Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

Staff Briefing Papers

Meeting Date: May 5, 2016 ................................................................................ Agenda Item #1*

Company: Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.

Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665

In the Matter of the Application of Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. for

a Route Permit for the Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115 kV Transmission
Line and Substation Project in Clearwater County

Issue(s): What action should the Commission take regarding route alternatives to be
evaluated in the environmental assessment?

Staff: Tricia DeBleeckere | 651-201-2254 | tricia.debleeckere@state.mn.us

Background Documents
Application for a Route Permit .......................................................................... November 25, 2015
Commission Order Finding Application Complete () ........................................ January 25, 2016
Commission Notice of Public Information and EA Scoping Meeting ................... January 26, 2016
MN DNR Comments (Two parts) .............................................................................. March 3, 2016
Erie-Bourdeaux Revocable Family Trust ................................................................... March 7, 2016
MN DOT Comments .................................................................................................. March 7, 2016
Department of Commerce (EERA) Comments on Route Alternatives ....................... June 22, 2015
EERA Scoping Comments Portfolio ....................................................................... March 8, 2016
EERA Scoping Meeting Handout: Overland Handout 1 ......................................... March 8, 2016
EERA Scoping Meeting Handout: Overland Handout 2 ......................................... March 8, 2016
EERA Scoping Meeting Record (Transcript).......................................................... March 8, 2016
EERA Comments: EA Scoping and Alternatives.................................................... April 12, 2016
Erie-Boudeaux Revocable Trust Request for Correction ........................................ April 14, 2016
DOC EERA Initial Comments and Maps for Route Alts ........................................ April 26, 2016
DOC EERA Other Minnkota Follow Up Info on Route Alts ............................... April 26, 2016
DOC EERA Other Minnkota Additional Route Alt, 2A Map .............................. April 26, 2016
The attached materials are work papers of the Commission staff. They are intended for use by the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) and are based upon information already in
the record unless noted otherwise.
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 their
preferred Telecommunications Relay Service.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 2

I. Statement of Issue

What action should the Commission take regarding route alternatives to be evaluated in the
environmental assessment?

II. Project Overview

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) is proposing to construct a 5.3-mile, 115 kilovolt
(kV) high voltage transmission line (HVTL) and a new 115/4.16 kV distribution substation in
Clearwater County (Project).

The proposed 5.3-mile 115 kV HVTL will connect to an existing 115 kV line located on the
north side of County Road 74/740th Street and to the east of Pipeline Trail [road] via a
constructed switch. The proposed Project will extend from the north side of County Road
74/470th Street approximately one mile southeast of Clearbrook, Minnesota to the proposed
substation to be located approximately two miles southeast of Govnick, Minnesota.

The purpose of the Project is to provide electric service to a new pumping station west of
Clearbrook, Minnesota. The pumping station is planned as part of the proposed Sandpiper
Pipeline that is under Commission review in Dockets CN-13-473 and PPL-13-474.

III. Procedural Background

On November 25, 2015, Minnkota filed its application for a Route Permit for its Clearbrook to
Clearbrook 115 kV transmission line and substation.

On January 25, 2016, the Commission issued an Order Finding Application Complete, Directing
Use of the Alternative Permitting Process, and Granting Variance (January 25, 2016 Order).

On February 22, 2016, the Commission and the Department of Commerce Energy
Environmental Review and Analysis (EERA or Department) staff held a Public Information and
Environmental Assessment Scoping Meeting in Clearbrook, Minnesota. Comments were
accepted through March 7, 2016.

On March 15, 2016, Minnkota filed responsive comments on the proposed additional route
alternatives to EERA. 1

On April 12, 2016, the EERA filed comments summarizing the scoping process for the
Environmental Assessment (EA), responding to concerns outlined by the Erie-Bourdeaux
Revocable Family Trust (EB-RFT) and identified alternative routes that it intends to recommend
for inclusion in the EA.

