{"order_id":"a0Ics00000WFtrOEAT","content":" \n \nS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N \n \nBEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION \n \n* * * * * \n \nIn the matter of the application of MICHIGAN \n) \nELECTRIC TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, \n) \nfor an Act 30 certificate of public convenience and \n)\nCase No. U-21471 \nnecessity for the construction of a major transmission ) \nline between Oneida Substation in Eaton County and ) \nNelson Road Substation in Gratiot County, Michigan. ) \n ) \n) \nIn the matter of the application of MICHIGAN \n) \nELECTRIC TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, \n) \n \nfor an Act 30 certificate of public convenience and \n)\nCase No. U-21472 \nnecessity for the construction of a major transmission ) \nline between the Indiana/Michigan border at Gilead \n) \nTownship in Branch County and the new Helix\n) \nSubstation in Calhoun County, Michigan. \n) \n ) \n \n \n \nAt the July 10, 2025 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing, \nMichigan. \n \nPRESENT: Hon. Daniel C. Scripps, Chair \n \n \n \n \n Hon. Katherine L. Peretick, Commissioner \n \nHon. Alessandra R. Carreon, Commissioner \n \nORDER \n \n \n\n\n \n \nPage 2 \nU-21471 et al. \nI. \nHISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS \n \nOn August 14, 2023, pursuant to the Electric Transmission Line Certification Act, Public \nAct 30 of 1995 (Act 30), being MCL 460.561 et seq., Michigan Electric Transmission Company, \nLLC (METC) submitted to the Commission construction plans for two proposed major \ntransmission lines. Subsequently, on July 15, 2024, METC filed applications, with supporting \ntestimony and exhibits, for certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction of \nan approximate 39.5-mile, 345-kilovolt (kV) double circuit transmission line between the existing \nNelson Road Substation in New Haven Township, Gratiot County, Michigan and the existing \nOneida Substation in Oneida Charter Township, Eaton County, Michigan (Nelson-Oneida Line), \nand an approximate 55-mile, 345-kV double circuit transmission line between a proposed new \nHelix Substation in Clarence Township, Calhoun County, Michigan and the Michigan/Indiana \nborder in Gilead Township, Branch County, Michigan (Helix-Hiple Line). See, filing \n#U-21471-0004 (Nelson-Oneida application) and filing #U-21472-0004 (Helix-Hiple application). \n \nConcurrently with the filing of its applications, METC filed motions in each respective docket \nto consolidate Case Nos. U-21471 and U-21472. See, filings ##U-21471-0008 and U-21472-0008. \nOn July 30, 2024, Robert and Rose Williams filed a response and concurrence to METC’s motion \nto consolidate, and on August 26, 2024, Danielle Wohlscheid, Anthony Wohlscheid, Diane \nWohlscheid, Charles Wohlscheid, Valerie Wohlscheid-Brennan, Robert Brennan, Lynn Colby, \nStephen Colby, Gordon Diemer, Vonnie Diemer, Joseph Haddix, Jennifer Haddix, Karol Sanborn, \nEugene Sanborn, Dr. James Sikarskie, Dr. Judi Sikarskie, Lawrence Strzalka, and Coreen Strzalka \n(collectively the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors) filed an answer to METC’s motion to consolidate. \nSee, filings ##U-21472-0016 and U-21471-0027. \n\n\nPage 3 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nOn August 29, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Christopher S. Saunders (ALJ) held a \nprehearing conference for Case Nos. U-21471 and U-21472. METC; the Commission Staff \n(Staff); Citizens Utility Board of Michigan (CUB); Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council \n(MEIBC), Institute for Energy Innovation (IEI), and Clean Grid Alliance (CGA) (collectively \nMEIC); the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors; Ronald S. Bewersdorff, Trustee of the Ronald S. \nBewersdorff Revocable Trust, Brenda Birchman, Daniel May, Lori May, Kenneth May, and Josip \nZokvic, Trustee of the Josip Zokvic Trust (collectively the Knaggs Intervenors); Carol Jegla; \nRobert and Deb Withee; Robert and Rose Williams; Scott and Lori Blanchard; and Branch Solar, \nLLC (Branch