie 115 kV circuits. Table 3.9 and Figure 3.9 provide the incremental
load growth provided by the addition of 345 kV source along with upgrading the 69 kV line between Westgate and Deephaven substation. 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70
1.20 0.60 Bus: 603114 [WSTGATE7 115.00] 156 0.92 C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.9 Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
21 Table 3.9 Contingency Facility Normal Rating Incremental load DF Emergency rating Incremental Load Scott County 115/69 kV transformer 2 Scott County 115/69 kV transformer 1 70 7.89
80.5 -98.1 Scott County 115/69 kV transformer 1 Scott County 115/69 kV transformer 2 70 7.83 80.5 -90.0 Loss of Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line or Westgate 115/69 kV transformer Excelsior
– Scott County 69 kV line 20.68 74.8 64.5 Base Case Westgate 115/69 kV transformer 70 78.9 28.8 Base Case Westgate – Glen Lake 69 kV line 66 103.2 19.5 From Tables 3.9 and Figure 3.9
it can be seen that the incremental load serving capability of this plan is approximately 64.5 MW due to overload on Excelsior – Scott county 69 kV line. It should also be noted that
the Scott County 115/69 kV transformers have to be upgraded to higher capacity (112 MVA) in order to install 345/115 kV source at Scott County. The overload on Westgate transformer,
serving Glen Lake substation, and the Westgate – Glen Lake 69kV line are ignored as this is due to the the load at Glen Lake alone and has to be addressed separately. Option 2ABC This
option includes option 1AB and upgrade of Scott County – Excelsior 69kV line and Scott County 115/69 kV transformers. This would eliminate all the overloads listed in Table 3.9. The
PV curve and transfer limit analysis for this option are provided below in Figure 3.10 and Table 3.10. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
22 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 1.17 1.08 0.99 0.90 0.81 1.26 0.72 Bus: 603114 [WSTGATE7 115.00] 168 0.92 C5.WSGEDP1&2 Figure 3.10 Table 3.10 Contingency Facility Normal Rating Incremental
load DF Base Case Westgate 115/69 kV transformer 70 78.9 28.8 Base Case Westgate – Glen Lake 69 kV line 66 103.2 19.5 From figure 3.10 and Table 3.10 it can be noted that the maximum
incremental load serving capability of this option is 168 MW. 3.3 Summary of performance of 115 and 69 kV options Table 3.11 below provides the summary of results comparing the 115kV
and 69kV options to mitigate the deficiencies identified in the study area. It can be seen that the 115kV options has significantly more load serving capability compared to the 69 kV
alternatives. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
23 Table 3.11 Option Limiting contingency Incremental Load serving capability Option 1: Convert Westgate – Deephaven – Excelsior – Scott County to 115 kV along with Excelsior and Deephaven
substations Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit line resulting in overload on Scott County – Scott County tap line ~29 MW Option 1A: Option 1 + new 345 kV source at Scott
County substation Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit line resulting in overload on Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line ~90 MW Option 1AB: Option 1A + Scott County
– Excelsior 115kV line ‘in-out’ into Bluff Creek Loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit resulting in overload on Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line. 200 MW Option
2: Upgrade Westgate 115/69 kV transformer and Scott County – Minnesota River 115 kV line to 2-795 ACSS Overload on Minnesota River – Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 115 kV line <1 MW Option
2A: Option 2 + Upgrade Minnesota River – Chanhassen – Bluff Creek 115 kV line to 2-795 ACSS conductor. Low voltages at Westgate and overload on Scott County – Scott tap for the loss
of Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit outage. Overload on Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line for the loss of Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line. ~30 MW Option 2AB: Option 2A + Introduce
new 345/115 kV source into Scott County substation, upgrade Scott County 115/69 kV transformers to 112 MVA and rebuild Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line to higher capacity. Overload on
Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV line for the loss of Westgate transformer or Westgate – Deephaven 69 kV line. 64.5 MW Option 2ABC: Option 2AB + upgrade Scott County – Excelsior 69 kV
line to higher capacity. Limited by voltages at Westgate substation for the loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit 115 kV line. 168 MW 3.3 Other consideration Since the low voltages
at Westgate caused by the loss of Westgate – Eden Prairie double circuit is the limiting contingency, further load growth beyond option 1AB or 2ABC can be achieved by converting the
Bluff Creek – Westgate 115 kV circuit to a bifurcated line. Currently this is a double circuit line with one of the two circuits energized. Converting this double circuit 115 kV circuit
to a bifurcated line significantly reduces the impedance of the line, there by improving the voltage at Westgate. Since this could be done in conjunction with Option 1AB or 2ABC, it
would impact both the options equally. Therefore no further analysis was performed to determine the additional incremental load growth. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application
E002/CN-11-332
24 3.4 Economic analysis The total load at Glen Lake, Westgate, Excelsior, Deephaven, Bluff Creek, Minnesota River and Chanhassen substations is approximately 418MW in the 2016 models.
Assuming a 1% load growth there after, the following table provides the required upgrades by year, along with a high level indicative cost, net present value, and the $/MW of incremental
load growth for each of the options. Table 3.12 Facility Cost in Million $ year Option 1AB Scott County Line termination 1.47 2014 Westgate line termination 1.26 2014 Deephaven substation
conversion 6.34 2014 Excelsior substation conversion 4.39 2014 Westgate – Deephaven conversion 5.70 2014 Deephaven – Excelsior conversion 2.77 2014 Excelsior – Bluff Creek Conversion
4.12 2014 Scott County 345/115 kV addition 21.7 2023 Bluff Creek in-out (ring bus)1 -2054 Total 47.75 NPV in 2010 dollars 37 NPV Cost in million $/MW of incremental growth, assuming
200 MW of capability (total incremental load growth/NPV) 0.185 Option 2ABC Westgate transformer upgrade 2.03 2014 Scott County – Bluff Creek line upgrade 13.0 2014 Scott County transformer
upgrade 4.16 2023 Westgate – Deephaven line upgrade 2.7 2023 Scott County 345/115 kV addition 21.7 2023 Scott County – Excelsior line upgrade 1.5 2030 Total 45.1 NPV in 2010 dollars
30 NPV Cost in million $/MW of incremental growth, assuming 150 MW of capability (total incremental load growth/NPV) 0.18 Based on Tables 3.12 and 3.11, it can be concluded that option
1AB can provide 200 MW of load serving capability in the long term at approximately 0.185 million $/MW of incremental load growth as opposed to 168 MW of serving capability in the long
term at the same cost per MW of incremental load growth for the 69 kV alternative. Since the difference in cost per MW of incremental load is less than 3%, the two alternatives are considered
comparable. 1 The cost of Bluff Creek Ring bus was not included as it is projected to be needed beyond 40 years. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
25 In the current study the utility of the Scott County 345/115 kV transformers is limited to improving the voltage at Westgate, however there are additional benefits of installing the
new bulk source. For instance, several studies have indicated that Eden Prairie 345/115 kV transformers are reaching their capacity and need to be upgraded. The addition of Scott County
transformers significantly reduces the load on the Eden Prairie transformers, similarly the overload on Eden Prairie – Westgate 115 kV double circuit would be significantly reduced with
the addition of this bulk electric source at Scott County. Due to these reasons, the years indicated in Table 3.12 are not indicative of the actual need of Scott County 345/115 kV transformers,
depending on the generation and load growth, these transformers may be needed sooner than 2023. 3.5 Loss analysis Tables 3.13 and 3.14 below provide the losses for Base case, Option1
and Option 2A. The losses in Table 3.13 are based on total losses in NSP and GRE control control areas. The losses in Table 3.14 are based on individual branch loading between Scott
County and Westgate substations. Table 3.13 Base Case Option 1 Option 2A NSP 295.5 294.2 295.5 GRE 85.7 85.7 85.7 Total 381.2 379.9 381.1 Table 3.14 Base Case Option 1 Option 2A Westgate
– Deephaven 0.65 0.25 0.91 Deephaven – Excelsior 0.03 0.01 0.02 Excelsior – Scott Co 0.21 0.00 0.11 Scott Co – MN River 0.04 0.06 0.02 MN River – Chanhassen 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chanhassen
– Bluff Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bluff Creek –Westgate 0.52 0.43 0.46 Westgate 115/69 kV TR 0.11 -0.08 Total 1.56 0.75 1.6 From Table 3.13 and 3.14 it can be noticed that the losses do not
change significantly due to either options, therefore no further analysis was performed to identify the economic benefit of loss reduction. Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need
Application E002/CN-11-332
26 4. Conclusion The recommended near term plan to mitigate the load serving problems in the study region is option 1, that is to convert the existing 69 kV line between Scott County
– Excelsior – Deephaven – Westgate substation to 115 kV along with Excelsior and Deephaven substations. As the load grows in the study area, this option would provide better load serving
benefit to the area, compared to the 69 kV alternative, by offering better voltage support during the loss of Eden Prairie – Westgate double circuit outage. The 115 kV options provide
an inherent advantage for future expansion of transmission system in the area, as the major sources to the study area are primarily 345/115 kV substations. The 69 kV option creates an
isolated 69 kV transmission system between Scott County and Westgate, this would create future challenges for transmission expansion, if the area experiences high load growth. Appendix
B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
27 Appendix A Powerflow Maps Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 9.8 4.9 9.6 4.9 8.8 2.3 9.7 2.3 1.0 7.2 7.7 197.7 18.5 198.4 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 8.0 129.3 2.0 129.9 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 10.8 28.1 1.2 8.4 13.9
16.7 13.8 16.76.5 25.2 7.0 25.3 7.7 11.3 7.7 11.4 7.7 11.4 7.7 11.5 26.7 181.5 23.0 180.8 22.7 159.5 8.9 9.0 8.9 9.0 2.4 37.0 1.0 37.7 6.6 46.0 123.6 0.0 123.5 0.0 123.6 SW 4.0 22.6
3.5 22.8 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 174.2 48.7 174.3 96.4 447.0 97.4 447.6 5.1 36.5 14.9 103.4 6.9 105.1 82.7 SW 8.0 55.8 8.7 55.5 14.9 36.7 14.9 36.6 30.6 SW 3.1 21.6 2.7 22.0 2.4 22.3 0.3 2.0
16.4 13.2 16.0 13.6 0.3 1.3 16.4 16.1 17.0 16.1 7.1 18.2 7.5 18.2 2.4 8.3 82.7 0.0 82.7 0.0 82.7 SW 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 8.1 9.0 8.1 9.0 0.4 2.3 5.4
9.7 5.4 9.6 12.9R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.9 19.6 7.8 19.6 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 10.1 11.3 10.0 11.2 35.2 11.4 35.3 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 9.0 43.6
6.5 18.4 78.1 20.0 77.9 10.4 51.2 34.1 34.3 34.0 19.3 31.2 19.3 31.3 3.6 17.7 38.3 18.7 38.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 13.4 1.4 13.3 1.4 10.3 7.4 10.6 7.4 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 17.1 180.2 20.1
179.7 17.1 180.2 20.1 179.7 11.1 77.9 1.9 4.7 90.8 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.017 116.9 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 1.017 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.010 116.1
60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.018 117.1 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.020 70.4 0.9858 1.0000 90.3 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.019 70.3 1.011 116.3 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.011
13.9 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.015 116.7 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.013 116.5 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.4 603119 DEANLAK7 1.012 116.3 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 43.5 44.7 44.8 8.6
34.3 605220 CHASKA 8 1.013 116.5 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 1.003 69.2 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.016 70.1 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.011 116.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 1.011 116.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8
1.010 116.2 G0 1.022 70.5 605237 WACONIA8 0.999 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.003 69.2 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.019 70.3 X0 605234 MCLEDCN8
003 9.2 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 1.020 70.4 605275 CARVRCO8 1.017 116.9 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.004 115.4 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.009 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8
1.011 69.8 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 1.009 116.1 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 1.010 116.2 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 1.000 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 47.7 6.9 * 47.6 9.6 *
0.0 0.0 11.3 1 60 18.7 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997 343.9 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.3 601022 PARKERS3 0.996 343.5 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.015 70.0 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.015
116.7 603207 DEEPHVN8 1.009 69.6 X0 1.011 116.3 29.7 42.4 603073 EDINA 7 1.011 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 301.2 2.2 * 301.8 26.1 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9
0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 318.7 1.5 * 319.4 27.9 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.014 70.0 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.011 116.3 16.7 14.0 16.7 13.9 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.006 69.4
X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.006 69.4 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.021 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 1.025 70.7 1.0114 1.0000 1.0 37.8 1.7 37.7 SW 14.8 605248
WESTGATE28 6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7 1.010 116.2 X0 24.4 N/A N/A 28% I 56% I 56% I 66% I 4% I 4% I N/A 1% I 13% I22% I 28% I 41% I 64% I 63% I 87% I 32% I 4% I 8% I 19%
I 17% I 23% I 25% I N/A 16%I 32% I N/A N/A 28% I 33% I 44% I 48% I 25% I 29%I 54%I 69% I 68% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I 33% I N/A 62% I 18% I 30%I 68% I 66% I N/A 72% I 70% I N/A 20% I28%I
7% I 6% I 6% I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 40% I 53% I 79% I 7% I 8% I MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model: Base Case -System Intact Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application
E002/CN-11-332
7.5 11.8 25.1 11.7 25.1 10.7 32.3 10.6 32.6 1.0 7.2 51.5 285.6 76.8 287.3 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 21.4 216.0 41.9 217.8 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 2.9 53.6 1.2
8.4 8.0 32.3 8.0 32.3 0.4 74.5 3.0 75.1 10.5 2.9 10.5 2.9 10.5 2.9 10.5 2.9 18.5 334.7 4.3 332.3 22.7 159.5 3.3 50.5 4.6 51.1 3.3 4.5 3.1 4.5 6.6 46.0 109.4 0.0 109.3 0.0 109.4 SW 5.9