1
These comments were eFiled on April 26, 2016.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 3

On April 14, 2016 the EB-RFT filed responsive comments (out of comment period) objecting to
the alternatives put forth by EERA, among other issues.

IV. Statutes and Rules

Consideration of Alternatives

Under Minn. Rule 7850.3700, the EERA is responsible for preparing an EA for large electric
generating plants and high voltage transmission lines that are reviewed under the alternative
permitting process. An EA is a document which describes the potential human and
environmental impacts of a proposed project and possible mitigation measures.

The first step in the preparation of the EA for the project is scoping. After providing opportunity
for public comment, the Department determines the scope of the EA. In addition, Minn. Stat.
216E.04, Subd. 5, anticipates that the Commission will have the opportunity to identify other
sites or routes for consideration in the EA.

Accordingly, the Commission in its January 25, 2016 Order, requested that the EERA present
draft route alternatives for Commission input prior to the issuance of the final scoping decision
by the Department.

Minn. Stat. 216E.04, Subd. 5. Environmental review.

For the projects identified in subdivision 2 and following these procedures, the
commissioner of the Department of Commerce shall prepare for the commission an
environmental assessment. The environmental assessment shall contain information on
the human and environmental impacts of the proposed project and other sites or routes
identified by the commission and shall address mitigating measures for all of the sites or
routes considered. The environmental assessment shall be the only state environmental
review document required to be prepared on the project

Following the release of the EA, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.04, subd. 6, the alternative
permitting process requires a public hearing be held to provide an opportunity for any person to
ask questions of the applicant, Department and Commission staff, and to submit written
comments into the record.

V. Comments Received on the Scope of the EA

Comments (and five proposed route alternatives) were received from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MNDOT), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), the
Erie-Bourdeaux Revocable Family Trust (EB-RFT) and two members of the public (Gustafson
and Johnson). Larger project concerns, discussed further below, were noted by the EB-RFT
which included concerns about the proper consideration of alternatives, the need and timing for
the project, and proper environmental review, among others.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 4

Minnesota Department of Transportation

The Minnesota Department of Transportation filed comments which noted its interest in ensuring
that the EA identify and quantify any impacts that the project may have on the safety of the
transportation system, the effectiveness of the operations or maintenance of the state trunk
highway system, and any additional costs that may be imposed on the highway fund as a result of
the placement of the HVTL. MNDOT noted that it had reviewed the proposed placement of the
HVTL and the proposed crossing of trunk highway 92, south of the city of Clearbrook. MNDOT
noted that no expansions or modifications were anticipated by MNDOT to trunk highway 92
and, therefore, MNDOT did not foresee any unsurmountable issues in issuing a highway
crossing permit for the project as proposed.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

The MNDNR noted issues it recommended for inclusion in the EA and provided information on
the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) review performed for this project and other
MNDNR permits.

A. Topics for Inclusion in the EA

The MNDNR recommended that since the location of this proposed HVTL is dependent on the
Sandpiper Pipeline Project, which is currently under review, this project and any other dependent
proposals should include a cumulative impact analysis reflecting the related projects and
associated impacts, while considering the respective review timelines and decision dates of the
projects.

The MNDNR listed other topics it would like to see outlined in the EA, including bird impacts
and proposed mitigation measures, seasonal construction as a mitigation option to several natural
resources impacts, and suggested on-going transmission line maintenance methods.

B. NHIS Review and Other Permits

The MNDNR noted that the NHIS Review submitted for the project is now out of date and new
records have been added to the NHIS system since the date of the last review. Notably, a
calcareous fen has been located and the new information should be included on project plans.

The DNR noted that a License to Cross Public Lands and Waters will be required.

Erie-Bourdeaux Revocable Family Trust

The EB-RFT provided comment on 1) procedural issues, 2) its concern with the lack of
consideration of phased and connected actions in the EA (of the Sandpiper Project), 3) additional
alternatives that should be considered, and 4) issues to be included in the scope.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 5

1. Procedural Issues

Project Timing

The EB-RFT argued that the project is premature in that the Sandpiper Project has been delayed
and is pending before the Commission. The EB-RFT stated that even if the Sandpiper Project is
permitted, it would be years before the transmission line would be necessary to power the
pipelines pumping station.