Solar) attended the prehearing conference. Several individuals also made public \ncomments at the prehearing conference. See, 1 Tr 55-77. At the prehearing conference, the ALJ \ngranted METC’s motion to consolidate and directed that, moving forward, all filings would be \nfiled in the docket for Case No. U-21471 and that no further filings would be accepted in Case \nNo. U-21472. See, 1 Tr 6-12. The ALJ further granted intervention to CUB, MEIC, the Nelson-\nOneida Intervenors,1 the Knaggs Intervenors, and Scott and Lori Blanchard. See, filing \n#U-21471-0040. \n \nFollowing the prehearing, Ceres Partners, LLC (Ceres) and Ceres Farms, LLC (Ceres Farms); \nBranch Solar; William and Linda Martin; Robert V. and Dawn H. Lust;2 Robert and Rose \nWilliams; Chad A. Myers; Elizabeth Price; Sierra Club; and William A. Peloquin filed petitions \n \n 1 Dr. James Sikarskie and Dr. Judi Sikarskie withdrew their petitions to intervene on \nSeptember 5, 2024, following the prehearing conference. See, filing #U-21471-0038. \n 2 Robert V. and Dawn H. Lust initially filed for intervention as the Robert V. and Dawn \nH. Lust Living Trust but subsequently moved to amend their petition to change the name of the \npetitioner to Robert V. and Dawn H. Lust, which the ALJ granted on November 7, 2024. See, \nfilings ##U-21471-0020, U-21471-0110, and U-21471-0121. \n\n\nPage 4 \nU-21471 et al. \nfor leave to intervene out of time.3 The ALJ granted intervention to Ceres and Ceres Farms, \nBranch Solar,4 William and Linda Martin, Robert V. and Dawn H. Lust, Robert and Rose \nWilliams, and Sierra Club, but denied intervention to Chad A. Myers, Elizabeth Price, and \nWilliam A. Peloquin. See, filings ##U-21471-0066 to U-21471-0068, U-21471-0077, \nU-21471-0112, U-21471-0122, and U-21471-0127 to U-21471-0129. On November 14 \nand 15, 2024, Chad A. Myers and Elizabeth Price each filed a Motion for Reconsideration. See, \nfilings ##U-21471-0140 and -0141. On November 20, 2024, METC filed responses to the \nmotions, and on November 26, 2024, following oral argument, the ALJ denied both motions. See, \n4 Tr 149. On January 14, 2025, Douglas and Sharon Bloom filed a Petition to Intervene, which \nthe ALJ denied on January 31, 2025. See, filings ##U-21471-0211and U-21471-0233. \n \nThe ALJ issued a stipulated protective order in this case on September 27, 2024. See, \nfiling #U-21471-0062. \n \nOn December 4, 2024, direct testimony and exhibits were filed in this docket on behalf of the \nStaff, CUB, Sierra Club, MEIC, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, the Knaggs Intervenors, and \nRobert V. and Dawn H. Lust. On December 17, 2024, the Staff filed revised testimony for witness \nKarsten D. Szajner, and on January 30, 2025, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors filed revised \ntestimony for witness Valerie Wohlscheid-Brennan. See, filings ##U-21471-0194 and \n \n 3 See, filings ##U-21471-0032, U-21471-0048, U-21471-0050, U-21471-0056, U-21471-0058, \nU-21471-0099, U-21471-0100; U-21471-0103, and U-21471-0104. On October 29, 2024, METC \nfiled Partial Objections to Elizabeth Price’s and Chad A. Myers’ Petitions for Delayed Leave to \nIntervene Out of Time. See, filings ##U-21471-0107 and -0108. On November 1, 2024, METC \nfiled an Objection to the Late Petition to Intervene of William A. Peloquin and a Partial Objection \nto Sierra Club’s Petition to Intervene Out of Time. See, filings ##U-21471-0116 and -0117. \n 4 On October 4, 2023, METC filed objections to Branch Solar’s Petition for Leave to Intervene \nOut of Time, to which Branch Solar filed a reply brief. See, filings ##U-21471-0072 and \nU-21471-0082. METC, in turn, filed a motion to strike Branch Solar’s reply brief on October 14, \n2024. See, filing #U-21471-0085. On February 6, 2025, the ALJ granted Branch Solar’s motion \nto withdraw. See, filing #U-21471-0235. \n\n\nPage 5 \nU-21471 et al. \nU-21471-0230. On January 25, 2025, METC filed the direct testimony, with an accompanying \nexhibit, of Stephen G. Thornhill. See, filing #U-21471-0218. \n \nOn January 24, 2025, METC, MEIC, and the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors filed