64.7 1.2 66.7 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 105.5 49.0 105.5 95.2 307.8 93.4 308.2 5.1 36.5 5.9 149.6 13.0 153.2 81.4 SW 19.4 104.7 14.8 103.8 33.8 60.7 32.8 60.4 28.0 SW 3.1 21.6 3.5 35.0 4.6 35.8
0.3 2.0 24.8 24.7 23.3 25.7 0.3 1.3 23.9 12.9 25.0 12.9 17.7 14.9 18.4 14.9 2.4 8.3 66.9 0.0 66.9 0.0 66.9 SW 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 10.9 0.6 11.0 0.5
0.4 2.3 8.1 18.3 8.3 18.1 34.8R 1.0 2.7 18.6 1.0 68.9 1.5 68.7 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 3.9 60.4 4.0 8.1 15.1 8.1 15.1 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.6 30.2 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7
11.6 55.4 7.2 11.0 164.8 2.3 163.6 10.4 51.2 18.1 163.5 15.8 5.3 119.3 4.1 119.5 3.6 17.7 362.7 57.7 57.7 366.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 30.9 325.6 32.2 325.9 27.9 316.8 9.5 313.3 3.0 8.8 46.1
9.9 46.2 11.1 77.9 3.0 27.4 226.3 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 0.914 105.1 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 0.914 12.6 1.0000 1.0000 0.924 106.2 60 G0 X0 603120
EDEN PR7 1.015 116.7 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.013 69.9 0.8918 1.0000 230.4 605244 SCOTTCO8 0.954 65.9 0.937 107.8 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 0.938 12.9 1.0000 1.0000
603103 SCOTTCO7 0.954 109.8 603060 SHAKOPE7 0.956 110.0 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 0.956 109.9 603119 DEANLAK7 0.963 110.8 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 55.2 56.7 56.9 11.1 164.0 605220 CHASKA
8 0.954 109.7 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 0.937 64.7 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 0.953 65.7 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 0.954 109.7 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 0.954 109.7 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 0.957 110.0
G0 1.017 70.1 605237 WACONIA8 0.996 68.7 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 0.999 68.9 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.013 69.9 X0 605234 MCLEDCN8 91 4 618434
GRE-GRMNYTP8 GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 1.015 70.0 605275 CARVRCO8 0.914 105.1 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 0.954 109.7 1.0000 1.0904 1.0000 1.1031 605090 GRENISL8 1.002 69.1 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 0.991
68.4 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 0.966 111.0 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 0.982 112.9 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.009 116.0 615550 GRE-STBONI T 0.970 13.4 0.9976 1.0087 1.0000 44.9 25.3 * 44.8 28.5 * 0.0
0.0 60.3 1 60 37.5 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.995 343.3 601015 BLUE LK3 0.999 344.5 601022 PARKERS3 0.993 342.7 64 603206 EXCELSR8 0.929 64.1 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 0.955 109.8
603207 DEEPHVN8 0.916 63.2 X0 0.938 107.9 29.7 41.7 603073 EDINA 7 1.006 115.7 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.987 13.6 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 200.5 14.7 * 200.8 25.8 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9
0.988 13.6 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 212.1 14.9 * 212.5 27.7 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.009 69.6 603234 WEST CREEK7 0.954 109.7 32.3 8.0 32.3 8.0 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 0.999 68.9
X0 605002 GLENLK18 0.999 68.9 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.020 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 0.985 113.2 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.010 116.1 X060 0.918 63.3 1.0114 1.0000 3.1 4.5 3.2 4.5 SW 12.4 605248 WESTGATE28
6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7 0.955 109.8 X0 MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model: Base Case -Loss of Eden Prairie -Westgate 115 kV double ckt line 24.4 N/A N/A 79%I N/A
N/A 74% I 107% I 110% I N/A 1% I 123% I74% I 102% I 88% I 87% I 85% I 93% I 16% I 18% I 8% I 64% I 47% I 42% I 23% I N/A 16%I 32% I N/A N/A 35% I 42% I 74% I 78% I 45% I 57% I 80% I
76% I 75% I N/A N/A 29% I 11% I 103% I N/A 10% I 81% I 55%I 45% I 44% I N/A 48% I 47% I N/A 16% I23%I 22% I 10% I 10% I 15% I 70% I 33% I N/A 71% I 80% I 13% I 26% I 21% I Appendix B
Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 9.7 7.1 9.5 7.1 8.7 0.1 9.6 0.1 1.0 7.2 7.9 196.0 18.5 196.8 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 7.6 127.7 1.7 128.3 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 10.6 28.1 1.2 8.4 13.8
18.8 13.6 18.86.4 23.1 6.9 23.2 7.6 10.6 7.7 10.7 7.7 10.7 7.6 10.8 26.0 179.9 22.3 179.2 22.7 159.5 8.6 2.9 8.6 3.0 2.1 43.1 0.1 44.0 6.6 46.0 123.5 0.0 123.5 0.0 123.5 SW 4.1 16.5
3.9 16.6 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 174.5 48.1 174.6 97.5 447.9 98.5 448.6 5.1 36.5 14.7 103.6 6.6 105.2 82.7 SW 7.5 55.3 8.2 55.1 15.6 38.4 15.5 38.4 30.5 SW 3.1 21.6 2.7 27.0 2.1 27.4 0.3 2.0
16.5 13.7 16.1 14.1 0.3 1.3 16.5 17.9 17.3 17.9 7.3 20.3 7.8 20.3 2.4 8.3 82.6 0.0 82.6 0.0 82.6 SW 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 8.0 8.3 8.1 8.3 0.4 2.3 5.4
10.4 5.4 10.3 13.4R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.8 17.5 7.6 17.5 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 9.9 9.2 9.9 11.7 28.8 11.9 28.8 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 18.0 76.5
19.5 76.3 10.4 51.2 33.4 30.5 33.3 18.8 29.8 18.8 29.8 3.6 17.7 41.8 18.4 41.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 13.0 4.9 13.0 4.9 10.0 3.9 10.2 3.9 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 15.9 181.7 19.0 181.1 15.9 181.7
19.0 181.1 11.1 77.9 2.3 4.8 87.2 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.016 116.9 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 1.016 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.009 116.1 60 G0 X0 603120
EDEN PR7 1.018 117.0 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.019 70.3 0.9858 1.0000 86.8 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.007 69.5 1.011 116.2 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.010 13.9 1.0000 1.0000
603103 SCOTTCO7 1.014 116.6 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.013 116.5 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.4 603119 DEANLAK7 1.012 116.3 60 0.9858 1.0000 75.6 75.9 19.8 30.6 605220 CHASKA 8 1.013 116.4 60
G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 0.991 68.4 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.004 69.3 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.010 116.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 1.010 116.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.010 116.2 G0 1.021 70.4
605237 WACONIA8 0.998 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.002 69.1 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.018 70.2 X0 605234 MCLEDCN8 003 9.2 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8
0.997 68.8 1.019 70.3 605275 CARVRCO8 1.016 116.9 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.003 115.3 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.008 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.007 69.4 G0 603132 WWACNIA7
1.009 116.0 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 1.010 116.1 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 0.999 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 48.2 7.2 * 48.1 9.9 * 0.0 0.0 9.2 1 60 18.3 603222
WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997 343.9 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.3 601022 PARKERS3 0.995 343.4 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.006 69.4 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.015 116.7 603207 DEEPHVN8
1.001 69.1 X0 1.011 116.2 29.7 41.8 603073 EDINA 7 1.010 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.992 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 301.8 2.9 * 302.4 26.9 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.992 13.7
1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 319.3 2.3 * 320.0 28.8 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.013 69.9 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.011 116.3 18.8 13.9 18.8 13.8 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.005 69.4 X0 605002
GLENLK18 1.005 69.4 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.020 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 1.021 70.4 1.0114 1.0000 0.1 44.1 3.6 44.0 SW 14.6 605248 WESTGATE28
6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7 1.010 116.1 X0 24.4 MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model: Base Case -Scott County 115/69 kV transformer N/A N/A 27% I 56% I 56% I 66% I 3% I
4% I N/A 1% I 14% I21% I 27% I 40% I 110% I N/A 88% I 27% I 4% I 8% I 17% I 18% I 24% I 24% I N/A 16%I 32% I N/A N/A 31% I 35% I 45% I 59% I 26% I 29%I 54%I 70% I 69% I N/A N/A 42% I
17% I 25% I N/A 73% I 13% I 30%I 68% I 66% I N/A 72% I 70% I N/A 19% I27%I 7% I 6% I 6% I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 40% I 53% I 93% I 7% I 9% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application
E002/CN-11-332
7.5 9.8 5.5 9.5 5.5 8.7 1.7 9.6 1.7 1.0 7.2 7.4 194.6 17.8 195.3 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 8.0 126.2 2.3 126.8 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 10.7 27.1 1.2 8.4 13.8
18.1 13.7 18.16.4 23.9 6.9 23.9 7.5 11.8 7.5 11.9 7.5 11.9 7.5 12.0 25.4 175.1 22.0 174.5 22.7 159.5 12.3 13.6 12.4 13.5 5.8 59.6 1.8 61.4 6.6 46.0 123.7 0.0 123.7 0.0 123.7 SW 1.9 13.5
0.2 0.3 176.9 47.3 177.1 98.7 452.8 99.9 453.4 5.1 36.5 14.7 101.7 7.0 103.3 82.7 SW 8.0 54.0 8.6 53.7 15.1 35.3 15.1 35.3 30.6 SW 3.1 21.6 2.0 20.3 1.8 20.5 0.3 2.0 16.1 12.7 15.7 13.0
0.3 1.3 16.4 15.7 17.1 15.7 7.2 17.8 7.6 17.8 2.4 8.3 82.6 0.0 82.5 0.0 82.6 SW 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 7.9 9.5 7.9 9.5 0.4 2.3 5.3 9.2 5.2 9.1 12.8R
1.0 2.7 18.6 7.8 18.3 7.6 18.3 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.1 37.6 10.4 37.6 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 9.3 33.4 7.8 18.4 75.0 19.8
74.8 10.4 51.2 33.6 30.3 33.6 19.0 28.2 19.0 28.2 3.6 17.7 47.3 19.2 47.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 13.7 10.4 13.7 10.4 10.7 1.6 10.9 1.6 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 15.3 187.7 18.5 187.1 15.3 187.7
18.5 187.1 11.1 77.9 1.6 3.7 81.7 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.016 116.8 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 1.016 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.009 116.1 60 G0 X0 603120
EDEN PR7 1.017 117.0 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.019 70.3 0.9858 1.0000 81.3 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.019 70.3 1.011 116.3 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.011 14.0 1.0000 1.0000
603103 SCOTTCO7 1.015 116.7 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.014 116.6 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.013 116.5 603119 DEANLAK7 1.012 116.4 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 33.4 34.3 34.4 9.1 30.3 605220 CHASKA
8 1.013 116.5 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 1.003 69.2 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.016 70.1 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.011 116.3 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 1.011 116.3 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.011 116.2
G0 1.022 70.5 605237 WACONIA8 0.999 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.003 69.2 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.019 70.3 X0 605234 MCLEDCN8 003 9.2
618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 1.020 70.4 605275 CARVRCO8 1.016 116.8 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.004 115.5 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.009 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.012
69.8 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 1.010 116.1 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 1.010 116.2 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 1.000 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 47.7 6.8 * 47.6 9.4 * 0.0 0.0
10.0 1 60 19.0 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997 343.8 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.2 601022 PARKERS3 0.995 343.4 64 603206 EXCELSR8 0.997 68.8 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.015 116.8
603207 DEEPHVN8 0.994 68.6 X0 1.011 116.3 29.7 41.0 603073 EDINA 7 1.010 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.992 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 305.4 3.3 * 305.9 27.9 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9
0.992 13.7 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 323.0 2.7 * 323.8 29.8 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.014 70.0 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.012 116.3 18.0 13.9 18.1 13.8 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.005 69.3
X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.005 69.3 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.020 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.7 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 1.019 70.3 1.0114 1.0000 1.8 61.7 5.5 61.4 SW 14.3 605248
WESTGATE28 6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7 1.011 116.2 X0 24.4 MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model: Base Case -Scott County -Excelsior 69 kV line outage N/A N/A 25% I 58%
I 58% I 66% I 3% I 5% I N/A 1% I 16% I20% I 27% I 39% I 50% I 49% I 87% I 33% I 4% I 8% I 18% I 17% I 22% I 26% I N/A 16%I 32% I N/A N/A 28% I 33% I 43% I 44% I 24% I 28%I 53%I 69% I
68% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I N/A N/A 102% I 27% I 29%I 69% I 67% I N/A 73% I 71% I N/A 20% I29%I 7% I 6% I 6% I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 40% I 52% I 130% I 7% I 8% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate
of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 9.3 5.5 9.1 5.5 8.3 1.7 9.2 1.7 1.0 7.2 2.0 59.6 2.8 59.9 6.2 0.1 5.5 0.1 8.3 194.3 18.8 195.1 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 7.0 126.0 1.3 126.6 9.7 67.8 3.0 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 3.5
24.4 10.5 27.0 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.7 SW 13.2 18.1 13.1 18.15.8 23.8 6.3 23.9 7.3 11.8 7.4 11.9 7.4 11.9 7.4 11.9 26.0 175.7 22.5 175.0 22.7 159.5 4.5 13.6 4.3 13.6 6.6 46.0 123.4 0.0 123.4
0.0 123.4 SW 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 176.6 47.6 176.8 98.2 452.1 99.4 452.7 5.1 36.5 14.4 101.6 6.7 103.2 82.7 SW 7.4 53.9 8.0 53.7 15.3 35.3 15.3 35.2 30.5 SW 3.1 21.6 1.9 20.3 1.7 20.6 0.3
2.0 16.0 12.7 15.6 13.1 0.3 1.3 16.3 15.7 17.0 15.7 7.1 17.8 7.5 17.8 2.4 8.3 82.6 0.0 82.6 0.0 82.6 SW 0.5 2.7 7.2 11.3 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8
5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 7.7 9.5 7.7 9.5 0.4 2.3 5.1 9.2 5.1 9.1 13.2R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.2 18.2 7.0 18.2 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 9.4 9.9 9.3 10.0 37.5 10.2 37.6 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1 14.7
3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 9.3 33.4 7.7 17.4 74.8 18.8 74.6 10.4 51.2 32.2 30.2 32.2 18.1 18.1 28.1 18.1 28.2 3.6 17.7 47.0 17.4 47.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 11.9 10.2 11.9 10.2 8.9
1.4 9.2 1.3 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 15.8 186.9 19.0 15.8 186.9 19.0 186.3 11.1 77.9 3.3 5.5 81.9 6.0 42.1 1.6 6.8 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.016 116.8 X0 600052
FLYCLD9G 1.016 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.009 116.0 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.017 117.0 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.019 70.3 0.9858 1.0000 81.5 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.018 70.2 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 1.010