Landowner Notification

EB-RFT argued that additional landowners on routes identified in scoping should be noticed as
soon as possible.

Environmental Review Insufficient under MEPA

EB-RFT argued that the EA is insufficient for purposes of the Minnesota Environmental Policy
Act (MEPA) and an Environmental Impact Statement should be conducted.

Consideration of System Alternatives

EB-RFT argued that since this project is not large enough on its own to require a certificate of
need from the Commission, the Commission should consider factors such as need, timing,
alternative system configurations and voltage of the facility in its decision whether to issue a
route permit for the facility.

Joint Federal-State Environmental Review

EB-RFT argued that since Minnesota Rules promote joint federal and state environmental
review, and since this project is partially federally funded by the USDA-RUS and, therefore,
requires a federal environmental review, the federal and state agencies should join their review to
avoid duplication. If the environmental review is not conducted jointly, EB-RFT recommended
that the Commission incorporate the USDA-RUS environmental review into this docket for
Commission consideration prior to its final decision.

2. Phased and Connected Actions

The EB-RFT argued that this project is clearly a connected and phased action with the Sandpiper
Pipeline Project and the final route of that project will determine the need for this proposal.

EB-RFT argued that at least five other HVTL projects before the Commission are part of the
Sandpiper Pipeline Project. EB-RFT stressed the MNDNRs comment that this project and the
others should include a cumulative impact analysis reflecting the related projects. Other
HVTL Projects before the Commission EB-RFT argued to be connected are: Elko-New Market
HVTL (TL-12-1245), Menahga 115 kV HVTL (CN-14-787 and TL-14-797), Palisade 115 kV
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 6

HVTL (TL-15-423), Bull Moose 115 kV HVTL (TL-15-628), Motley Area 115 kV HVTL (CN-
14-853 and TL-15-204).

Additionally, the EB-RFT argued that other projects need to be considered as connected actions,
including the Line 3 Pipeline Project, the Line 81 pipelines, Line 4 pumping stations (14-320)
and the Sandpiper Clearbrook West Tank Farm project. 2

3. Alternatives to be Considered

System Alternatives

The EB-RFT argued that the Commission must consider a larger scope of alternatives, including
the no-build alternative and available system alternatives, like a natural gas reciprocating
turbines to power the facility, on-site solar or wind with storage, transmission alternatives from
other substations, undergrounding of the transmission facilities through sensitive resources, and
other alternatives considered in the 2015 Biennial Transmission Project Report for this area.

Route Alternatives

The EB-RFT provided five route alternatives (2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C) to consider in order to
address, avoid, and/or mitigate significant impacts to the EB-RFT lands and the family, including
known wetlands, land in federal programs prohibiting use, impacts to and contamination of
groundwater and surface water, socioeconomic impacts to farming, livestock, and human
habitation (among other items listed). Maps of these alternatives are attached to the end of this
brief.

4. Issues to be Included in the Scope

The EB-RFT argued that several items or topics should be included in the scope of the EA:
a. A project map that includes pipelines in the area;
b. Projects maps that depict the area transmission lines, distribution lines, and substations in
the vicinity of the project;
c. Sensitive areas and resources need to be identified (in narrative form and map form);
d. Avoidance areas, such as wetlands, natural springs, and fens need to be identified (in
narrative form and map form);
e. Avoidance areas including the mine located on the EB-RFT lands;
f. A discussion of the relevant local, state, and federal codes (electrical or otherwise);
g. A discussion of the ROW sharing with the distribution lines that are to be undergrounded
by the Clearwater-Polk Electric Cooperative and the option to underbuild the distribution
line in lieu of undergrounding;
h. Issues related to easement acquisition;
i. The cemetery that is not included in the application materials, which is located at 470th
and 159th Ave;
j. Use of federal farm programs that may restrict the use of land for transmission structures;