rebuttal \ntestimony and exhibits. See, filings ##U-21471-0215, U-21471-0217, and U-21471-0219. On \nFebruary 20, 2025, METC filed testimony for B. Ashley DuPree and revised rebuttal testimony for \nB. Ashley DuPree, Daniel L. Belin, and Stephen G. Thornhill. See, filing #U-21471-0244. \n \nOn February 10, 2025, METC filed a motion to strike the direct testimony and exhibits of \nNelson-Oneida Intervenors’ witness, Avery H. Sanborn, and a motion to strike portions of the \ndirect testimony and exhibits of witnesses Valerie Wohlscheid-Brennan and Brian C. Andrews. \nSee, filings ##U-21471-0236 and U-21471-0237. On February 19, 2025, the ALJ denied both \nmotions to strike in their entirety. See, 5 Tr 187-189, 205-206. \n \nDirect and cross-examination were conducted on February 19, 2025. On March 19, 2025, the \nALJ admitted Exhibit NOI-NT-2 into evidence. 6 Tr 1303. \n \nOn March 19, 2025, METC; the Staff; CUB and Sierra Club, jointly; and MEIC filed initial \nbriefs. That same date, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors and the Knaggs Intervenors jointly filed an \ninitial brief (Joint Intervenors’ initial brief). On April 9, 2025, METC; the Staff; CUB and Sierra \nClub, jointly; and MEIC filed reply briefs. That same date, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors and the \nKnaggs Intervenors jointly filed reply briefs (Joint Intervenors’ reply brief). \n \nOn June 12, 2025, the Commission issued an order in this docket permitting the parties to file \nsupplemental briefing. On June 26, 2025, METC and the Staff submitted supplemental briefs. \n \nOn June 27, 2025, Daren A. Wiseley filed a Petition to Intervene Out of Time seeking to \nsubmit a supplemental brief and to introduce additional evidence into the record. Case \n\n\nPage 6 \nU-21471 et al. \nNo. U-21471, filing #U-21471-0301.5 On July 1, 2025, METC filed an objection to Mr. Wiseley’s \nPetition to Intervene Out of Time. See, filing #U-21471-0303. That same date, Mr. Wiseley filed \na reply. See, filing #U-21471-0304. \nII. \nEVIDENTIARY RECORD \n \nThe record consists of testimony from 34 witnesses and 1,306 pages of public and confidential \ntranscript, along with 196 exhibits. The docket also contains nearly 300 public comments, which \ncan be viewed in the section of the docket labeled “Case Comments.” See, filings \n##U-21471-0001-CC through U-21471-0204-CC and U-21472-0001-CC through \nU-21472-0093-CC. The various parties’ summaries of the evidence and arguments in support of \ntheir respective positions are fully set forth in the evidentiary record. While the Commission has \n \n 5 Pursuant to Mich Admin Code, R 792.10410 (Rule 410), “a person who is not a complainant, \nrespondent, applicant, or staff, and who claims an interest in a proceeding may petition for leave to \nintervene.” Rule 410, however, requires petitions to intervene to be filed not less than seven days \nbefore the date set for the initial hearing or prehearing conference. Rule 410(1). The initial \nprehearing conference in this case occurred on August 29, 2024. Therefore, because Mr. \nWiseley’s petition is untimely, it may only be granted upon a showing of good cause and a \nshowing that a grant of the petition will not delay the proceeding or unduly prejudice any party. \nSee, Rule 410(1). \n \nThe Commission finds that Mr. Wiseley has not shown good cause to warrant a grant of his \nPetition to Intervene Out of Time. The Commission issued its order calling for supplemental \nbriefs in this case on June 12, 2025 (June 12 order); however, Mr. Wiseley did not file his petition \nuntil June 27, 2025, which is past the deadline established in the June 12 order for submitting \nsupplemental briefs. Moreover, as the petition itself states, Mr. Wiseley seeks to submit a brief for \nthe purpose of introducing additional information “that is currently absent from the record.” Case \nNo. U-21471, filing #U-21471-0301, p. 5. But the Commission’s June 12 order did not reopen the \nrecord to permit the introduction of additional evidence. Moreover, despite the opportunity to \nparticipate in this matter since its inception on July 15, 