116.2 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.010 13.9 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.014 116.6 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.013 116.5 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.4 603119 DEANLAK7
1.011 116.3 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 33.4 34.3 34.4 9.0 30.2 605220 CHASKA 8 1.012 116.4 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 1.002 69.1 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.015 70.0 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8
1.010 116.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 1.010 116.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.010 116.1 G0 1.022 70.5 605237 WACONIA8 0.999 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.003 69.2
G0 605238 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.018 70.3 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.015 70.0 605234 MCLEDCN8 1.003 69.2 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.999 68.9 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG
1.012 69.8 6.7 ISL8 1.020 70.4 605275 CARVRCO8 1.016 116.8 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.003 115.4 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.009 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.011 69.8 G0
603132 WWACNIA7 1.009 116.0 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 1.010 116.1 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 1.000 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 47.7 7.0 * 47.6 9.7 * 0.0 0.0 9.9 1
60 17.3 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997 343.8 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.2 601022 PARKERS3 0.995 343.4 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.011 116.3 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.014 116.6 603207
DEEPHVN8 1.011 116.2 X0 1.010 116.2 29.7 41.3 603073 EDINA 7 1.010 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.992 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 304.9 3.1 * 305.5 27.5 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.992
13.7 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 322.5 2.4 * 323.3 29.4 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.014 70.0 603234 WEST CREEK7 CREEK7 1.011 116.2 18.1 13.3 18.1 13.2 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.005 69.3
X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.005 69.3 X0 1.020 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 603245 CARVER 7 1.010 116.1 X0 21.3 45.6 605241 GLESNLK8 186.3 N/A N/A 26%I
58% I 58% I 66% I 3% I 5% I N/A 1% I 16% I20% I 26% I 39% I 50% I 49% I87% I 33% I 4% I 8% I 17% I 18% I 22% I 25% I N/A 16%I 32%I 23% I N/A 11% I 6% I N/A 28% I 33% I 43% I 44% I 24%
I 28% I 53% I 69% I 68% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I N/A 4% I 29%I 69% I 67% I N/A 73% I 71% I N/A 20% I29% I 7% I 6% I 6% I 23% I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 39% I 52% I 2% I 16% I 7% I 8% I MRO
2010 Series 2016 Summer peak model -Option 1: System Intact Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 9.4 7.2 9.2 7.2 8.4 0.0 9.2 0.0 1.0 7.2 2.3 59.1 3.1 59.4 5.9 0.4 5.2 0.4 8.6 193.7 19.0 194.5 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 6.7 125.4 1.0 126.0 9.7 67.8 3.0 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 3.5
24.4 10.3 27.3 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.7 SW 13.1 19.6 13.0 19.65.8 22.4 6.3 22.4 7.3 11.1 7.3 11.1 7.3 11.1 7.3 11.2 25.8 175.9 22.3 175.3 22.7 159.5 4.2 13.1 4.0 13.1 6.6 46.0 123.3 0.0 123.3
0.0 123.3 SW 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 176.2 47.5 176.4 98.5 451.5 99.6 452.1 5.1 36.5 14.3 102.1 6.5 103.8 82.7 SW 6.9 54.0 7.5 53.7 15.9 37.0 15.9 37.0 30.5 SW 3.1 21.6 1.7 24.9 1.3 25.3 0.3
2.0 16.1 13.3 15.7 13.6 0.3 1.3 16.5 17.3 17.3 17.3 7.3 19.6 7.8 19.6 2.4 8.3 82.6 0.0 82.5 0.0 82.6 SW 0.5 2.7 7.2 11.3 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8
5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 7.7 8.8 7.7 8.7 0.4 2.3 5.1 9.9 5.0 9.9 13.7R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.2 16.8 7.0 16.7 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 9.3 8.4 9.3 10.2 31.5 10.3 1.1 31.6 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1 14.7
3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 17.1 74.2 18.4 74.0 10.4 51.2 31.8 28.1 31.8 17.7 27.7 17.7 27.7 3.6 17.7 47.7 16.9 47.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 11.5 10.9 11.5 10.9 8.5 2.1 8.7 2.1 3.0
8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 15.4 186.3 18.7 15.4 186.3 18.7 185.7 11.1 77.9 3.8 5.9 81.2 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 6.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.016 116.8 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 1.016
14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.009 116.0 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.017 117.0 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.019 70.3 0.9858 1.0000 80.8 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.005 69.4 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 1.010 116.2 G0 603115
BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.010 13.9 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.014 116.6 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.013 116.4 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.3 603119 DEANLAK7 1.011 116.3 60
0.9858 1.0000 61.7 61.9 20.2 28.1 605220 CHASKA 8 1.012 116.4 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 0.989 68.3 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.003 69.2 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.010 116.1 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8
1.010 116.1 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.009 116.1 G0 1.020 70.4 605237 WACONIA8 0.998 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.002 69.1 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP
8 1.017 70.2 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.014 70.0 605234 MCLEDCN8 1.003 69.2 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.999 68.9 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG 1.012 69.8 6.7 ISL8 1.018 70.3 605275
CARVRCO8 1.016 116.8 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.003 115.3 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.008 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.007 69.5 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 1.008 116.0 X0 615548
GRE-ST BONI7 1.010 116.1 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.016 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 0.999 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 48.2 7.3 * 48.1 10.0 * 0.0 0.0 8.4 1 60 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3
0.997 343.8 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.2 601022 PARKERS3 0.995 343.4 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.011 116.2 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.014 116.6 603207 DEEPHVN8 1.011 116.2 X0 1.010 116.2 29.7 41.2
603073 EDINA 7 1.010 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.992 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 304.4 3.3 * 305.0 27.7 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.992 13.7 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 322.0 2.7 * 322.7
29.6 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.013 69.9 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.010 116.2 19.6 13.3 19.6 13.1 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.005 69.3 X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.005 69.3 X0 1.020 70.4 603080
HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 603245 CARVER 7 1.009 116.1 X0 21.3 45.6 605241 GLESNLK8 185.7 16.8 MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer peak model -Option 1: Loss of
Scott County 115/69 kV transformer N/A N/A 25%I 58% I 58% I 66% I 3% I 5% I N/A 1% I 16% I19% I 25% I 39% I 92% I N/A 88% I 29% I 3% I 8% I 16% I 18% I 23% I 24% I N/A 16%I 32%I 23%
I N/A 11% I 6% I N/A 30% I 35% I 44% I 55% I 25% I 28% I 53% I 70% I 69% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I N/A 4% I 29%I 69% I 67% I N/A 73% I 71% I N/A 19% I28% I 6% I 6% I 6% I 23% I 8% I 69%
I 32% I N/A 39% I 52% I 2% I 16% I 7% I 8% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 12.7 26.8 12.7 26.8 11.7 34.0 11.5 34.3 1.0 7.2 11.4 90.0 14.5 89.4 0.2 150.2 12.0 152.4 43.3 285.9 68.1 287.6 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 13.5 216.4 33.6 218.2 9.7 67.8 3.0 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3
7.5 46.1 6.5 3.5 24.4 5.3 53.0 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.5 SW 10.5 33.6 10.5 33.62.1 75.7 0.5 76.3 10.1 3.8 10.1 3.8 10.1 3.8 10.1 3.8 17.4 334.4 3.3 332.1 22.7 159.5 4.8 136.0 1.8 136.6 6.6
46.0 111.8 0.0 111.8 0.0 111.8 SW 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 105.8 49.3 105.8 94.4 307.3 92.6 307.6 5.1 36.5 10.6 148.5 7.8 152.0 81.7 SW 15.2 104.1 10.8 103.2 30.3 58.3 29.5 58.1 28.4 SW 3.1
21.6 2.8 29.4 3.5 29.9 0.3 2.0 24.2 23.8 22.7 24.7 0.3 1.3 23.1 11.0 24.0 11.1 16.5 12.7 17.0 12.7 2.4 8.3 71.1 0.0 71.1 0.0 71.1 SW 0.5 2.7 7.0 11.3 6.5 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2
8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.4 0.4 2.3 7.7 17.4 7.9 17.2 35.2R 1.0 2.7 18.6 3.5 70.1 4.0 69.9 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 6.4 61.6 6.5 7.6 22.0 7.7
1.1 22.0 3.5 5.1 5.6 30.2 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 7.5 25.8 6.5 3.2 165.2 5.4 164.0 10.4 51.2 27.0 164.0 24.7 12.3 118.5 11.1 118.8 3.6 17.7 273.3 29.7 275.3 0.2
0.3 0.2 0.3 12.8 236.4 13.5 236.5 9.8 227.6 0.8 225.8 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 11.1 77.9 11.7 20.4 141.5 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 6.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 0.943 108.4
X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 0.943 13.0 1.0000 1.0000 0.946 108.8 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.016 116.8 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.017 70.2 0.9169 1.0000 143.0 605244 SCOTTCO8 0.970 66.9 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7
0.954 109.7 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 0.954 13.2 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 0.965 111.0 603060 SHAKOPE7 0.966 111.1 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 0.966 111.1 603119
DEANLAK7 0.971 111.7 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 25.7 26.5 26.5 7.4 164.5 605220 CHASKA 8 0.964 110.9 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 0.953 65.7 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 0.968 66.8 G0 618720
GRE-VICTTAP8 0.964 110.9 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 0.964 110.9 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 0.966 111.1 G0 1.017 70.2 605237 WACONIA8 0.996 68.7 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8
0.999 68.9 G0 605238 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.014 69.9 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.002 69.1 605234 MCLEDCN8 0.990 68.3 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.986 68.0 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8
605228 BSCYJCTG 0.999 68.9 6.5 ISL8 1.015 70.0 605275 CARVRCO8 0.943 108.4 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 0.963 110.7 1.0000 1.0778 1.0000 1.0904 605090 GRENISL8 1.002 69.2 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8
0.996 68.7 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 0.974 112.0 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 0.988 113.7 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.010 116.2 615550 GRE-STBONI T 0.976 13.5 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 44.4 25.8 * 44.3 28.9
* 0.0 0.0 61.6 1 60 18.8 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.996 343.5 601015 BLUE LK3 0.999 344.7 601022 PARKERS3 0.994 342.9 64 603206 EXCELSR8 0.948 109.0 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 0.965
111.0 603207 DEEPHVN8 0.944 108.6 X0 0.955 109.8 29.7 42.1 603073 EDINA 7 1.007 115.8 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.988 13.6 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 200.3 14.2 * 200.6 25.2 * 0.0 0.0 605706
EDENPRTR10T9 0.989 13.6 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000 211.9 14.3 * 212.4 27.1 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.009 69.6 603234 WEST CREEK7 0.964 110.9 33.6 10.5 33.6 10.5 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28
1.003 69.2 X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.002 69.2 X0 1.021 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 0.989 113.8 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.011 116.3 X060 603245 CARVER 7 0.965 110.9 X0 21.3 45.6 605241 GLESNLK8 MRO 2010
Series 2016 Summer peak model -Option 1: Loss of Eden Prairie -Westgate dbl ckt N/A N/A 48%I N/A N/A 72% I 75% I 78%I N/A 1% I 91% I73% I 102% I 88% I 41% I 40% I92% I 21% I 18% I 8%
I 65% I 47% I 40% I 22% I N/A 16%I 32%I 23% I N/A 11% I 6% I N/A 31% I 39% I 71% I 65% I 42% I 56% I 79% I 76% I 74% I N/A N/A 29% I 11% I N/A 40% I 55%I 45% I 44% I N/A 48% I 47% I
N/A 16% I23% I 22% I 10% I 10% I 23% I 15% I 70% I 32% I N/A 71% I 80% I 50% I 27% I 27% I 22% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 11.6 9.9 11.4 9.9 10.6 2.7 11.5 2.7 1.0 7.2 8.3 59.6 9.1 59.8 0.1 183.9 9.3 184.6 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 14.2 115.7 9.5 116.1 9.7 67.8 3.0 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 3.5 24.4 11.9
24.0 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.7 SW 17.0 24.6 16.9 24.69.6 17.4 10.2 17.4 8.5 13.2 8.6 13.3 8.6 13.3 8.6 13.4 13.7 153.5 11.2 153.1 22.7 159.5 1.7 13.5 1.9 13.5 6.6 46.0 125.8 0.0 125.8 0.0
125.8 SW 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 185.1 39.3 185.2 113.6 469.6 115.3 470.3 5.1 36.5 16.2 96.0 9.4 97.4 82.7 SW 11.7 48.1 12.1 47.9 14.0 32.9 14.0 32.9 30.9 SW 3.1 21.6 2.4 19.3 2.2 19.5 0.3
2.0 16.1 11.1 15.8 11.4 0.3 1.3 16.8 16.6 17.5 16.7 7.5 18.9 8.0 18.9 2.4 8.3 81.6 0.0 81.6 0.0 81.6 SW 0.5 2.7 7.2 11.3 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8
5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 8.9 10.9 8.9 10.9 0.4 2.3 6.3 7.8 6.2 7.7 9.0R 1.0 2.7 18.6 11.0 11.8 10.8 11.8 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 13.1 3.5 13.1 10.4 39.5 10.7 1.1 39.5 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1
14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 9.5 34.4 7.9 24.6 64.5 25.6 64.3 10.4 51.2 40.7 13.2 40.7 23.8 16.8 23.8 16.8 3.6 17.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 5.3 36.8 5.3 36.8 8.4 45.7 8.5 45.7 3.0
8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 0.2 210.9 4.4 0.2 210.9 4.4 210.2 11.1 77.9 21.0 27.4 129.7 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 6.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.010 116.1 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 1.010
13.9 1.0000 1.0000 0.992 114.0 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.013 116.5 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.013 69.9 0.9858 1.0000 128.6 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.028 70.9 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 0.989 113.7 G0 603115
BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 0.988 13.6 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.024 117.7 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.022 117.6 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.021 117.4 603119 DEANLAK7 1.019 117.2 60