2
MPCA EAW for the Minnesota Pipeline Clearbrook West Tanks Farms -
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-ear2-69a.pdf
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 7

k. Use of local resources;

l. Aesthetic impacts of the HVTL, such as viewshed;
m. Groundwater impacts from structures;
n. Impacts to agricultural resources;
o. Access roads or temporary lay-down yards;
p. Area natural springs;
q. Improved Minnesota Historical Society information (application uses Sandpiper Pipeline
review);
r. Impacts of HVTL when paralleling a pipeline (corrosivity, etc.);
s. Appropriateness of various route widths; and,
t. The five EB-RFT proposed alternative routes.

Additionally, Dawn Bourdeaux commented at the socping meeting orally providing details about
her family farm and the forthcoming Century Farm status. 3

Gustafuson

Mr. Gustafuson provided comment at the scoping meeting and followed with written comments
that noted the project impacts his property. He noted he had already signed an easement and he is
in support of the project.

Jacobson

Mr. Jacobson provided written comments noting his concern about stray voltage and
recommended that the transmission line either follow Co. Rd. 74 to Co. Rd. 73 (Route 2A), or
follow the pipeline corridor route.

VI. Minnkota Response to Alternatives Proposed During Scoping

On March 15, 2016, Minnkota submitted comments to EERA on the alternatives suggested
during scoping. Minnkota evaluated its original four alternatives (Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4) and the
five proposed routes put forth by EB-RFT.

Minnkota provided information on the criteria it applied in selecting the proposed Route 2.
Minnkota applied those criteria to the routes put forth by EB-RFT and used a scoring system that
included:

1) Wetland areas to be crossed (and whether spanning the wetlands is possible)

2) Forested areas to be crossed/acreage of tree removal
3) Cropland and pastureland area crossed or impacted
4) Use of existing distribution right-of-way
5) Proximity to roadways (for access to transmission line)
6) Homesteads/residences (within 300 feet of centerline)
7) Total length of route
8) Estimated project costs

3
http://www.fbmn.org/farm-recognition
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 8

Minnkotas ranking and comparison of the EB-RFT additional routes found that the impacts of
the proposals were cumulatively higher (once weighted) as indicated in the overview of their
analysis (cover letter).

Staff notes that Minnkota used a factor to weight the importance of some impacts (wetland
impacts were given a factor of 3 and cost was given a factor of 1). Staff notes impacts are not
typically given weights within our process and rankings could change depending on the weight
given to a specific impact. Additionally, the impacts of each category were totaled using
different units (wetland crossing impacts are totaled using square feet and a weight of 3, route
length is totaled in feet and a weight of 1, among others). Regardless, the inputs (and raw data)
are available on the spreadsheet and the data remains useable and is helpful to consider the
relative impacts of each alternative route.

Minnkotas analysis of the EB-RFT alternatives found that their proposed route, Route 2, still
had relatively less overall impact. However, Minnkota did not find any reason why the
alternative routes would not be feasible.

VII. Department EERA Comments on the EA Scope

On April 12, 2016, the EERA filed comments that discussed the scoping process and route
alternatives proposed during that process. EERA outlined the comments received from the public
and addressed the five EB-RFT alternatives proposed during the scoping process, and the
response it received from Minnkota on the alternatives proposed during the scoping process.
EERA did not explicitly address the EB-RFT comments on the requested early notification to
newly affected landowners or on the request to conduct a joint environmental review with the
USDA-RUS.

EERA commented that it intended to recommend the following routes be included in the EA, the
Minnkota Route 2 (the projects Proposed Route) and Route 2A (proposed by EB-RFT and Mr.
Johnson). EERA noted that if the Commission wishes to consider a northern route alternative, it
recommended reviewing route 3B.