2024, Mr. Wiseley’s petition was filed a \nmere 18 days before the Commission’s statutory deadline to render a decision within one year of \nthe filing of METC’s applications. See, MCL 460.568(4). \n \nAccordingly, the Commission finds that Mr. Wiseley has not shown good cause and further \nfinds that granting the petition and permitting the introduction of additional evidence and \narguments so late in this proceeding would cause unreasonable delay and would unduly prejudice \nthe parties. As such, the Commission denies Mr. Wiseley’s Petition to Intervene Out of Time. \n\n\nPage 7 \nU-21471 et al. \nconsidered the entire record in arriving at its findings and conclusions expressed in this order, only \nthe arguments and evidence necessary for a reasoned analysis of the disputed issues will be \nspecifically addressed in this order. \nA. Direct Testimony \n1. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC \na. Charles L. Marshall \n \nCharles L. Marshall testified that he is the vice president of transmission planning for ITC \nHoldings Corp. (ITC Holdings), the parent company of METC. 5 Tr 211, 266. He sponsored \nExhibits METC-1A through METC-13A and Exhibits METC-1B through METC-13B. \n \nMr. Marshall provided an overview of the witnesses appearing on METC’s behalf and \ndescribed the areas those witnesses would be addressing in support of METC’s applications. \n5 Tr 216-218, 271-273. He also provided an overview of the proposed projects and testified that \nthe projects are part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (MISO’s) Long \nRange Transmission Planning Tranche 1 (LRTP Tranche 1) portfolio, which he stated consists of \n18 projects approved as a result of MISO’s development of regional transmission solutions. \n5 Tr 219, 273-274. He provided background on how the projects were developed as part of \nMISO’s Response and Reliability Imperative, which he claimed identifies a strong need for long \nrange transmission planning to address the region’s changing energy mix and reliability challenges \nthat are becoming more significant. 5 Tr 226, 281-282 (citing Exhibit METC-1A and METC-1B). \n \nMr. Marshall further testified that Michigan’s energy landscape is changing and that the state \nrequires both in-state generation and increased access to generation beyond the state’s borders \nthrough transmission infrastructure. 5 Tr 232-236, 287-289. He stated that the projects are \nelectrically significant in Michigan because they are essential to achieving the state’s clean energy \n\n\nPage 8 \nU-21471 et al. \ngoals and that the projects will benefit Michigan by enhancing grid resilience. 5 Tr 221, 276-277. \nMoreover, he explained how the projects will, among other things, increase the ability to import \nenergy by increasing the capacity import limit (CIL) for Michigan’s lower peninsula, Local \nResource Zone 7 (LRZ 7). 5 Tr 236-237, 291-292. \n \nMr. Marshall also explained why the projects are needed and the alternatives that both MISO \nand METC have considered in lieu of constructing the proposed transmission lines. \n5 Tr 246-256, 301-311. He provided testimony outlining the estimated quantifiable and \nnonquantifiable public and private benefits that will accrue from the projects. \n5 Tr 259-262, 314-318. He also explained the costs of the proposed projects and asserted that \nbenefit cost analyses (BCAs) for the projects, as part of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio, show that \nthe benefits are estimated to be 2.2 to 3.4 times the project’s costs for LRZ 7. 5 Tr 263, 318-319. \nFinally, Mr. Marshall opined that the projects meet the requirements of Act 30. 5 Tr 264, 320. \nb. B. Ashley DuPree \n \nB. Ashley DuPree testified that he is the director of design engineering for ITC Holdings. \n5 Tr 340, 365. He sponsored Exhibits METC-14A through METC-18A and METC-14B through \nMETC-18B. \n \nMr. DuPree testified that METC retained the consulting services of Burns & McDonnell \nMichigan, Inc. (BMcD) to assist in identifying, developing, and recommending potential routes to \nbe included in the construction plans for the projects. 