0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 34.3 35.3 35.4 9.3 13.3 605220 CHASKA 8 1.022 117.5 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 1.012 69.8 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.025 70.7 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.019
117.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 1.019 117.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.018 117.1 G0 1.027 70.9 605237 WACONIA8 1.001 69.1 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.005 69.4 G0 605238
YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.024 70.6 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.016 70.1 605234 MCLEDCN8 1.005 69.3 605233 LSTRPRA8 1.000 69.0 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG 1.013 69.9
6.7 ISL8 1.025 70.7 605275 CARVRCO8 1.010 116.1 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.009 116.1 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.013 69.9 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.017 70.2 G0 603132 WWACNIA7
1.014 116.6 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 1.013 116.5 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 1.003 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 47.9 4.4 * 47.8 7.0 * 0.0 0.0 3.5 1 60 603222 WESTGATECAP7
601025 EDEN PR3 0.995 343.3 601015 BLUE LK3 1.000 344.9 601022 PARKERS3 0.994 343.1 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.001 115.2 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.024 117.8 603207 DEEPHVN8 1.002 115.2 X0 0.989
113.7 29.7 33.2 603073 EDINA 7 1.008 115.9 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.987 13.6 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 317.5 12.2 * 318.1 39.0 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.987 13.6 1.0000 1.0260 1.0000
335.9 12.1 * 336.6 41.5 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.018 70.2 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.020 117.3 24.5 17.1 24.6 17.0 606028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 0.998 68.9 X0 605002 GLENLK18 0.998 68.9
X0 1.019 70.3 603080 HYLNDLK7 1.018 117.1 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.023 117.6 X060 603245 CARVER 7 1.018 117.1 X0 21.3 45.6 605241 GLESNLK8 210.2 MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer peak model -Option
1: Loss of Scott County -Bluff Creek dbl ckt N/A N/A 42%I 66% I 66% I 67% I 15% I 12%I N/A 1% I N/A 17% I 25% I 35% I 51% I 50% I86% I 35% I 4% I 8% I 14% I 12% I 21% I 29% I N/A 16%I
32%I 23% I N/A 11% I 6% I N/A 29% I 34% I 41% I 42% I 22% I 26% I 50% I 69% I 68% I N/A N/A 44% I 17% I N/A 4% I 25%I 72% I 70% I N/A 76% I 74% I N/A 23% I33% I 6% I 8% I 8% I 23% I
7% I 70% I 33% I N/A 36% I 49% I N/A 17% I 8% I 11% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 1.3 44.7 0.8 44.7 9.7 4.9 9.5 4.9 8.7 2.3 9.6 2.3 1.0 7.2 7.9 197.2 18.6 198.0 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 7.8 128.8 1.8 129.4 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 10.8
27.9 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.7 SW 13.7 16.8 13.6 16.86.3 25.1 6.8 25.2 7.6 11.4 7.6 11.5 7.6 11.5 7.6 11.6 27.9 180.8 24.2 180.1 22.7 159.5 9.8 2.3 9.8 2.3 3.2 43.8 1.3 44.7 6.6 46.0 123.5
0.0 123.5 0.0 123.5 SW 3.2 15.8 3.1 15.9 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 174.6 49.3 174.8 95.4 447.9 96.4 448.6 5.1 36.5 14.8 103.2 6.8 104.8 82.7 SW 7.8 55.5 8.5 55.2 15.0 36.4 15.0 36.3 30.6 SW 3.1
21.6 2.5 21.5 2.3 21.8 0.3 2.0 16.3 13.1 15.9 13.5 0.3 1.3 16.3 15.9 17.0 15.9 7.1 18.0 7.5 18.1 2.4 8.3 82.8 0.0 82.8 0.0 82.8 SW 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8
0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 8.0 9.1 8.0 9.1 0.4 2.3 5.4 9.6 5.3 9.5 12.9R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.7 19.5 7.6 19.5 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 9.9 11.2 9.9 11.0 35.9 11.1 35.9 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5
30.1 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 8.8 40.5 6.6 18.2 77.7 19.7 77.4 10.4 51.2 33.7 33.8 33.6 19.0 30.8 19.0 30.9 3.6 17.7 43.1 20.2 43.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 15.0 6.3 14.9
6.3 11.9 2.6 12.3 2.6 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 18.5 181.3 21.6 180.7 18.5 181.3 21.6 180.7 11.1 77.9 0.2 2.6 85.9 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.017
117.0 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 1.017 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.011 116.3 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.018 117.1 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.020 70.4 0.9858 1.0000 85.4 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.019 70.3 1.012 116.4
G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.012 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.014 116.6 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.013 116.5 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.4 603119 DEANLAK7 1.012
116.3 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 40.4 41.5 41.6 8.4 33.9 605220 CHASKA 8 1.013 116.5 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 1.003 69.2 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.016 70.1 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8
1.011 116.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 1.010 116.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.010 116.2 G0 1.022 70.5 605237 WACONIA8 0.999 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.003 69.2
G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.019 70.3 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.015 70.0 605234 MCLEDCN8 1.003 69.2 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.999 68.9 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG
1.012 69.8 6.7 1.020 70.4 605275 CARVRCO8 1.017 117.0 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.004 115.4 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.009 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.011 69.8 G0 603132
WWACNIA7 1.009 116.1 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 1.010 116.2 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 1.000 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 47.7 6.9 * 47.6 9.6 * 0.0 0.0 11.2 1 60 20.3
603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997 344.0 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.3 601022 PARKERS3 0.996 343.5 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.017 70.2 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.015 116.7 603207 DEEPHVN8
1.012 69.8 X0 1.013 116.5 29.7 43.0 603073 EDINA 7 1.011 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 301.9 1.4 * 302.5 25.3 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.993 13.7
1.0000 1.0260 319.4 0.6 * 320.1 27.1 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.014 70.0 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.011 116.3 16.8 13.8 16.8 13.7 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.006 69.4 X0 605002 GLENLK18
1.006 69.4 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.021 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 1.030 71.1 SW 14.9 605248 WESTGATE28 6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7
1.010 116.2 X0 0.9858 1.0000 24.4 1.0000 N/A N/A 27% I 56% I 56% I 66% I 2% I 3%I N/A 1% I 8% I 21% I 28% I 41% I 60% I 58% I 87% I 32% I 4% I 8% I 19% I 17% I 23% I 25% I N/A 16%I 32%
I 23% I N/A 11% I N/A 28% I 33% I 44% I 47% I 25% I 29%I 54%I 69% I 68% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I 23% I N/A 74% I 15% I 30%I 68% I 66% I N/A 72% I 70% I N/A 20% I29% I 7% I 6% I 6% I 23%
I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 40% I 53% I 7% I 8% I 63% I MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model -Option 2A: System Intact Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 0.2 51.6 2.7 51.7 9.7 6.9 9.5 6.9 8.7 0.3 9.5 0.3 1.0 7.2 8.0 195.7 18.6 196.4 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 7.5 127.3 1.6 127.9 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 10.6
27.9 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.7 SW 13.7 18.8 13.5 18.86.3 23.1 6.8 23.2 7.6 10.8 7.6 10.9 7.6 10.9 7.6 10.9 27.2 179.2 23.6 178.5 22.7 159.5 9.4 4.3 9.4 4.3 2.9 50.4 0.2 51.6 6.6 46.0 123.5
0.0 123.5 0.0 123.5 SW 3.4 9.2 3.5 9.3 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 175.0 48.7 175.1 96.4 448.9 97.4 449.6 5.1 36.5 14.6 103.2 6.6 104.9 82.7 SW 7.4 55.1 8.1 54.8 15.6 37.9 15.5 37.9 30.5 SW 3.1
21.6 2.5 26.0 2.0 26.4 0.3 2.0 16.4 13.6 16.0 13.9 0.3 1.3 16.5 17.6 17.3 17.6 7.3 20.0 7.8 20.0 2.4 8.3 82.7 0.0 82.7 0.0 82.7 SW 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8
0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 8.0 8.5 8.0 8.5 0.4 2.3 5.4 10.2 5.3 10.1 13.3R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.7 17.5 7.5 17.5 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 9.8 9.2 9.8 11.3 30.0 11.4 30.1 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5
30.1 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 17.9 76.1 19.3 75.9 10.4 51.2 33.1 30.3 33.1 18.6 29.4 18.6 29.5 3.6 17.7 47.1 20.0 47.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 14.7 10.3 14.7 10.3 11.7
1.4 12.0 1.4 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 17.5 182.8 20.6 182.2 17.5 182.8 20.6 182.2 11.1 77.9 0.4 2.6 81.9 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.017 116.9 X0
600052 FLYCLD9G 1.017 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.011 116.2 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.018 117.1 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.020 70.4 0.9858 1.0000 81.4 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.008 69.5 1.012 116.4 G0 603115
BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.012 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.014 116.6 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.013 116.5 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.4 603119 DEANLAK7 1.011 116.3 60
0.9858 1.0000 69.4 69.7 18.9 30.3 605220 CHASKA 8 1.013 116.4 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 0.991 68.4 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.005 69.3 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.010 116.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8
1.010 116.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.010 116.2 G0 1.021 70.4 605237 WACONIA8 0.998 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.002 69.2 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP
8 1.018 70.2 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.014 70.0 605234 MCLEDCN8 1.003 69.2 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.999 68.9 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG 1.012 69.8 6.7 1.019 70.3 605275 CARVRCO8
1.017 116.9 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.003 115.3 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.008 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.007 69.5 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 1.009 116.0 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7
1.010 116.1 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 0.999 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 48.2 7.2 * 48.1 9.9 * 0.0 0.0 9.2 1 60 20.1 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997
343.9 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.3 601022 PARKERS3 0.996 343.5 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.009 69.6 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.014 116.7 603207 DEEPHVN8 1.005 69.4 X0 1.012 116.4 29.7 42.4 603073
EDINA 7 1.011 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 302.6 2.0 * 303.1 26.1 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0260 320.1 1.3 * 320.8 27.9 * 0.0
0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.013 69.9 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.011 116.2 18.8 13.8 18.8 13.7 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.006 69.4 X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.006 69.4 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.021 70.4
603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 1.028 70.9 SW 14.7 605248 WESTGATE28 6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7 1.010 116.1 X0 0.9858 1.0000 24.4 1.0000
MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model -Option 2A: Loss of Scott County -Excelsior 69 kV line N/A N/A 25% I 57% I 57% I 66% I 2% I 3%I N/A 1% I 8% I 20% I 26% I 40% I 102% I N/A 88%
I 28% I 4% I 8% I 17% I 18% I 24% I 24% I N/A 16%I 32% I 23% I N/A 11% I N/A 31% I 35% I 45% I 57% I 26% I 29%I 54%I 70% I 69% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I 14% I N/A 85% I 15% I 30%I 68% I
66% I N/A 72% I 70% I N/A 19% I27% I 7% I 6% I 6% I 23% I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 40% I 53% I 7% I 8% I 73% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 5.2 2.2 5.3 2.2 12.2 25.3 12.2 25.3 11.2 32.5 11.1 32.8 1.0 7.2 43.8 285.3 68.5 287.0 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 14.1 215.7 34.1 217.5 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6
3.5 5.2 53.3 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.5 SW 10.0 32.2 9.9 32.21.6 74.4 0.9 75.0 10.2 3.1 10.2 3.1 10.2 3.1 10.1 3.2 17.5 334.2 3.4 331.9 22.7 159.5 1.2 43.9 2.1 44.3 5.4 2.1 5.2 2.2 6.6 46.0
111.7 0.0 111.6 0.0 111.7 SW 9.0 57.8 3.6 59.4 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 105.6 49.2 105.7 94.4 307.3 92.6 307.6 5.1 36.5 10.7 149.1 7.9 152.6 81.7 SW 15.7 104.2 11.2 103.2 30.5 60.0 29.6 59.8
28.4 SW 3.1 21.6 1.8 33.6 2.7 34.3 0.3 2.0 24.5 24.3 23.0 25.3 0.3 1.3 22.9 12.5 23.9 12.6 16.2 14.4 16.8 14.4 2.4 8.3 70.9 0.0 70.9 0.0 70.9 SW 6.5 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0
7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1 7.8 0.8 5.9 10.6 0.8 10.6 0.8 0.4 2.3 7.8 18.1 8.0 17.8 36.0R 1.0 2.7 18.6 3.0 68.8 3.5 68.6 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 5.9 60.3 6.0
9.9 16.9 9.9 16.9 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.6 30.2 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 9.6 52.7 5.6 3.7 164.5 4.7 163.4 10.4 51.2 25.8 162.0 23.5 11.7 118.0 10.5 118.3 3.6 17.7 367.6 40.9
368.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 24.5 330.5 25.8 330.8 21.5 321.7 7.5 319.9 3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 11.1 77.9 5.0 29.4 233.0 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 0.942
108.3 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G 0.942 13.0 1.0000 1.0000 0.950 109.3 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.016 116.8 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.015 70.1 0.9169 1.0000 237.1 605244 SCOTTCO8 0.967 66.7 0.958
110.1 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181 MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 0.958 13.2 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 0.964 110.9 603060 SHAKOPE7 0.966 111.0 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 0.965 111.0 603119 DEANLAK7
0.971 111.6 60 0.9858 1.0000 0.9858 1.0000 52.5 53.9 54.1 9.1 162.5 605220 CHASKA 8 0.964 110.9 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 0.950 65.5 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 0.965 66.6 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8
0.964 110.8 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8 0.964 110.8 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 0.966 111.1 G0 1.016 70.1 605237 WACONIA8 0.996 68.7 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 0.999 68.9
G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP 8 1.013 69.9 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.002 69.1 605234 MCLEDCN8 0.990 68.3 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.986 68.0 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG
0.999 68.9 6.5 1.015 70.0 605275 CARVRCO8 0.942 108.3 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 0.963 110.7 1.0000 1.0778 1.0000 1.0904 605090 GRENISL8 1.002 69.1 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 0.994 68.6 G0 603132
WWACNIA7 0.973 111.9 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7 0.988 113.6 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.010 116.2 615550 GRE-STBONI T 0.975 13.5 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 44.9 26.3 * 44.8 29.5 * 0.0 0.0 60.3 1 60
31.1 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.996 343.5 601015 BLUE LK3 0.999 344.7 601022 PARKERS3 0.994 342.9 64 603206 EXCELSR8 0.951 65.6 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 0.965 110.9 603207 DEEPHVN8
0.941 64.9 X0 0.959 110.2 29.7 42.0 603073 EDINA 7 1.007 115.8 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.988 13.6 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 200.3 14.2 * 200.6 25.3 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.989 13.6
1.0000 1.0260 211.9 14.4 * 212.3 27.1 * 0.0 0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.009 69.6 603234 WEST CREEK7 0.963 110.8 32.3 10.0 32.2 10.0 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.001 69.1 X0 605002 GLENLK18
1.001 69.1 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.021 70.4 603080 HYLNDLK7 0.989 113.7 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.011 116.3 X060 0.949 65.5 SW 13.0 605248 WESTGATE28 6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7
0.964 110.9 X0 0.9858 1.0000 24.4 1.0000 MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model -Option 2A: Loss of Eden Prairie -Westgate dbl ckt N/A N/A 79% I N/A N/A 72% I 56% I 58%I N/A 1% I 62%
I73% I 101% I 87% I 81% I 78% I 92% I 18% I 17% I 8% I 64% I 48% I 41% I 22% I N/A 16%I 32% I 23% I N/A 11% I N/A 33% I 40% I 73% I 75% I 43% I 56%I 79%I 77% I 75% I N/A N/A 29% I 11%
I 91% I N/A 10% I 69% I 55%I 45% I 44% I N/A 48% I 47% I N/A 16% I22% I 21% I 10% I 10% I 23% I 15% I 70% I 33% I N/A 70% I 80% I 26% I 21% I 9% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of
Need Application E002/CN-11-332
7.5 2.2 61.3 1.8 61.5 9.7 5.3 9.4 5.3 8.6 1.9 9.5 1.9 1.0 7.2 7.8 195.2 18.3 195.9 4.3 30.5 2.0 9.7 7.7 126.8 1.9 127.4 9.7 67.8 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 3.0 21.3 7.5 46.1 6.5 45.6 3.5 10.7
27.3 1.2 8.4 1.1 8.5 7.7 SW 13.6 17.7 13.5 17.76.2 24.2 6.7 24.3 7.5 11.8 7.5 11.8 7.5 11.8 7.5 11.9 27.5 176.7 24.0 176.0 22.7 159.5 12.6 13.6 12.7 13.5 6.1 59.6 2.2 61.3 6.6 46.0 123.6
0.0 123.5 0.0 123.6 SW 1.9 13.5 0.2 0.3 176.5 48.6 176.7 96.4 451.8 97.5 452.4 5.1 36.5 14.6 102.0 6.8 103.6 82.7 SW 7.8 54.3 8.4 54.1 15.1 35.5 15.1 35.4 30.6 SW 3.1 21.6 2.0 20.3 1.8
20.6 0.3 2.0 16.1 12.8 15.7 13.1 0.3 1.3 16.4 15.7 17.1 15.7 7.2 17.8 7.6 17.8 2.4 8.3 82.7 0.0 82.7 0.0 82.7 SW 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.2 8.4 1.0 7.8 1.1 7.8 0.8 6.0 0.8 5.9 1.1
7.8 0.8 5.9 7.9 9.5 7.9 9.4 0.4 2.3 5.2 9.2 5.2 9.2 12.9R 1.0 2.7 18.6 7.6 18.6 7.5 18.6 1.4 5.6 2.4 8.3 2.3 8.3 9.8 10.3 9.7 10.1 37.5 10.3 37.5 1.1 3.5 5.1 5.5 30.1 2.1 14.7 3.0 15.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 9.3 33.4 7.8 18.1 75.6 19.5 75.4 10.4 51.2 33.3 31.2 33.2 18.7 28.8 18.7 28.9 3.6 17.7 50.0 20.2 50.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 14.9 13.2 14.8 13.2 11.8 4.3 12.2 4.3
3.0 8.8 46.1 9.9 46.2 18.0 186.2 21.2 185.6 18.0 186.2 21.2 185.6 11.1 77.9 0.3 2.3 78.9 6.0 42.1 1.6 4.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 184.6 603114 WSTGATE7 1.017 116.9 X0 600052 FLYCLD9G
1.017 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.011 116.3 60 G0 X0 603120 EDEN PR7 1.018 117.1 X0 605249 WSTGAT18 1.020 70.4 0.9858 1.0000 78.5 605244 SCOTTCO8 1.018 70.3 1.013 116.5 G0 603115 BLUFFCK7 603181
MNRIVER7 600019 MNRIVRG1 1.012 14.0 1.0000 1.0000 603103 SCOTTCO7 1.015 116.7 603060 SHAKOPE7 1.014 116.6 60 603102 SCOTTAP7 1.012 116.4 603119 DEANLAK7 1.012 116.4 60 0.9858 1.0000
0.9858 1.0000 33.3 34.3 34.4 9.1 31.3 605220 CHASKA 8 1.013 116.5 60 G0 X0 605250 SHAKOPE8 1.002 69.2 60 X0 618716 GRE-GIFFDLK8 1.016 70.1 G0 618720 GRE-VICTTAP8 1.011 116.2 618721 GRE-VICTRIA8
1.011 116.2 618725 GRE-AUGUSTA8 1.010 116.2 G0 1.022 70.5 605237 WACONIA8 0.999 68.9 X0 615060 GRE-ST BONI8 1.000 69.0 618734 GRE-WACONIA8 1.003 69.2 G0 605238 YNGAMER8 X0 605240 YAMTAP
8 8 1.019 70.3 X0 605232 PLATO 8 1.015 70.0 605234 MCLEDCN8 1.003 69.2 605233 LSTRPRA8 0.999 68.9 X0 618434 GRE-GRMNYTP8 0.997 68.8 605228 BSCYJCTG 1.012 69.8 6.7 1.020 70.4 605275 CARVRCO8
1.017 116.9 G0 603063 CARVRCO7 1.004 115.4 1.0000 1.0270 1.0000 1.0397 605090 GRENISL8 1.009 69.6 X0 618724 GRE-ASSMPTN8 1.011 69.8 G0 603132 WWACNIA7 1.009 116.1 X0 615548 GRE-ST BONI7
1.010 116.2 615354 GRE-DICKNSN7 1.017 116.9 615550 GRE-STBONI T 1.000 13.8 0.9912 1.0087 1.0000 47.7 6.9 * 47.6 9.5 * 0.0 0.0 10.3 1 60 20.2 603222 WESTGATECAP7 601025 EDEN PR3 0.997
343.9 601015 BLUE LK3 1.001 345.3 601022 PARKERS3 0.996 343.5 64 603206 EXCELSR8 1.008 69.6 X0 603230 SCOTT_CAP7 1.015 116.7 603207 DEEPHVN8 1.005 69.3 X0 1.013 116.5 29.7 42.4 603073
EDINA 7 1.011 116.2 X0 605705 EDEN PR TR9T 0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0261 1.0000 304.7 1.7 * 305.3 26.1 * 0.0 0.0 605706 EDENPRTR10T9 0.993 13.7 1.0000 1.0260 322.3 1.0 * 323.0 27.9 * 0.0
0.0 606018 CARVERCOTAP8 1.014 70.0 603234 WEST CREEK7 1.011 116.3 17.7 13.7 17.7 13.6 6028.0 4.0 605000 GLENLK28 1.006 69.4 X0 605002 GLENLK18 1.006 69.4 X0 605241 GLESNLK8 1.020 70.4
603080 HYLNDLK7 1.014 116.6 X0 603062 BLUE LK7 1.022 117.5 X060 1.029 71.0 SW 14.6 605248 WESTGATE28 6.8 618700 GRE-CHANHAS7 603245 CARVER 7 1.010 116.2 X0 0.9858 1.0000 24.4 1.0000
MRO 2010 Series 2016 Summer Peak model -Option 2A: Loss of Scott County -Excelsior 69 kV line N/A N/A 25% I 58% I 58% I 66% I 2% I 3%I N/A 1% I 9% I 20% I 27% I 40% I 50% I 48% I 87%
I 33% I 4% I 8% I 18% I 17% I 22% I 26% I N/A 16%I 32% I 23% I N/A 11% I N/A 28% I 33% I 43% I 45% I 24% I 28%I 53%I 69% I 68% I N/A N/A 42% I 17% I N/A N/A 101% I 27% I 29%I 69% I 67%
I N/A 73% I 71% I N/A 20% I29% I 7% I 6% I 6% I 23% I 8% I 69% I 32% I N/A 40% I 53% I 7% I 8% I 86% I Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
40 Appendix B NPV analysis sheets Appendix B Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Copy of general_PWA_updated2010.XLS Page 1 Title: Cost of Capital 8.81% Starting year for study 2010 Revenue Require Rate 12.66% Investments/Expenses 2010 Investment Escalation 1.50%
Ending Year 2045 35 Expense Escalation 1.50% *The 35 year totals below were calculated using the rates above. Year 2045 New Present Cumulative Investments Expenses Escalated Investment
Worth of Present Worth Year 2010 2010 New Escalated Revenue Revenue Revenue 2010 Cumulative dollars dollars Investments Expenses Requirement RequirementsRequirements dollars Investment
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2014 26 0 28 0 4 4 2 2 28 5 2015 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 28 6 2016 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 6 28 7 2017
0 0 0 0 4 4 2 8 28 8 2018 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 10 28 9 2019 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 11 28 10 2020 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 13 28 11 2021 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 14 28 12 2022 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 15 28 13 2023 22 0 26 0 7 7 2 17
54 14 2024 0 0 0 0 7 7 2 19 54 15 2025 0 0 0 0 7 7 2 21 54 16 2026 0 0 0 0 7 7 2 23 54 17 2027 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 24 54 18 2028 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 25 54 19 2029 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 27 54 20 2030 0
0 0 0 7 7 1 28 54 21 2031 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 29 54 22 2032 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 30 54 23 2033 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 31 54 24 2034 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 32 54 25 2035 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 32 54 26 2036 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 33
54 27 2037 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 34 54 28 2038 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 34 54 29 2039 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 35 54 30 2040 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 35 54 31 2041 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 36 54 32 2042 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 36 54 33 2043 0 0
0 0 7 7 0 37 54 34 2044 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 37 54 35 2045 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 37 54 36 37 54 3 Option 1AB Cumulative Present Worth Total Investment Levelized Annual Cost dkd 7/11/2011 Appendix B
Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Copy of general_PWA_updated2010.XLS Page 1 Title: Cost of Capital 8.81% Starting year for study 2010 Revenue Require Rate 12.66% Investments/Expenses 2010 Investment Escalation 1.50%
Ending Year 2045 35 Expense Escalation 1.50% *The 35 year totals below were calculated using the rates above. Year 2045 New Present Cumulative Investments Expenses Escalated Investment
Worth of Present Worth Year 2010 2010 New Escalated Revenue Revenue Revenue 2010 Cumulative dollars dollars Investments Expenses Requirement RequirementsRequirements dollars Investment
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2014 15 0 16 0 2 2 1 1 16 5 2015 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 16 6 2016 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 4 16 7 2017
0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 16 8 2018 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 6 16 9 2019 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 6 16 10 2020 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 7 16 11 2021 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 8 16 12 2022 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 9 16 13 2023 29 0 35 0 6 6 2 11 51
14 2024 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 12 51 15 2025 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 14 51 16 2026 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 16 51 17 2027 0 0 0 0 6 6 1 17 51 18 2028 0 0 0 0 6 6 1 18 51 19 2029 0 0 0 0 6 6 1 20 51 20 2030 2 0 2
0 7 7 1 21 53 21 2031 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 22 53 22 2032 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 23 53 23 2033 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 24 53 24 2034 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 24 53 25 2035 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 25 53 26 2036 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 26 53
27 2037 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 26 53 28 2038 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 27 53 29 2039 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 28 53 30 2040 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 28 53 31 2041 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 28 53 32 2042 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 29 53 33 2043 0 0 0
0 7 7 0 29 53 34 2044 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 30 53 35 2045 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 30 53 36 30 53 3 Option 1ABC Cumulative Present Worth Total Investment Levelized Annual Cost dkd 7/11/2011 Appendix B
Appendix B Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332
Appendix C Rate Impact Information
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Preferred Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Cost Assumptions Weighted Easement = -Capital Structure Rate Ratio Cost Long Term Debt 6.6100% 46.2500% 3.0600% Short Term Debt
4.4100% 1.2800% 0.0600% Preferred Stock 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% Common Equity 10.8800% 52.4700% 5.7100% Required Rate of Return 8.8300% Tax Rate (MN) 41.3700% Rate Analysis Year 1 Year
2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Plant Investment 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 Depreciation Reserve (590,909) (1,181,818) (1,772,727) (2,363,636) (2,954,545) (3,545,455) (4,136,364) (4,727,273) (5,318,182) (5,909,091) (6,500,000)
(7,090,909) CWIP ------------Accumulated Deferred Taxes (158,898) (690,929) (1,164,662) (1,584,613) (1,954,656) (2,278,662) (2,559,966) (2,801,902) (3,037,385) (3,272,760) (3,508,242)
(3,743,617) 25,250,193 24,127,252 23,062,611 22,051,750 21,090,799 20,175,884 19,303,671 18,470,825 17,644,434 16,818,149 15,991,758 15,165,474 Average Rate Base 25,625,096 24,688,722
23,594,932 22,557,181 21,571,275 20,633,341 19,739,777 18,887,248 18,057,629 17,231,291 16,404,954 15,578,616 Debt Return 799,503 770,288 736,162 703,784 673,024 643,760 615,881 589,282
563,398 537,616 511,835 486,053 Equity Return 1,463,193 1,409,726 1,347,271 1,288,015 1,231,720 1,178,164 1,127,141 1,078,462 1,031,091 983,907 936,723 889,539 Current Income Tax Requirement
873,547 462,688 476,917 488,887 499,073 507,320 514,020 519,039 492,067 458,881 425,480 392,294 Book Depreciation 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909
590,909 590,909 590,909 Annual Deferred Tax 158,898 532,031 473,732 419,951 370,043 324,006 281,304 241,936 235,483 235,375 235,483 235,375 Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense 975,000
1,876,940 1,736,020 1,606,020 1,485,380 1,374,100 1,270,880 1,175,720 1,160,120 1,159,860 1,160,120 1,159,860 Tax Depreciation on Easements ------------Property Tax @1.434% 372,840 372,840
372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 Total Revenue Requirements 4,258,891 4,138,482 3,997,831 3,864,386 3,737,608 3,616,999 3,502,095 3,392,468
3,285,787 3,179,528 3,073,269 2,967,010 Interchange 84.0258% Total MN Company Revenue Requirements 3,578,567 Total MW -hours 44,446,901 Total System $/kW-hour 0.000081 Interchange 84.0258%
Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction 88.2563% MN Jurisdiction Revenue Requirements 3,158,311 MN Jurisdiction MW -hours 32,846,647 MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 0.000096 Appendix C Certificate
of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 1 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Preferred Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Rate Analysis Plant Investment Depreciation Reserve CWIP Accumulated Deferred Taxes Average Rate Base Debt Return Equity Return
Current Income Tax Requirement Book Depreciation Annual Deferred Tax Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense Tax Depreciation on Easements Property Tax @1.434% Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year
16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 (7,681,818) (8,272,727) (8,863,636) (9,454,545) (10,045,455) (10,636,364) (11,227,273) (11,818,182) (12,409,091) (13,000,000) (13,590,909) (14,181,818)
(14,772,727) -------------(3,979,100) (4,214,475) (4,449,957) (4,685,332) (4,920,815) (5,156,190) (5,391,672) (5,627,047) (5,622,559) (5,378,100) (5,133,641) (4,889,182) (4,644,723)
14,339,082 13,512,798 12,686,406 11,860,122 11,033,731 10,207,447 9,381,055 8,554,771 7,968,350 7,621,900 7,275,450 6,929,000 6,582,550 14,752,278 13,925,940 13,099,602 12,273,264 11,446,926
10,620,589 9,794,251 8,967,913 8,261,560 7,795,125 7,448,675 7,102,225 6,755,775 460,271 434,489 408,708 382,926 357,144 331,362 305,581 279,799 257,761 243,208 232,399 221,589 210,780
842,355 795,171 747,987 700,803 653,619 606,436 559,252 512,068 471,735 445,102 425,319 405,537 385,755 358,893 325,707 292,306 259,120 225,719 192,533 159,132 125,946 337,350 558,528
544,569 530,611 516,652 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 235,483 235,375 235,483 235,375 235,483 235,375 235,483
235,375 (4,488) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) 1,160,120 1,159,860 1,160,120 1,159,860 1,160,120 1,159,860 1,160,120 1,159,860 580,060 -----------------372,840 372,840 372,840