1. Procedural Issues

Timing and Consideration of Certificate of Need Criteria

Responding to the issues raised by the EB-RFT, the EERA indicated it did not believe that the
EA should consider all the system alternatives called for in a (certificate of need related)
Environmental Report as that analysis is not required for a project of this size. However, EERA
argued that even though this project does not require a CN, issues related to size, type or timing
of the facility are relevant to the extent they pertain to the review of the actual route proposal and
route alternatives.

MEPA and Environmental Review

EERA disagreed with the concerns from EB-RFT that the EA process in insufficient for MEPA
purposes and cited Minn. Rule 7850.3700, subp. 8 (which states that an EA shall be the only
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 9

state environmental review document prepared) and Minn. Statute 216E.04, Subd. 5 (which
indicates the information the EA must contain, as well as a statement that the EA shall be the
only environmental review document prepared).

2. Phased and Connected Actions

EERA argued that an EA should consider connected actions and cumulative impacts if and when
they occur. EERA agreed that this transmission line is a connected action, but argued that the
pipeline does not need to be included in the scope of this projects environmental review since
this project will not be built unless the pipeline (and its connected actions) have been fully
evaluated and is authorized.

EERA further provided that the Sandpiper Project needs to complete a Environmental Impact
Statement which will also consider the impacts of the Clearbrook Transmission Line and the EA
on this project, and therefore the Sandpiper Project does not require redundant review here.
EERA provided that where these two projects might overlap, or create cumulative impacts,
those impacts will be evaluated in this EA.

3. Alternatives

Route Alternatives

In determining which alternative routes and alignments should be carried forward for evaluation,
the EERA applied the following criteria:

Was the proposed alternative submitted within the prescribed public comment period?
Was there an explanation why the proposed alternative should be included in the EA and
any other supporting information for consideration by the Commission?
Does the commenter provide the impacts of the proposed project that the alternative is
intended to address?
Is the alternative located in an area that is prohibited under Minn. Rules, part
7850.4300?
Would the alternative meet the purpose for the project?
Is the alternative feasible?
Will the alternative assist the Commission in making its decision on the permit
application?

EERA noted that each alternative was timely submitted and none are within the prohibited areas
listed by rule.

EERA provided that Route 2A has greater impacts to wetlands, agricultural lands and forested
areas than the Minnkota proposed route (Route 2), however, Route 2A impacts to these areas
occur along existing road right-of-way where the project as proposed crosses more open area and
creates more new right-of-way. EERA has proposed to include Route 2A in the scope of the EA.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 10

EERA provided that Route 2B is a slight variation of 2A, and any improvements it offers with
respect to less agricultural or forested land impacts is offset by the creation of new right-of-way
and greater impacts to wetlands. EERA provided that Routes 3A-3C are variations on the
Minnkota reviewed Routes 4 alternative. Routes 3A-3C are longer routes that would be more
costly to construct and would impact more acreages of wetlands. EERA did not find sufficient
variation in Routes 2B or 3A-3C to find further examination in the EA beneficial and concluded
that these routes would not assist the Commission in making a route decision.

VIII. Staff Discussion

Commission staff has reviewed the comments received to date. In addition to the decision to be
decided upon at this meeting, staff believes there are issues the Commission should consider, but
may not need to decide upon, specifically, the questions related to phased and connected actions
and the timing of this project.

1. Procedural Issues

Timing and Consideration of Certificate of Need Criteria

Minnesota Statutes and Rules for the siting and routing of HVTLs specify that considerations of
need are not to be considered in the routing process. Staff believes the Statute to be clear.

Minn. Stat. 216E.02, Subd. 2 Jurisdiction. The commission is hereby given the authority
to provide for site and route selection for large electric power facilities. The commission
shall issue permits for large electric power facilities in a timely fashion and in a manner
consistent with the overall determination of need for the project under
section 216B.243 or 216B.2425. Questions of need, including size, type, and timing;
alternative system configurations; and voltage must not be included in the scope of
environmental review conducted under this chapter.