5 Tr 344, 369. He explained that after \nMETC filed its construction plans with the Commission, METC proceeded to hold public \nmeetings and receive comments on the projects, and that based on this input, METC then refined \nthe routes for the proposed major transmission lines included in METC’s applications. \n5 Tr 344, 369. Mr. DuPree then provided a detailed description of these routes proposed for the \n\n\nPage 9 \nU-21471 et al. \nNelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line. 5 Tr 346-355, 371-383; see also, \nExhibits METC-15A and METC-15B. \n \nMr. DuPree next described the various design and safety considerations METC undertook \nwhen designing the proposed transmission lines, including codes and standards that will be \nfollowed during construction. 5 Tr 356-357, 383-385. He also explained why a 200-foot \nright-of-way (ROW) is needed to ensure reliability and safety and to provide proper vegetation \nmanagement. 5 Tr 358-360, 385-387. Lastly, Mr. DuPree provided testimony regarding line \nsafety and maintenance, as well as zoning ordinances that may prohibit or regulate construction of \nthe transmission lines. 5 Tr 362-363, 389-391. \nc. M. Cynthia Stump \n \nM. Cynthia Stump testified that she is the director of local government and community affairs \nfor ITC Holdings. 5 Tr 444, 453. She sponsored Exhibits METC-19A through METC-21A and \nExhibits METC-19B through METC-21B. \n \nMs. Stump summarized METC’s public outreach efforts, which included communications \nwith local municipalities, public meetings, and engagement with elected officials. 5 Tr 446-447, \n455-456. She described how METC used various methods to publicize public meetings for the \nprojects, including newspaper postings, postcards, and updates on the company’s website to \ninform the public. 5 Tr 448, 456. Ms. Stump also explained that the public meetings for the \nprojects were held in an “open house” format with different stations where attendees could learn \nabout various aspects of the projects, such as scheduling, environmental impacts, and \nrouting/design processes. 5 Tr 448-449, 456-458. She further stated that attendees were provided \nan opportunity to submit comments both in-person and on the company’s website, and she further \npresented a summary of these comments in Exhibits METC-21A and METC-21B. \n\n\nPage 10 \nU-21471 et al. \n5 Tr 449-450, 458. Additionally, Ms. Stump stated that METC communicated with elected \nofficials by offering to meet to discuss the projects and routes, and she described METC’s \ncommunications processes. 5 Tr 450, 458-459. \nd. Carlo P. Capra \n \nCarlo P. Capra testified that he is the director of capital projects for ITC Holdings. \n5 Tr 471, 484. He sponsored Exhibits METC-24A and METC-24B. \n \nMr. Capra testified about the general construction timelines for the Nelson-Oneida Line and \nthe Helix-Hiple Line, as well as the health and safety precautions METC will employ when \nconstructing the projects. He also testified as to how the company will comply with applicable \nenvironmental laws and standards and co-sponsored the environmental reports for both projects. \n5 Tr 474, 487. Mr. Capra stated that the Nelson-Oneida Line will begin construction in the first \nquarter of 2028, with completion scheduled by the end of that year, and that the Helix-Hiple Line \nwill begin construction in the fall of 2025, with completion scheduled by the middle of 2030. \n5 Tr 475, 488. He testified that the projects would avoid and minimize impacts through \ncompliance with various health and safety standards and through compliance with a host of \nenvironmental statutes and permits. 5 Tr 476-478, 488-491. Finally, Mr. Capra stated that METC \nwill employ best management practices (BMPs), as reflected in the environmental reports, that \nwill minimize and mitigate impacts and that additional measures may be implemented based on \nenvironmental permits obtained for the projects. 