372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 Total Revenue Requirements Interchange Total MN Company Revenue Requirements Total MW -hours Total System
$/kW-hour hour Interchange Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction MN Jurisdiction Revenue Requirements MN Jurisdiction MW -hours MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 2,860,751 2,754,491 2,648,232 2,541,973
2,435,714 2,329,455 2,223,196 2,116,937 2,026,107 1,966,127 1,921,577 1,877,027 1,832,477 Appendix C Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 2 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Preferred Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Rate Analysis Plant Investment Depreciation Reserve CWIP Accumulated Deferred Taxes Average Rate Base Debt Return Equity Return
Current Income Tax Requirement Book Depreciation Annual Deferred Tax Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense Tax Depreciation on Easements Property Tax @1.434% Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year
29 Year 30 Year 31 Year 32 Year 33 Year 34 Year 35 Year 36 Year 37 Year 38 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 (15,363,636) (15,954,545) (16,545,455) (17,136,364) (17,727,273) (18,318,182) (18,909,091) (19,500,000) (20,090,909) (20,681,818) (21,272,727) (21,863,636)
(22,454,545) -------------(4,400,264) (4,155,805) (3,911,345) (3,666,886) (3,422,427) (3,177,968) (2,933,509) (2,689,050) (2,444,591) (2,200,132) (1,955,673) (1,711,214) (1,466,755)
6,236,100 5,889,650 5,543,200 5,196,750 4,850,300 4,503,850 4,157,400 3,810,950 3,464,500 3,118,050 2,771,600 2,425,150 2,078,700 6,409,325 6,062,875 5,716,425 5,369,975 5,023,525 4,677,075
4,330,625 3,984,175 3,637,725 3,291,275 2,944,825 2,598,375 2,251,925 199,971 189,162 178,352 167,543 156,734 145,925 135,116 124,306 113,497 102,688 91,879 81,069 70,260 365,972 346,190
326,408 306,626 286,843 267,061 247,279 227,496 207,714 187,932 168,150 148,367 128,585 502,693 488,735 474,776 460,818 446,859 432,900 418,942 404,983 391,025 377,066 363,107 349,149
335,190 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459)
(244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) --------------------------372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840
372,840 Total Revenue Requirements Interchange Total MN Company Revenue Requirements Total MW -hours Total System $/kW-hour Interchange Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction MN Jurisdiction
Revenue Requirements MN Jurisdiction MW -hours MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 1,787,927 1,743,377 1,698,827 1,654,276 1,609,726 1,565,176 1,520,626 1,476,076 1,431,526 1,386,976 1,342,425
1,297,875 1,253,325 Appendix C Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 3 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Preferred Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Rate Analysis Plant Investment Depreciation Reserve CWIP Accumulated Deferred Taxes Average Rate Base Debt Return Equity Return
Current Income Tax Requirement Book Depreciation Annual Deferred Tax Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense Tax Depreciation on Easements Property Tax @1.434% Year 39 Year 40 Year 41 Year
42 Year 43 Year 44 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 (23,045,455) (23,636,364) (24,227,273) (24,818,182) (25,409,091) (26,000,000) ------(1,222,295) (977,836)
(733,377) (488,918) (244,459) (0) 1,732,250 1,385,800 1,039,350 692,900 346,450 0 1,905,475 1,559,025 1,212,575 866,125 519,675 173,225 59,451 48,642 37,832 27,023 16,214 5,405 108,803
89,020 69,238 49,456 29,673 9,891 321,231 307,273 293,316 279,360 265,403 251,447 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 590,909 (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459) (244,459)
------------372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 372,840 Total Revenue Requirements Interchange Total MN Company Revenue Requirements Total MW -hours Total System $/kW-hour Interchange
Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction MN Jurisdiction Revenue Requirements MN Jurisdiction MW -hours MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 1,208,775 1,164,225 1,119,678 1,075,131 1,030,584 986,037 Appendix
C Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 4 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Alternative Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Cost Assumptions Weighted Easement = -Capital Structure Rate Ratio Cost Long Term Debt 6.6100% 46.2500% 3.0600% Short Term
Debt 4.4100% 1.2800% 0.0600% Preferred Stock 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% Common Equity 10.8800% 52.4700% 5.7100% Required Rate of Return 8.8300% Tax Rate (MN) 41.3700% Rate Analysis Year
1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Plant Investment 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
15,000,000 15,000,000 Depreciation Reserve (340,909) (681,818) (1,022,727) (1,363,636) (1,704,545) (2,045,455) (2,386,364) (2,727,273) (3,068,182) (3,409,091) (3,750,000) CWIP -----------Accumulated
Deferred Taxes (91,672) (398,613) (671,920) (914,200) (1,127,686) (1,314,613) (1,476,903) (1,616,482) (1,752,337) (1,888,131) (2,023,986) 14,567,419 13,919,569 13,305,352 12,722,164
12,167,769 11,639,933 11,136,733 10,656,245 10,179,481 9,702,779 9,226,014 Average Rate Base 14,783,709 14,243,494 13,612,461 13,013,758 12,444,966 11,903,851 11,388,333 10,896,489 10,417,863
9,941,130 9,464,396 Debt Return 461,252 444,397 424,709 406,029 388,283 371,400 355,316 339,970 325,037 310,163 295,289 Equity Return 844,150 813,304 777,272 743,086 710,608 679,710
650,274 622,190 594,860 567,639 540,417 Current Income Tax Requirement 503,970 266,935 275,145 282,050 287,927 292,685 296,550 299,445 283,885 264,739 245,469 Book Depreciation 340,909
340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 Annual Deferred Tax 91,672 306,941 273,307 242,280 213,486 186,927 162,291 139,579 135,855 135,793 135,855
Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense 562,500 1,082,850 1,001,550 926,550 856,950 792,750 733,200 678,300 669,300 669,150 669,300 Tax Depreciation on Easements -----------Property Tax @1.434%
215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 Total Revenue Requirements 2,457,052 2,387,586 2,306,441 2,229,454 2,156,312 2,086,730 2,086,730
2,020,440 1,957,193 1,895,646 1,834,343 1,773,040 Interchange 84.0258% Total MN Company Revenue Requirements 2,064,558 Total MW -hours 44,446,901 Total System $/kW-hour 0.000046 Interchange
84.0258% Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction 88.2563% MN Jurisdiction Revenue Requirements 1,822,102 MN Jurisdiction MW -hours 32,846,647 MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 0.000055 Appendix C
Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 5 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Alternative Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Rate Analysis Plant Investment Depreciation Reserve CWIP Accumulated Deferred Taxes Average Rate Base Debt Return Equity Return
Current Income Tax Requirement Book Depreciation Annual Deferred Tax Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense Tax Depreciation on Easements Property Tax @1.434% Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year
15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
15,000,000 (4,090,909) (4,431,818) (4,772,727) (5,113,636) (5,454,545) (5,795,455) (6,136,364) (6,477,273) (6,818,182) (7,159,091) (7,500,000) (7,840,909) ------------(2,159,779) (2,295,634)
(2,431,428) (2,567,283) (2,703,076) (2,838,932) (2,974,725) (3,110,580) (3,246,373) (3,243,784) (3,102,750) (2,961,716) 8,749,312 8,272,547 7,795,845 7,319,081 6,842,378 6,365,614 5,888,911
5,412,147 4,935,445 4,597,125 4,397,250 4,197,375 8,987,663 8,510,930 8,034,196 7,557,463 7,080,729 6,603,996 6,127,263 5,650,529 5,173,796 4,766,285 4,497,188 4,297,313 280,415 265,541
250,667 235,793 220,919 206,045 191,171 176,297 161,422 148,708 140,312 134,076 513,196 485,974 458,753 431,531 404,310 377,088 349,867 322,645 295,424 272,155 256,789 245,377 226,323
207,054 187,908 168,638 149,492 130,222 111,077 91,807 72,661 194,625 322,228 314,175 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909
135,793 135,855 135,793 135,855 135,793 135,855 135,793 135,855 135,793 (2,589) (141,034) (141,034) 669,150 669,300 669,150 669,300 669,150 669,300 669,150 669,300 669,150 334,650 --------------215,1
00 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 Total Revenue Requirements Interchange Total MN Company Revenue Requirements Total MW -hours
Total System $/kW-hour Interchange Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction MN Jurisdiction Revenue Requirements MN Jurisdiction MW -hours MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 1,711,736 1,650,433 1,589,130
1,527,826 1,466,523 1,405,220 1,343,916 1,282,613 1,221,310 1,168,908 1,134,304 1,108,602 Appendix C Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 6 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Alternative Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Rate Analysis Plant Investment Depreciation Reserve CWIP Accumulated Deferred Taxes Average Rate Base Debt Return Equity Return
Current Income Tax Requirement Book Depreciation Annual Deferred Tax Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense Tax Depreciation on Easements Property Tax @1.434% Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year
27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Year 31 Year 32 Year 33 Year 34 Year 35 Year 36 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 (8,181,818) (8,522,727) (8,863,636) (9,204,545) (9,545,455) (9,886,364) (10,227,273) (10,568,182) (10,909,091) (11,250,000) (11,590,909) (11,931,818)
(12,272,727) -------------(2,820,682) (2,679,648) (2,538,614) (2,397,580) (2,256,545) (2,115,511) (1,974,477) (1,833,443) (1,692,409) (1,551,375) (1,410,341) (1,269,307) (1,128,273)
3,997,500 3,797,625 3,597,750 3,397,875 3,198,000 2,998,125 2,798,250 2,598,375 2,398,500 2,198,625 1,998,750 1,798,875 1,599,000 4,097,438 3,897,563 3,697,688 3,497,813 3,297,938 3,098,063
2,898,188 2,698,313 2,498,437 2,298,562 2,098,687 1,898,812 1,698,937 127,840 121,604 115,368 109,132 102,896 96,660 90,423 84,187 77,951 71,715 65,479 59,243 53,007 233,964 222,551
211,138 199,725 188,312 176,899 165,487 154,074 142,661 131,248 119,835 108,422 97,009 306,122 298,069 290,015 281,962 273,909 265,856 257,803 249,750 241,697 233,644 225,591 217,538
209,485 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034)
(141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) --------------------------215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100
215,100 Total Revenue Requirements Interchange Total MN Company Revenue Requirements Total MW -hours Total System $/kW-hour Interchange Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction MN Jurisdiction
Revenue Requirements MN Jurisdiction MW -hours MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 1,082,900 1,057,198 1,031,496 1,005,794 980,092 954,390 928,688 902,986 877,284 851,582 825,880 800,178 774,476
Appendix C Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 7 of 8
Bluff Creek-Westgate Upgrade Alternative Plan 44 YEAR LIFE Rate Analysis Plant Investment Depreciation Reserve CWIP Accumulated Deferred Taxes Average Rate Base Debt Return Equity Return
Current Income Tax Requirement Book Depreciation Annual Deferred Tax Tax Depreciation & Removal Expense Tax Depreciation on Easements Property Tax @1.434% Year 37 Year 38 Year 39 Year
40 Year 41 Year 42 Year 43 Year 44 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 (12,613,636) (12,954,545) (13,295,455) (13,636,364) (13,977,273)
(14,318,182) (14,659,091) (15,000,000) --------(987,239) (846,205) (705,170) (564,136) (423,102) (282,068) (141,034) (0) 1,399,125 1,199,250 999,375 799,500 599,625 399,750 199,875 (0)
1,499,062 1,299,187 1,099,312 899,437 699,562 499,687 299,812 99,937 46,771 40,535 34,299 28,062 21,826 15,590 9,354 3,118 85,596 74,184 62,771 51,358 39,945 28,532 17,119 5,706 201,432
193,379 185,326 177,273 169,222 161,171 153,120 145,069 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 340,909 (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034) (141,034)
(141,034) ----------------215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 215,100 Total Revenue Requirements Interchange Total MN Company Revenue Requirements Total MW -hours
Total System $/kW-hour Interchange Demand Allocator -MN Jurisdiction MN Jurisdiction Revenue Requirements MN Jurisdiction MW -hours MN Jurisdiction $/kW-hour 748,774 723,072 697,370
671,668 645,969 620,270 594,571 568,872 Appendix C Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Page 8 of 8
Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Appendix D Demand Side Management Data
1 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Appendix D Xcel Energy Demand Side Management (“DSM”) Data Minn. Rules 7849.0290 requires that an application for a Certificate
of Need include information regarding the applicant’s conservation and load management programs (collectively, “Demand Side Management” or “DSM”). This information is presented below
for Xcel Energy. Minn. R. 7849.0290 requires that an application must include: A. The name of the committee, department, or individual responsible for the applicant's energy conservation
and efficiency programs, including load management; Lee Gabler, Director, DSM and Renewable Operations is responsible for Xcel Energy’s demandside management (conservation and load management)
programs. B. A list of the applicant's energy conservation and efficiency goals and objectives; Xcel Energy’s1 proposed 2010-2012 Triennial Plan2 represents a budget of
over $240 million, energy savings of 1,116 GWh and demand savings of 315 MW over the three years. C. A A description of the specific energy conservation and efficiency programs the applicant
has considered, a list of those that have been implemented, and the reasons why the other programs have not been implemented; Minn. Stat. § 216B.2401, states “it is the energy policy
of the state of Minnesota to achieve annual energy savings equal to 1.5 percent of annual retail energy sales of electricity and natural gas unless modified by the Commissioner.” The
minimum energy savings goal is 1 percent of retail sales. The energy savings may occur directly through energy conservation improvement programs and rate design, and indirectly through
energy codes and appliance standards, programs designed to transform the market or change consumer behavior, energy savings resulting from efficiency improvements to the utility infrastructure
and system, and other efforts to promote energy efficiency and energy conservation. Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 216B.241, Subd. 1a requires Xcel Energy to spend at least 2 percent of
its electric gross operating revenue (“GOR”) on electric conservation programs and 0.5 percent of its gas GOR on gas conservation programs. To comply with the minimum spending requirement,
Xcel Energy offers an extensive portfolio of programs. In general, these programs can be categorized as direct or indirect. Further, the direct programs can be categorized as prescriptive
or custom. Direct programs result in quantifiable energy savings. The Lighting Efficiency program, for example, offers rebates for the installation of energy efficient lighting within
our business customer segment. Prescriptive programs use technical assumptions based on stipulated or deemed technical assumptions that are assigned to measures in order to calculate
gross energy and demand savings. 1 Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation. 2 Docket No. E,G002/CIP-09-198.