Staff does not believe that issues related to need, specifically alternative system configurations
should be considered as alternatives to this project.

The factors to be considered by the Commission are outlined in Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 7,
and Minn. Rule 7850.4100. As noted by EERA, timing of this project may be of issue, since the
purpose of the project is to transmit power to Clearbrook West pump station under review at the
Commission as part of the (pending) Sandpiper Project. Staff questions whether the
Commission, when considering the factors outlined in Minn. Stat. chapter 216E, and Minn. Rule
chapter 7850, would grant a permit for this project, at this time. Specifically, Minn. Stat.
216E.03 requires that the Commissions determinations must consider the states goals to
conserve resources, minimize environmental impacts, minimize land use conflicts, and ensure
the states electric energy security through efficient, cost-effective power supply and
transmission infrastructure (among other considerations).

Currently the timing of the review of the Sandpiper Project does not match the Minnkota
proposal, per the application on this project, construction of the HVTL is to begin in 2016 with
an in-service date of fourth quarter 2017.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 11

The Commission may want to have a discussion on whether the processing of this permit
application is premature, or, if further (or updated) information is necessary on timing in order to
have those discussions. If the process is continued, it may be appropriate for the Commission to
consider what type of approval (if any) would be reasonable (i.e., a route permit to construct at
any time, a route permit with an approval conditional on the Sandpiper Project being
successfully permitted, etc.)

Landowner Notification Concerns

EB-RFT requested that newly identified landowners be notified as early as possible. While the
Commission rules do not provide for notification to landowners newly identified in the scoping
process, the internal EERA practice is to provide newly identified landowners notice concurrent
with the Notice of Scoping Decision, once issued.

This has been standard practice and staff believes it is reasonable. To provide notice earlier
would be cumbersome, potentially unnecessary if those routes are not ultimately selected for
consideration. Additional opportunities for comment through the public hearing process are
available to any newly affected landowner. This current practice does not limit landowner
participation. Therefore, staff believes there is no reason to request a modification to the existing
practice of the EERA.

Environmental Review (EA) Insufficient Under MEPA

DOC EERA noted that the EA is the only environmental review required by the state of
Minnesota for this type of project. While EB-RFT cited the Certificate of Need process
deficiencies in Sandpiper (such as the court decision requiring an EIS), that situation is unique
and not relevant to the case here. The Commissions alternative route permit process and the EA
is an Environmental Quality Board-approved alternative form of environmental review.

Joint Federal State Review

It is Commission staffs understanding that the USDA-RUS federal environmental review

process has not started. Therefore, to conduct joint environmental review would cause delay in
the process beyond the statutorily allowed six (to nine) months to make a final decision on the
application.

Additionally, it is staffs view that in the HVTL route permitting process the RGU is the
Department of Commerce. To the extent EERA wishes to, or even could accommodate federal-
state environmental review, that decision is for the Commissioner of Commerce.
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 12

2. Phased and Connected Actions

EB-RFT argued that phased and connected actions of the Sandpiper Line include the following
projects:

EB-RFT List of Sandpiper Pipeline Phased or Connected Actions

Project Docket Need Status

Elko-New TL-12-1245 Low voltage and overload Route Permit issued in
Market HVTL issues current and anticipated in August 2014. In
the Cleary-Elko system and construction, segments
connected systems. 4 energized.
Menahga HVTL CN-14-787, Load serving needs in the area Certificate of Need and
TL-14-797 (as noted as far back as the Route Permit issued March
2007 Biennial Project Report) 2016. Construction
and the Minnesota Pipeline anticipated in Spring 2016.
Pumping Station.
Motley Area CN-14-853, Load serving needs in the Certificate of Need and
HVTL TL-15-204 Motley Area (as noted in the Route Permit issued in
2015 Biennial Project Report) March 2016. Construction
and the Minnesota Pipeline anticipated in Spring 2016.
Pumping Station.
Palisade HVTL TL-15-423 To provide electric service to In permitting process.
the new Palisade Pump Station
proposed as part of the
Enbridge Line 3 Replacement
Project. 5
Bull Moose TL-15-628 To provide electric service to In permitting process.
HVTL the new Backus Pump Station
proposed as part of the
Enbridge Line 3 Replacement
Project. 6
Line 3 Pipeline Replacement of the existing In permitting process.
Project Line 3 Project to address safety Currently undergoing EIS
and integrity issues of the scoping.
original pipeline.
Clearbrook Part of To increase the transport of In permitting process.
Pumping Station Sandpiper crude oil to markets in the Currently undergoing EIS
(Enbridge) Docket Midwest and Canada. scoping.
Clearbrook West NA Permitted by the PCA. The upgrade of the
Pumping Station Clearbrook facility and the
increase in pumping
4
See Great River Energy Route Permit Application, Doc. ID: 20136-88345-02
5
Great River Energy, Palisade 115 kV Route Permit Application, See Doc. ID: 20158-113516-02
6
Great River Energy, Bull Moose 115 kV Route Permit Application, See Doc. ID: 20158-113086-02
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 13

(Minnesota PCA EAW Project purpose: 7 capacity was determined to

Pipeline Co). efficiently handle feedstock
for [MN] refineries
better accommodate tank
inspections
allow for unscheduled spot
shipments
better manage and segregate
crude varieties
be needed by the
Commission in August
2015 (Docket 14-320). No
associated route permit was
needed.

The Project is independent of

the Enbridge projects and
would proceed without these
unrelated projects.

Staff does not believe that projects listed projects are related: 1) the projects are proposed by
independent developers, 2) the projects have occurred at other points in time, and 3) would occur
independent of one another are related projects. The projects related to the Minnesota Pipeline
are not associated to the Sandpiper Projects. The associated facilities to the Sandpiper Project are
included in the Sandpiper Environmental Assessment Worksheets as intended to be evaluated in
the EIS.

Staff believes the question for the Commission to consider is first, to what extent this Clearbrook
HVTL Project is a connected action to the Sandpiper Project, and second, to what extent does
that determination impact the current decision before the Commission (on whether to request that
additional routes be included in the Department of Commerces scoping decision)?

3. Route Alternatives

Regarding route alternatives, staff is in agreement with EERA and recommends the addition of
Route 2A as proposed by EB-RFT and Mr. Johnson. Route 2A follows an existing distribution
line for a large percentage of the route, among other factors, and does not seem to pose any fatal
flaws that would rule it out at this time.

Staff agrees with EERA that Route 2B is a slight variation on 2A. This route creates new right-
of-way, impacts additional wetlands, and does not provide enough variation or improvement
over 2A to include for review.

Finally, staff agrees with EERA that Routes 3A-3C have longer right-of-ways that Route 2 or
2A, would be more costly to construct and impact more wetlands. Staff does not see enough
variation or benefit in 3B or 3C (from 3A), which both traverse new right-of-way when nearby
road right-of-way is available. Therefore, if any additional routes are to be added by the
Commission, staff would recommend Route 3A. However, staff, like the EERA, questions the

7
MPCA EAW for the Minnesota Pipeline Clearbrook West Tanks Farms -
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-ear2-69a.pdf
Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 14

usefulness of the inclusion of this route in that it already appears likely to have no net benefit
over the already included Route 2 and 2A.

IX. Commission Decision Alternatives

A. What action should the Commission take regarding route alternatives to be evaluated in
the environmental impact statement?

1. Propose additional routes for inclusion in the scoping decision for the environmental
Assessment.
2. Take no action.
3. Take some other action deemed more appropriate.

Staff Recommends Alternative 2 or 1 (inclusion of Route 3A).

Staff Briefing Paper for Docket No. ET6/TL-14-665 on May 5, 2016 Page 15

Minnkota Alternative Routes Considered but Rejected

Figure 2 from Minnkotas Route Permit Application, Filed November 25, 2015 (page 3)