5 Tr 478-481, 492-494. \ne. Stephen G. Thornhill \n \nStephen G. Thornhill testified that he is a project manager for siting and environmental studies \nin the environmental services global practice division at BMcD. 5 Tr 506. He provided testimony \nadopting, in its entirety, the pre-filed direct testimony of METC witness Kathyrn A. Samuelson. \n\n\nPage 11 \nU-21471 et al. \n5 Tr 508-509. He sponsored Exhibit METC-50, and through Ms. Samuelson, \nExhibits METC-22A through METC-24A and METC-22B through METC-24B. \n \nIn her direct pre-filed testimony, Ms. Samuelson testified that, at METC’s direction, BMcD \nconducted route studies for the Nelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line. 5 Tr 512, 540. \nAccording to Ms. Samuelson, BMcD first established a study area for each proposed transmission \nline and then mapped resources within those study areas. 5 Tr 512, 540; see also, \nExhibit METC-23A, p. 10; Exhibit METC-23B, p. 10. After mapping resources, BMcD then \nestablished a network of route segments; these segments were then in turn used to identify \npotential routes that avoided or minimized impacts while providing a constructable alignment. \n5 Tr 513, 541; see also, Exhibit METC-23A, pp. 24-26; Exhibit METC-23B, pp. 25-27. Ms. \nSamuelson next stated that the potential routes were evaluated based on a host of factors that \nincluded evaluation categories for engineering, environmental, and social impacts. \n5 Tr 513-515, 541-543. From this data, she stated that several trends were identified to narrow the \nnumber of potential routes. A proposed route and an alternate route were then selected for each \nproposed transmission line and included in the construction plan for each respective line. \n5 Tr 515-517, 543-545. \n \nMs. Samuelson also testified that BMcD consulted with various local, state, and federal \nagencies about the identified routes included in the construction plans. 5 Tr 518, 546. She stated \nthat BMcD prepared an environmental report for each proposed transmission line that provided an \nanalysis of the natural and human resources within the vicinity of the projects and described the \nmethods by which impacts could be avoided or mitigated. 5 Tr 519, 547; see also, \nExhibits METC-24A and METC-24B. Specifically, Ms. Samuelson described potential impacts to \nland use, human settlement, recreation, public services and transportation, water resources, fish, \n\n\nPage 12 \nU-21471 et al. \nwildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, geological resources, air quality, and noise, and further \ndescribed how the projects will avoid or mitigate impacts to these resources. \n5 Tr 519-535, 547-565. In conclusion, Ms. Samuelson testified that the route proposed for each \ntransmission line is the most reasonable and feasible route for each respective project. \n5 Tr 536, 566. \nf. \nMark A. Israel, M.D. \n \nMark A. Israel testified on behalf of METC that he is a doctor and scientific researcher who, \nin his 48-year career, has been responsible for diagnosing and treating patients, conducting \nmedical and biological research, teaching medicine, and directing and managing a major medical \ncare center. 5 Tr 607, 622. He sponsored Exhibits METC-25A and METC-25B. \n \nDr. Israel explained that he has developed medical expertise in electromagnetic fields (EMF) \nand that he has reviewed thousands of studies on the scientific research on EMF and their effect at \nthe cellular level, including the long-term effects of EMF exposure on animals. 5 Tr 614-615, 617, \n629-630, 632. Based on his review, Dr. Israel opined that, taken as a whole, these studies do not \nshow that EMF exposures cause biologically significant effects in cells that could cause or \ncontribute to the development of cancer. 5 Tr 616, 631. Dr. Israel also testified that the World \nHealth Organization (WHO) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have found that laboratory \nstudies have not identified any connection between EMF exposure and cancer. 5 Tr 618-619, \n633-634. He stated that he has reviewed information about the EMF levels for both the Nelson-\nOneida Line and Helix-Hiple Line and that in his expert opinion there is no reliable scientific basis \nto conclude that exposure to power frequency EMF from the projects will cause or contribute to \nthe development of cancer in children or adults. 