2 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 The rebates and savings are predetermined based on the deemed technical assumptions. Custom programs use technical assumptions
that are specific to the actual measure characteristics in order to calculate the energy and demand savings. The rebates and savings vary with the measure. Further, direct programs can
be categorized as conservation or load management programs. Load management programs are specifically designed to manage peak load. At this time, indirect programs do not result in quantifiable
energy savings. They are largely information-based and are intended to create customer awareness as well as encourage customers to participate in our direct impact programs. Table 1
below includes a list of our comprehensive program offerings over the last ten years. Please note that some of the programs have been discontinued, modified or incorporated into other
programs. Table 1 Business Segment Conservation Commercial Heating Efficiency f.k.a. Boiler Efficiency Commercial Real Estate Compressed Air Efficiency Commercial Audit and Contract
Management Computer Efficiency Cooling Efficiency Custom Efficiency Data Center Efficiency Distributed Generation Incentive Efficiency Controls Energy Assets Energy Design Assistance
(EDA) Energy Design Assistance -Business New Construction Energy Efficient Buildings – Business New Construction Energy Efficient Rebate Energy Management Systems Food Service Furnace
Efficiency Government Conservation Heat Recovery Rebate Industrial Efficiency Lighting Efficiency Market Transformation – Computer Efficiency Market Transformation – Vending Efficiency
Motor & Drive Efficiency f.k.a Motor Efficiency Process Efficiency
3 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Business Segment Recommissioning Refrigeration Efficiency Roofing Efficiency Segment Efficiency Load Management Electric Rates
Savings f.k.a Peak Controlled Rates Business Saver's Switch Indirect Impact Business Education Energy Advisory Service Energy Analysis Energy Financing Lamp Recycling School Financing
Turn Key Services – pending DER approval to move to direct impact Residential Segment Conservation Central AC Quality Installation ENERGY STAR Homes ENERGY STAR Rebates Energy Efficiency
Showerheads f.k.a High-Efficiency Showerheads Home Efficiency Home Lighting Direct Purchase Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Insulation Rebate Program Refrigerator Recycling Residential
Cooling Home Energy Squad f.k.a Residential Quick Fix Premier Home School Education Kits Water Heater Rebates Load Management Residential Saver's Switch Indirect Impact Consumer Education
Energy Loans Home Energy Audits Lamp Recycling Energy Efficiency Support Services
4 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Low-Income Segment Conservation Conservation Kits Home Electric Savings Low Income Weatherization Home Energy Squad – Low
Income f.k.a. Residential Quick Fix Research, Evaluation & Pilots Annex 49 Pilot Energy Feedback Pilot For more details on our current business, residential and low-income programs,
see the Xcel Energy website at http://www.xcelenergy.com. Xcel Energy’s Product Development department continually analyzes potential measures and concepts to add to our program portfolio
offering. Products or programs are selected for development based on several criteria including, but not limited to energy efficiency potential, ability to develop quickly, longevity
of the offering (i.e. how long until it become the standard), level of market barriers and risk (technological, press, market, education) among others. D. A description of the major
accomplishments that have been made by the applicant with respect to energy conservation and efficiency The 2010-2012 CIP Triennial Plan continues Xcel Energy’s long-standing commitment
to DSM. Although DSM activities in many states around the country have ebbed and flowed, Minnesota and Xcel Energy as its largest utility have generally maintained a consistent approach
to DSM. This long-standing commitment and dedication to excellence in running cost effective conservation and load management programs places the Company among the nation’s top utilities
in terms of energy and demand saved and most innovative programs. Between 1992 and 2010, Xcel Energy has invested over $888 million (nominal) resulting in 5,280 GWh of electric energy
savings, and an estimated 10 million Dth of natural gas savings. The total electric energy savings from 1992 through 2010 present is equivalent to avoiding the cost of over nine 250
MW power plants. The following graphs highlight electric and natural gas achievements and spending between 2002 and 2010. 2011 achievements and spend are currently being finalized and
will be published in our April 1, 2012 Annual Status report filing.
5 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 Figure 1: CIP Electric Expenditures and Achievements 2000-2010 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 Energy & Demand Savings $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 MW GWh Expenditures Figure 2: CIP Gas Expenditures and Achievements 2000-2012 0 200,000 400,000 600,000
800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Dth Savings $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $ (Millions) Dth Expenditures
6 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 E. A description of the applicant's future plans through the forecast years with respect to energy conservation and efficiency
On August 5, 2009, the Commission approved our immediate (2010-2012) plans for DSM through our 2008-2022 Resource Plan3. Due to the significantly higher goals required from The Next
Generation Act of 2007, we proposed to ramp our goals up by 2013 to our highest energy savings potential levels. The table below illustrates our proposed energy and demand savings from
2010-2025. In the next Resource Plan filing, we are required to model higher energy savings scenarios, as requested by intervenors. In 2010 we reached 1.35 percent of sales and significantly
exceeded our goals. In the short term, we fully expect to continue to achieve 1.3 percent of sales and will strive towards 1.5 percent over the next several years. We will investigate
those opportunities during our next planning process. In addition, we will continue to investigate and evaluate new potential programs and measures available within the marketplace for
their cost-effective applicability within our next Resource and DSM Triennial Plans. These actions may take place within our Product Development group, market potential studies and program
evaluations. Approved 2008-2022 Resource Plan DSM Energy and Demand Savings Levels Energy Savings (MWh) % of Triennial Goal Sales Demand Savings EE (MW) Demand Savings EE (MW) (1.1%
Scenario) Energy Savings (MWh) (1.1% Scenario) Budget (EE Only) -Nominal Dollars 2010 358,217 1.15% 114 105 327,830 $127,974,675 2011 373,792 1.20% 123 109 333,150 $136,690,307 2012
404,941 1.30% 127 106 338,214 $151,575,882 2013 420,951 1.30% 133 108 342,812 $161,287,349 2014 420,951 1.30% 130 107 346,999 $165,093,730 2015 420,951 1.30% 128 107 350,960 $168,989,942
2016 437,189 1.30% 140 113 354,831 $179,650,710 2017 437,189 1.30% 145 119 358,812 $183,890,467 2018 437,189 1.30% 148 123 362,920 $188,230,282 2019 452,789 1.30% 154 125 367,214 $199,547,245
199,547,245 2020 452,789 1.30% 169 139 371,585 $204,256,560 2021 452,789 1.30% 169 140 376,016 $209,077,015 2022 467,626 1.30% 175 142 380,478 $221,024,049 2023 467,626 1.30% 175 144
385,001 $226,240,217 2024 467,626 1.30% 175 146 389,621 $231,579,486 2025 482,389 1.30% 180 147 394,296 $244,528,511 3 Docket No. E-002/RP-07-1572
7 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 F. A quantification of the manner by which these programs affect or help determine the forecast provided in response to part
7849.0270, subpart 2, a list of their total costs by program, and a discussion of their expected effects in reducing the need for new generation and transmission facilities Load forecasts
are based on historical data. Therefore, the forecasted annual peak demand for electricity and annual energy consumed reflect the savings due to DSM programs that have been implemented
in the past. Because load forecasts are based on historic load data, a certain amount of continued DSM is already included in the forecast. This “amount” is known as embedded DSM and
is roughly equal to the average annual DSM achievements obtained during the historical years. Thus, the energy and demand savings as ordered in the Resource Plan are not fully reflected
in the forecasts. However, the forecast does include the historical or embedded DSM amount. The The energy and demand goals ordered in the 2008 Resource Plan are fully reflected in the
resource planning analysis that determines future generation needs. An estimate of the embedded DSM is added to the load forecast in Strategist to derive an estimate of peak and energy
as if no DSM were going to be implemented in future years. Then the approved DSM goals are subtracted from the modified forecast to calculate net peak and energy forecasts. If embedded
DSM were not added to the load forecast, DSM would be double counted and the forecasts would consistently be too low. Below is a list of our proposed 2010-2012 DSM programs including
their individual proposed budgets, energy and demand savings. Following the annual tables is a three year Triennial Plan rollup.
8 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 2010 Program Costs and Impacts 2010 Electric Participants Electric Budget Customer kW Generator kW Generator kWh Gas Participants
Gas Budget Dth Savings Business Segment Commercial Heating Efficiency 304 1,265,238 221,818 Commercial Real Estate 55 $635,417 808 690 3,004,195 8 $30,290 1,495 Compressed Air Efficiency
373 $2,067,507 3,860 3,659 26,321,602 Cooling Efficiency 206 $1,906,924 3,366 2,427 6,083,882 Custom Efficiency 128 $3,018,198 5,168 2,890 25,440,451 43 $655,024 69,215 Data Center Efficiency
10 $713,796 1,022 1,100 7,689,482 Efficiency Controls 70 $1,304,328 2,280 741 16,090,860 21 $190,162 15,750 Energy Design Assistance-Business New Construction 63 $4,455,564 6,876 6,868
25,186,059 9 $211,058 20,826 Energy Efficient Buildings-Business New Construction 18 $362,504 766 765 2,915,863 9 $42,439 6,767 Furnace Efficiency 209 $100,219 4,014 Lighting Efficiency
416 $2,721,510 5,491 5,033 20,000,014 Market Transformation -Computer Efficiency 23,251 $260,812 442 476 2,620,085 Market Transformation -Vending Efficiency 9 $41,700 54 52 497,439 Motor
& Drive Efficiency 714 $2,902,950 5,761 4,820 30,574,217 Process Efficiency 101 $5,756,733 6,680 4,799 37,912,052 27 $1,444,907 138,608 Recommissioning 101 $2,050,038 2,898 1,485 14,518,829
20 $103,091 12,178 Business Segment Energy Efficiency Total 25,514 $28,197,980 45,472 35,805 218,855,030 650 $4,042,428 490,672 Business Saver's Switch 1,164 $1,979,611 25,385 8,342
49,598 Electric Rate Savings 110 $627,550 25,000 12,610 887,589 Business Segment Load Management Total 1,274 $2,607,161 50,385 20,952 937,187 Business Education 13,323 $237,392 1,817
$35,923 Energy Advisory Service 63 $98,679 7 $6,685 Energy Analysis 275 $293,668 128 $113,995 Lamp Recycling 30,146 $30,000 Turn-Key Services Indirect Business Subtotal 43,807 $659,739
1,952 $156,603 Business Segment Total 70,595 $31,464,880 95,857 56,757 219,792,217 2,602 $4,199,031 490,672 Residential Segment Energy Efficient Showerhead Program 1,500 $16,308 2,700
401,864 8,500 $92,415 11,169 ENERGY STAR Homes 1,115 $394,908 314 181 1,385,005 654 $751,377 36,493 Heating System Rebate 5,500 $1,589,077 75,997 Home Lighting 275,000 $3,174,033 52,360
4,597 62,150,759 Home Performance with ENERGY STAR 175 $177,142 305 111 316,614 175 $530,393 5,784 Insulation Rebate Program 70 $26,282 247 245,291 930 $349,174 14,063 Refrigerator Recycling
2,000 $407,608 468 283 2,394,060 Residential Cooling 10,000 $3,122,290 6,962 6,868 5,071,837 Residential Quick Fix Efficiency Service 2,700 $474,607 2,957 600 2,032,553 2,700 $661,082
18,936 School Education Kits 10,000 $301,267 5,888 91 1,947,399 10,000 $265,498 17,007 Water Heating Rebate 1,050 $231,573 3,288 Residential Segment Energy Efficiency Total 302,560 $8,094,445
72,201 12,730 75,945,383 29,509 $4,470,589 182,737 Load Management Segment -Residential Saver's Switch 21,000 $6,479,078 63,302 19,970 171,406 Consumer Education 412,949 $726,144 363,498
$488,998 Home Energy Audits 3,077 $363,363 2,030 $177,197 Lamp Recycling 224,964 $181,980 Energy Efficiency Support Services $443,940 $664,110 Indirect Residential Subtotal 640,990 $1,715,427
365,528 $1,330,305 Residential Segment Total 964,550 $16,288,949 135,503 32,700 76,116,789 395,037 $5,800,894 182,737 Low Income Segment Conservation Kits 15,000 $569,014 17,324 398
7,128,430 15,000 $290,159 40,524 Home Electric Savings Program 1,416 $969,633 397 120 803,660 Single Family Weatherization Program 295 $864,093 3,624 Low Income Segment Total 16,416
$1,538,647 17,721 517 7,932,090 15,295 $1,154,252 44,148 Planning Segment Advertising & Promotion $2,000,000 $500,000 Application Development & Maintenance $960,000 $240,000 CIP Training
$139,910 $48,308 Regulatory Affairs $530,154 $108,229 Planning Segment Total $3,630,064 $896,537 Research, Evaluations & Pilots Segment Market Research $951,558 $228,319 Product Development
$903,400 $199,200 Annex 49 Pilot 4 $5,436 19 18 177,224 4 $72,216 5,750 Energy Feedback Pilot 35,225 $272,203 683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $271,303 62,471 Product Development Total 35,229
$1,181,039 702 123 6,522,754 35,004 $542,719 68,221 Research, Evaluations & Pilots Segment Total 35,229 $2,132,597 702 123 6,522,754 35,004 $771,038 68,221 PORTFOLIO SUBTOTAL 1,086,790
$55,055,138 249,784 90,097 310,363,850 447,938 $12,821,752 785,778 Renewable Energy Segment-Solar*Rewards 414 $5,003,198 2,046 1,062 2,791,427 Anticipated Alternative Filings CEE County
Government Initiative $300,000 $40,000 CEE One Stop Efficiency Shop $11,500,000 10,253 37,847,872 Energy Smart $300,000 Anticipated Alternative Filings Total $12,100,000 10,253 37,847,872
$40,000 Assessments Segment $1,318,120 $361,442 Electric Utility Infrastructure Supply Side Resources Segment -U of M IREE $1,270,986 $97,230 PORTFOLIO TOTAL 1,087,204 $74,747,442 251,830
101,412 351,003,149 447,938 $13,320,424 785,778
9 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 2011 Program Costs and Impacts 2011 Electric Participants Electric Budget Customer kW Generator kW Generator kWh Gas Participants
Gas Budget Dth Savings Business Segment Commercial Heating Efficiency 304 1,338,017 221,818 Commercial Real Estate Compressed Air Efficiency 420 $2,532,898 4,666 4,424 31,667,218 Cooling
Efficiency 229 $2,013,323 3,408 2,468 6,112,294 Custom Efficiency 154 $3,563,725 6,112 3,496 30,253,803 50 $733,175 70,318 Data Center Efficiency 11 $776,592 1,226 1,319 9,227,378 Efficiency
