Commission must review testimony

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:42:41 -0600
From: Stacy Volk <cen21697@centuryinter.net>

Power line decision delayed

Commission must review testimony

By Andy Napgezek
anapgeze@wdhprint.com
Wausau Daily Herald

It might be late summer before the state Public Service Commission decides whether to approve the
proposed Arrowhead-Weston power line.

A month and a half of public and technical hearings at the Public Service Commission headquarters in
Madison wrapped up Feb. 23, but the three commissioners must wade through
10,000 pages of transcripts from more than 1,000 witnesses, a commission spokeswoman said.

Also, a decision by retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske — who presided over the
hearings — established a 120-day period during which critics and supporters could
submit briefs.

Lawyers and experts for both sides, as well as hundreds of concerned residents, showed up to air
their concerns about the 250-mile, $220 million power line proposed by Minnesota
Power and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. Some call the project economically necessary and others
call it destructive to people and the environment.

If the commission approves the proposal, it will all but ensure the power line is built, said
Annemarie Newman, spokeswoman for the regulatory agency.

The commission had planned to issue a decision in May, which now will be impossible, said Tom
Kreager, Mosinee resident and president of Save Our Unique Lands, or SOUL, a group
opposing the line.

“You’ve got basically 300 exhibits, you’ve got almost 10,000 pages of transcripts and the final
Environmental Impact Statement is over 500 pages long,” he said. “There’s just piles and
piles of stuff to go over.”

With that much evidence, the right decision must become clear to the commission, right?

Wrong.

Representatives from both camps are confident of victory when the commission hands down its ruling.

Based on the evidence presented, Larry Borgard said he expects the commission to approve the
345-kilovolt power line that would import electricity from the Duluth, Minn., area to the
Wausau area.

“We feel very good about how the hearings went,” said Borgard, vice president of transmission and
engineering for Wisconsin Public Service Corp. “We feel good about the evidence
we presented about the need for the line, the routing and the environmental aspects of the project.”

But according to a written statement by SOUL, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Citizens’ Utility
Board and North American Water Office, the decision should favor the opposition.
Public proceedings contained testimony equal to 50 days of court hearings, they said, with more than
1,000 citizens and town board officials asking the state to reject the project.

“With the record that has been established, it seems practically impossible for the commission to
approve this project,” Kreager said. “After the study, hearings and experts, we won by
any objective standard.”

Power line supporters questioned the validity of some of the opposition’s testimony.

Specifically, pro-power line lawyers and experts attacked retired physics and environmental sciences
professor Duane Dahlberg, who gave written testimony that electromagnetic energy
and stray voltage can make people and livestock sick.

Dahlberg, who taught at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minn., said he has written several papers on
stray voltage and electrical ground currents but has not performed field research or
published peer-reviewed papers.

In the end, Geske allowed Dahlberg’s testimony because he qualifies as an expert under Wisconsin
law. The judge said she would let the Public Service Commission make its own
decision about the validity of his testimony.

Newman said the commission has a large task before it but has a complete picture of the project.

“We certainly did everything we could to accommodate the public during the public phase, and with
10,000 pages of transcripts and another 12,000 pages of exhibits, we certainly feel
that we have a full record here,” she said. “We’re going to try to do the most thorough job that we
can.”

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.