5 Tr 620, 635. \n\n\nPage 13 \nU-21471 et al. \ng. Gary B. Johnson, Ph.D. \n \nGary B. Johnson testified that he is a senior managing scientist at Exponent, an engineering \nand scientific consulting firm. 5 Tr 643, 666. He sponsored Exhibits METC-26A, METC-27A, \nMETC-26B, and METC-27B. \n \nDr. Johnson explained that he calculated the expected magnetic fields, electric fields, audible \nnoise (AN), and radio noise (RN) for the projects. 5 Tr 647-649, 670-672; see also, \nExhibits METC-27A and METC-27B. He testified that the highest magnetic field levels \ncalculated at the edge of the ROWs for the projects are less than common fields experienced in the \neveryday environment, less than typical household items, and less than limits set in guidelines by \nnational and international organizations. 5 Tr 655-656, 678-679. He further testified that AN \nlevels at the edge of the ROWs for the projects are below target values published by the U.S. \nEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the WHO, and that METC’s designs for RN comply \nwith applicable federal regulations. 5 Tr 660, 662-663, 683, 685-686. Dr. Johnson also contended \nthat the projects are not expected to cause stray voltage. 5 Tr 664, 687. In conclusion, \nDr. Johnson opined that the projects are similar to other 345-kV transmission lines and that \ncalculated values of electric fields, magnetic fields, AN, and RN avoid unreasonable adverse \neffects. 5 Tr 664, 687-688. \nh. Daniel L. Belin \n \nDaniel L. Belin testified that he is the principal project manager and team lead for \nenvironmental and permitting services at DNV. 5 Tr 701, 713. He sponsored \nExhibits METC-28A and METC-28B. \n \nMr. Belin testified that, based on his review, METC’s route studies considered factors and \nresources typically evaluated for projects of their size, and that the studies utilized industry best \n\n\nPage 14 \nU-21471 et al. \npractices. 5 Tr 704-706, 716-718. He also opined that the environmental reports generated for the \nprojects analyzed resources and data that are commonly reviewed and that the measures adopted \nby METC to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts are consistent with industry standards. \n5 Tr 708-709, 711, 720-721, 723. Mr. Belin also asserted that the projects will be able to comply \nwith permit requirements and conditions that would typically apply to high voltage transmission \nlines. 5 Tr 710, 722. \n2. Commission Staff \na. Naomi J. Simpson \n \nNaomi J. Simpson testified that she is the manager of the Resource Optimization and \nCertification Section within the Energy Resources Division at the Commission. 5 Tr 1178. She \nsponsored Exhibit S-1. \n \nMs. Simpson’s testimony relates to the Staff’s overall review of METC’s applications and \nrecommendations regarding whether each proposed transmission line’s proposed and alternate \nroute meet Act 30’s requirements. She testified that the projects are each a major transmission line \nunder the law and that METC provided one alternate route for each proposed transmission line, \nalthough approximately one-third of each alternate route is identical to their respective \ntransmission line’s proposed route. 5 Tr 1186-1187. She further testified that it is unclear whether \nthe proposed quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the projects justify their \nconstruction because it is not clear that the benefits would justify construction if the remainder of \nthe LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio is not built. 5 Tr 1187. Accordingly, she recommended that the \nCommission condition approval of the projects on the remaining portions of the LRTP Tranche 1 \nportfolio receiving regulatory approval in the respective state where they will be constructed. \n5 Tr 1188. \n\n\nPage 15 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nAdditionally, Ms. Simpson testified that the proposed route and alternate route for the \nNelson-Oneida Line and Helix-Hiple Line are reasonable and feasible, and that both transmission \nlines do not present an unreasonable threat to public health or safety. 