Controls 71 $1,390,655 2,313 752 16,320,729 24 $221,600 18,000 Energy Design Assistance-Business New Construction 62 $4,895,586 6,846 6,839 25,078,607 8 $232,716 19,120 Energy Efficient
Buildings-Business New Construction 20 $399,225 851 851 3,239,848 10 $50,089 7,519 Furnace Efficiency 222 $136,999 4,256 Lighting Efficiency 440 $2,893,031 5,773 5,297 21,000,018 Market
Transformation -Computer Efficiency 25,125 $324,364 542 583 3,234,486 Market Transformation -Vending Efficiency 9 $41,800 54 52 497,439 Motor & Drive Efficiency 915 $3,442,944 6,911
5,785 36,626,728 Process Efficiency 101 $6,278,844 6,896 4,920 39,408,781 27 $1,536,622 138,608 Recommissioning 108 $2,201,652 3,092 1,585 15,476,361 24 $119,540 14,885 Business Segment
Energy Efficiency Total 27,664 $30,754,638 48,690 38,368 238,143,690 669 $4,368,758 494,524 Business Saver's Switch 1,164 $2,036,351 25,385 8,342 49,598 Electric Rate Savings 110 $640,838
25,000 12,610 887,589 Business Segment Load Management Total 1,274 $2,677,189 50,385 20,952 937,187 Business Education 13,323 $238,972 1,817 $36,138 Energy Advisory Service 138 $153,738
15 $8,788 Energy Analysis 295 $344,968 132 $146,999 Lamp Recycling 31,653 $32,000 Turn-Key Services 8 $301,176 5 $36,296 Indirect Business Subtotal 45,417 $1,070,854 1,969 $228,221 Business
Segment Total 74,355 $34,502,681 99,075 59,320 239,080,877 2,638 $4,596,979 494,524 Residential Segment Energy Efficient Showerhead Program 1,500 $17,080 2,700 401,864 8,500 8,500 $96,789
11,169 ENERGY STAR Homes 1,172 $418,384 333 192 1,465,518 687 $785,469 38,467 Heating System Rebate 5,500 $1,631,938 75,997 Home Lighting 250,000 $2,893,018 47,600 4,179 51,878,595 Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR 200 $209,690 340 121 345,415 200 $540,810 6,618 Insulation Rebate Program 74 $27,511 259 257,555 977 $365,500 14,766 Refrigerator Recycling 4,000 $789,924
936 565 4,788,120 Residential Cooling 11,001 $3,415,117 7,659 7,555 5,579,647 Residential Quick Fix Efficiency Service 3,000 $506,308 3,286 666 2,185,358 3,000 $732,663 21,040 School
Education Kits 20,000 $597,356 11,775 183 3,490,850 20,000 $527,946 34,014 Water Heating Rebate 1,050 $233,192 3,288 Residential Segment Energy Efficiency Total 290,947 $8,874,388 74,888
13,460 70,392,924 39,914 $4,914,307 205,358 Load Management Segment -Residential Saver's Switch 21,000 $6,641,978 63,302 19,970 171,406 Consumer Education 423,273 $751,839 373,085 $525,028
Home Energy Audits 3,231 $372,262 2,088 $179,987 Lamp Recycling 236,212 $194,913 Energy Efficiency Support Services $374,240 $560,570 Indirect Residential Subtotal 662,716 $1,693,254
375,173 $1,265,585 Residential Segment Total 974,663 $17,209,621 138,190 33,430 70,564,330 415,087 $6,179,892 205,358 Low Income Segment Conservation Kits 15,000 $597,228 17,324 398
7,128,430 15,000 $303,678 40,524 Home Electric Savings Program 1,375 $1,003,824 397 120 803,660 Single Family Weatherization Program 408 $865,955 6,038 Low Income Segment Total 16,375
$1,601,052 17,721 517 7,932,090 15,408 $1,169,633 46,562 Planning Segment Advertising & Promotion $2,100,000 $525,000 Application Development & Maintenance $1,008,000 $252,000 CIP Training
$144,278 $49,971 Regulatory Affairs $544,080 $111,533 Planning Segment Total $3,796,358 $938,504 Research, Evaluations & Pilots Segment Market Research $1,828,035 $310,452 Product Development
$885,900 $201,000 Annex 49 Pilot Energy Feedback Pilot 35,225 $215,958 683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $215,058 62,471 Product Development Total 35,225 $1,101,858 683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $416,058
62,471 Research, Evaluations & Pilots Segment Total 35,225 $2,929,892 683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $726,510 62,471 PORTFOLIO SUBTOTAL 1,100,618 $60,039,604 255,670 93,373 323,922,826 468,132
$13,611,517 808,916 Renewable Energy Segment-Solar*Rewards 414 $5,003,198 2,046 1,062 2,791,427 Anticipated Alternative Filings CEE County Government Initiative CEE One Stop Efficiency
Shop $12,600,000 11,392 42,053,191 Energy Smart $315,000 Anticipated Alternative Filings Total $12,915,000 11,392 42,053,191 Assessments Segment $1,318,120 $361,442 Electric Utility
Infrastructure Supply Side Resources Segment -U of M IREE PORTFOLIO TOTAL 1,101,032 $79,275,922 257,716 105,827 368,767,444 468,132 $13,972,959 808,916
10 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 2012 Program Costs and Impacts 2012 Electric Participants Electric Budget Customer kW Generator kW Generator kWh Gas Participants
Gas Budget Dth Savings Business Segment Commercial Heating Efficiency 304 1,348,109 221,818 Commercial Real Estate Compressed Air Efficiency 490 $2,980,895 5,648 5,355 38,005,065 Cooling
Efficiency 279 $2,046,350 3,433 2,492 6,128,212 Custom Efficiency 176 $4,228,193 7,544 4,333 37,808,710 51 $764,504 70,817 Data Center Efficiency 12 $840,397 1,430 1,539 10,765,275 Efficiency
Controls 72 $1,395,084 2,346 762 16,550,599 27 $241,018 20,250 Energy Design Assistance-Business New Construction 62 $5,015,614 7,166 7,158 26,247,910 8 $234,484 19,728 Energy Efficient
Buildings-Business New Construction 30 $568,796 1,277 1,276 4,859,771 11 $65,759 8,271 Furnace Efficiency 240 $149,649 4,611 Lighting Efficiency 483 $3,105,707 6,373 5,836 23,250,018
Market Transformation -Computer Efficiency 30,375 $442,567 761 819 4,578,543 Market Market Transformation -Vending Efficiency 9 $41,900 54 52 497,439 Motor & Drive Efficiency 994 $3,807,662
7,734 6,476 41,017,202 Process Efficiency 108 $7,058,772 7,656 5,474 43,895,686 27 $1,500,020 138,608 Recommissioning 110 $2,250,290 3,157 1,618 15,795,538 27 $126,307 16,238 Business
Segment Energy Efficiency Total 33,199 $33,782,226 54,578 43,189 269,399,967 695 $4,429,850 500,342 Business Saver's Switch 1,164 $2,086,837 25,385 8,342 49,598 Electric Rate Savings
110 $654,098 25,000 12,610 887,589 Business Segment Load Management Total 1,274 $2,740,935 50,385 20,952 937,187 Business Education 13,323 $238,972 1,817 $36,138 Energy Advisory Service
222 $219,866 24 $11,673 Energy Analysis 304 $381,421 137 $155,945 Lamp Recycling 33,235 $35,000 Turn-Key Services 9 $314,520 6 $37,916 Indirect Business Subtotal 47,093 $1,189,779 1,984
$241,672 Business Segment Total 81,566 $37,712,940 104,963 64,141 270,337,154 2,679 $4,671,522 500,342 Residential Segment Energy Efficient Showerhead Program 1,500 $17,629 2,700 401,864
8,500 $99,901 11,169 ENERGY STAR Homes 1,244 $470,611 367 211 1,617,498 736 $820,015 41,981 Heating System Rebate 5,500 $1,687,969 75,997 Home Lighting 225,000 $2,612,899 42,840 3,761
43,531,041 Home Performance with ENERGY STAR 225 $215,979 367 124 363,231 225 $571,352 7,452 Insulation Rebate Program 77 $28,856 272 270,556 1,026 $383,376 15,511 Refrigerator Recycling
5,000 $994,336 1,171 706 5,985,151 Residential Cooling 12,000 $3,657,237 8,354 8,241 6,086,205 Residential Quick Fix Efficiency Service 7,500 $1,157,020 8,215 1,666 5,295,719 7,500 $1,735,382
52,600 School Education Kits 20,000 $616,126 11,775 183 3,490,850 20,000 $543,578 34,014 Water Heating Rebate 1,050 $235,165 3,288 Residential Segment Energy Efficiency Total 272,546
$9,770,693 76,062 14,893 67,042,114 44,537 $6,076,738 242,012 Load Management Segment -Residential Saver's Switch 21,000 $6,797,971 63,302 19,970 171,406 Consumer Education 433,854 $775,640
382,912 $540,806 Home Energy Audits 3,392 $386,062 2,192 $189,124 Lamp Recycling 248,023 $205,260 Energy Efficiency Support Services $385,510 $577,370 Indirect Residential Subtotal 685,269
$1,752,472 385,104 $1,307,300 Residential Segment Total 978,815 $18,321,136 139,364 34,863 67,213,520 429,641 $7,384,038 242,012 Low Income Segment Conservation Kits 15,000 $626,952
17,324 398 7,128,430 15,000 $318,401 40,524 Home Electric Savings Program 1,375 $1,037,857 397 120 803,660 Single Family Weatherization Program 408 $891,563 6,038 Low Income Segment
Total 16,375 $1,664,809 17,721 517 7,932,090 15,408 $1,209,964 46,562 Planning Segment Advertising & Promotion $2,205,000 $551,250 Application Development & Maintenance $1,058,400 $264,600
CIP Training $149,741 $51,707 Regulatory Affairs $560,676 $115,548 Planning Segment Total $3,973,817 $983,105 Research, Evaluations & Pilots Segment Market Research $1,021,735 $209,435
Product Development $864,616 $202,854 Annex 49 Pilot Energy Feedback Pilot 35,225 $113,839 683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $112,939 62,471 Product Development Total 35,225 $978,455 978,455
683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $315,793 62,471 Research, Evaluations & Pilots Segment Total 35,225 $2,000,189 683 105 6,345,530 35,000 $525,228 62,471 PORTFOLIO SUBTOTAL 1,111,982 $63,672,892
262,730 99,626 351,828,294 482,728 $14,773,857 851,387 Renewable Energy Segment-Solar*Rewards 414 $5,003,198 2,046 1,062 2,791,427 Anticipated Alternative Filings CEE County Government
Initiative CEE One Stop Efficiency Shop $14,000,000 12,531 46,258,510 Energy Smart $330,000 Anticipated Alternative Filings Total $14,330,000 12,531 46,258,510 Assessments Segment $1,318,120
$361,442 Electric Utility Infrastructure Supply Side Resources Segment -U of M IREE PORTFOLIO TOTAL 1,112,396 $84,324,210 264,776 113,219 400,878,231 482,728 $15,135,299 851,387
11 Appendix D Certificate of Need Application E002/CN-11-332 2010-2012 Triennial Plan Program Summary Three Year Summary Electric Participants Electric Budget Customer kW Generator kW
Generator kWh Gas Participants Gas Budget 2010 1,087,204 $74,747,442 251,830 101,412 351,003,149 447,938 $13,320,424 2011 1,101,032 $79,275,922 257,716 105,827 368,767,444 468,132 $13,972,959
2012 1,112,396 $84,324,210 264,776 113,219 400,878,231 482,728 $15,135,299 2010 -2012 Total 3,300,632 $238,347,573 774,322 320,457 1,120,648,824 1,398,799 $42,428,682
STATE OF MINNESOTA BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Phyllis Reha David C. Boyd J. Dennis O'Brien Betsy Wergin Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner APPLICATION
TO THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE SCOTT COUNTY – STRUCTURE #57 115/115 KV CONVERSION AND STRUCTURE #57 – WESTGATE 115 KV UPGRADE DOCKET NO.
E-002/CN-11-332 PETITION SUMMARY OF FILING Please take notice that on March 9, 2012, Northern States Power Company doing business as Xcel Energy submitted a Certificate of Need application
for approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The Application seeks authorization to convert and upgrade approximately 20 miles of 69 kV transmission line to 115 kV capacity
along the existing Scott County – Bluff Creek – Westgate transmission line located in parts of Carver, Scott, and Hennepin Counties.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark Suel, hereby certify that I have this day served copies or summaries of the foregoing document on the attached list of persons by delivery by hand, electronically
or by causing to be placed in the U.S. mail at Minneapolis, Minnesota. DOCKET NO. E002/CN-11-332 Dated this 9th day of March 2012 /s/Mark Suel
First Name Last Name Email Company Name Address Delivery Method View Trade Secret Service List Name Lisa Agrimonti lagrimonti@briggs.com Briggs And Morgan, P.A. 2200 IDS Center80 South
8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Julia Anderson Julia.Anderson@ag.state.m n.us Office of the Attorney General-DOC 1800 BRM Tower 445 Minnesota
St St. Paul, MN 551012134 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official James J. Bertrand james.bertrand@leonard.c om Leonard Street & Deinard Suite 2300 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis,
MN 55402 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Steven Bosacker City of Minneapolis City Hall, Room 301M 350 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 554151376 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official
Jim Callaghan jimcallaghan_90@msn.com 2369 Fawn Hill Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Christopher Clark
christopher.b.clark@xcelen ergy.com Xcel Energy 5th Floor 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Jeffrey A. Daugherty jeffreydaugherty@centerpointene
rgy.com CenterPoint Energy 800 LaSalle Ave Minneapolis, MN 55402 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Ron Elwood relwood@mnlsap.org Legal Services Advocacy Project 2324 University
Ave Ste 101 St. Paul, MN 55114 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Sharon Ferguson sharon.ferguson@state.mn .us Department of Commerce 85 7th Place E Ste 500 Saint Paul, MN
551012198 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Burl W. Haar burl.haar@state.mn.us Public Utilities Commission Suite 350 121 7th Place East St. Paul, MN 551012147 Electronic Service
No OFF_SL_11-332_Official
2 First Name Last Name Email Company Name Address Delivery Method View Trade Secret Service List Name Valerie Herring vherring@briggs.com Briggs and Morgan, P.A. 2200 IDS Center 80 S.
Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Alan Jenkins aj@jenkinsatlaw.com Jenkins at Law 2265 Roswell Road Suite 100 Marietta, GA 30062 Electronic
Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Douglas Larson dlarson@dakotaelectric.co m Dakota Electric Association 4300 220th St W Farmington, MN 55024 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official
John Lindell agorud.ecf@ag.state.mn.us Office of the Attorney General-RUD 900 BRM Tower 445 Minnesota St St. Paul, MN 551012130 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Pam Marshall
pam@energycents.org Energy CENTS Coalition 823 7th St E St. Paul, MN 55106 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Andrew Moratzka apm@mcmlaw.com Mackall, Crounse and Moore 1400 AT&T
Tower 901 Marquette Ave Minneapolis, MN 55402 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official David W. Niles david.niles@avantenergy.c om Minnesota Municipal Power Agency Suite 300 200 South
Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Richard Savelkoul rsavelkoul@felhaber.com Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 444 Cedar St Ste 2100
St. Paul, MN 55101-2136 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Byron E. Starns byron.starns@leonard.com Leonard Street and Deinard 150 South 5th Street Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402
Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official James M. Strommen jstrommen@kennedygraven.com Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Paper
Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official
3 First Name Last Name Email Company Name Address Delivery Method View Trade Secret Service List Name Eric Theship Rosales N/A 9201 Audubon Rd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Offi
cial SaGonna Thompson Regulatory.Records@xcele nergy.com Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall FL 7 Minneapolis, MN 554011993 Electronic Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official Lisa Veith City of
St. Paul 400 City Hall and Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Paper Service No OFF_SL_11-332_Official