Trending
There are some fundamental questions our communities should be asking about the proposed transmission line and the utility company’s application for a Certificate of Need before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
First and foremost: Who gets to define what the need really is? And whose need are we talking about?
The utility company, referred to as the applicant, says this region needs additional electricity to ensure future reliability. But what does that actually mean?
Who determines how much additional electricity is needed to provide reliable service? Where, specifically, is the electrical system unreliable today? What evidence demonstrates that it will become unreliable in the future? How much additional capacity is necessary, and over what period of time?
Is this need based on documented demand, projected growth, or assumptions about what might happen in the future?
These are important questions. A claim of future need should not, by itself, justify a project that could permanently change the landscape and the lives of the people along its path.
Another important question is feasibility. The applicant has discussed the feasibility of this proposed project, but who gets to define what is feasible?
Does feasible simply mean something can physically be built? Does it mean it can be built within a certain budget? Or does it mean it is the best and most responsible option when all costs and consequences are considered?
And perhaps most importantly, who bears the costs, and who receives the benefits?
The broader region may benefit from increased transmission capacity, but what about the individual landowners, families, farmers and communities who will have to live alongside this infrastructure?
If the benefits are regional, but the burdens are concentrated on a relatively small number of people, how is that imbalance being evaluated?
I am also concerned about whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated the need for this particular type of transmission system.
Even if additional transmission capacity is needed, that does not automatically establish that this particular type of overhead power line is necessary.
Why this type of overhead transmission line? Why not another type of transmission technology? Why not an underground system? And how were those alternatives evaluated?
The applicant has stated that it explored underground direct-current transmission systems. But were those alternatives evaluated strictly on their initial construction costs, or were they evaluated based on the total cost to society over the lifetime of the project?
I believe that distinction is critically important.
The cost of an overhead transmission line should not stop at the utility company’s construction budget. We also need to consider the long-term consequences for the people and communities affected by it.
What is the cost of permanently changing the landscape? What are the impacts on property owners, agricultural operations, land use and the character of rural communities? What about the people who will have to live and work near this infrastructure for decades?
These impacts may not appear on the utility company’s balance sheet, but that does not mean they have no value or should be excluded from the decision.
If an underground system has a higher initial construction cost but avoids or reduces certain long-term impacts on landowners and communities, shouldn’t those differences be part of a genuine comparison?
We should not confuse the least expensive option for the utility company with the least costly option for society as a whole.
The route of the proposed transmission line is another important concern. I understand that specific route selection may be addressed in a later phase of the process. However, I have difficulty separating the question of need from the question of location.
How can we fully evaluate who is affected by this project without understanding where it is likely to go?
Different routes affect different landowners, farms, communities and properties. The impacts are not equal. If we are being asked to determine whether this project is necessary, shouldn’t we also understand where that need will be met and who will bear the consequences?
I am concerned that approving the general concept of a project before fully understanding its impacts could leave affected people with little meaningful influence over a decision that will shape their communities for generations.
Ultimately, this should be about more than whether a utility company believes it needs additional transmission infrastructure.
It should be about whether that need has been clearly established, objectively demonstrated and carefully weighed against all reasonable alternatives and their consequences.
The people who live and work in these affected communities are not simply obstacles to a utility project. They are members of the public whose interests deserve meaningful consideration.
Infrastructure decisions made today can affect families, farms, property values, communities and future generations for decades.
Before approving a Certificate of Need, we should be asking some very basic questions:
-- Has the actual need for additional electrical transmission capacity been clearly demonstrated?
-- What specific reliability problems is this project intended to solve?
-- Why is this particular overhead transmission system necessary compared with other reasonable technologies and underground alternatives?
-- Have the full lifecycle costs and reasonably quantifiable economic, agricultural, environmental and social impacts been considered?
-- Who receives the benefits, and who bears the long-term costs?
-- Have the people and communities who will live with this project been given meaningful consideration?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are questions that deserve answers before a decision is made that could affect our communities for generations.
Just because a project can be built does not necessarily mean it should be built. And just because a utility company says there is a need does not mean that need has been adequately established.
Our communities deserve transparency, a thorough evaluation of alternatives and an honest accounting of the true costs of this project--not just the costs to the utility company, but the costs to all of us who may have to live with it.
If you share these concerns, I strongly encourage you to attend the public hearing on November 12, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Fox Lake Event Center. A Minnesota Administrative Law Judge will be present to hear public input regarding this proposed transmission project. Your voice matters. Please attend, ask questions and make your concerns heard. The decisions made today could affect our communities for generations.
Mark Ufer
Martin County Resident