5 Tr 1189. However, she \nrelayed the Staff’s concerns regarding METC’s efforts to work with affected landowners through \nland agreements and urges the company to make minor adjustments for landowners where \npossible. 5 Tr 1189-1191. She further stated that the Staff urges METC to utilize existing rights \nof way to minimize impacts to landowners. 5 Tr 1191-1192. \n \nOverall, Ms. Simpson testified that the Staff finds that METC complies with the application \nrequirements outlined in Act 30 and that the Commission should approve METC’s applications \nsubject to the following conditions: (1) that the remaining portions of the LRTP Tranche 1 \nportfolio receive necessary regulatory approval, (2) that METC be required to file a memorandum \nin this docket detailing when each LRTP Tranche 1 project has received approval, and (3) that \nMETC commits to considering minor route changes at the request of impacted landowners and to \nprovide details in this docket about the process by which affected landowners can submit such \nrequests and why any proposed adjustment could not be accommodated. 5 Tr 1192-1193. \nb. Karsten D. Szajner \n \nKarsten D. Szajner testified that he is an economic analyst in the Resource Optimization and \nCertification Section at the Commission. 5 Tr 1196. He sponsored Exhibits S-2.0 through S-2.4. \n \nMr. Szajner’s testimony relates to the Staff’s position regarding the Nelson-Oneida Line. \nMr. Szajner testified that METC held public meetings and offered to meet with the chief elected \nofficials of affected municipalities and further stated that the company indicated that construction \nfor the proposed transmission line would begin in the first quarter of 2028, which the Staff found \nto be a reasonable timeframe. 5 Tr 1200. However, he contended that, although the company \n\n\nPage 16 \nU-21471 et al. \nprovided a summary of comments received at public meetings, the quality of these summaries was \nlacking and the company’s generic responses to parcel-specific comments were not helpful. \n5 Tr 1207-1208. Mr. Szajner further testified that METC provided a description of the proposed \nroute and an alternate route, including the Staff’s concerns regarding the overlap of these routes, as \nwell as information regarding local ordinances and estimated costs. 5 Tr 1200-1203. Regarding \nthe need for the proposed line, Mr. Szajner stated that METC provided information about the \nquantifiable and nonquantifiable public and private benefits of the project along with information \naddressing the potential effects of the project on public health and safety. 5 Tr 1204-1206. \n \nMr. Szajner concluded that METC submitted information sufficient to demonstrate that its \napplication for the Nelson-Oneida Line substantially meets statutory requirements but that the \nCommission should condition issuance of a certificate on the company providing contact \ninformation to landowners so that they can convey any concerns during and after construction. \nFinally, Mr. Szajner proposed that the Commission direct the Staff to develop filing guidelines for \nAct 30 applications. 5 Tr 1209-1210. \nc. Marceline A. Champion \n \nMarceline A. Champion testified that she is a public utilities engineer in the Resource \nOptimization and Certification Section at the Commission. 5 Tr 1213. She sponsored Exhibits \nS-3.0 and S-3.2, and Confidential Exhibit S-3.1. \n \nMs. Champion’s testimony relates to the Staff’s position regarding the Helix-Hiple Line. She \ntestified that METC held public meetings, offered to meet with the chief elected official of \naffected municipalities, and provided summaries of public comments received at public meetings \nin conformance with Act 30 requirements; however, Ms. Champion argued that landowners had \nlimited ability to understand if their feedback was considered and that more robust communication \n\n\nPage 17 \nU-21471 et al. \nis needed. 5 Tr 1217-1219. She further testified that METC indicated that construction of the line \nwould begin in the fall of 2025, which the Staff found to be a reasonable timeframe. 5 Tr 1220. \nAdditionally, Ms. Champion contended that METC provided detailed descriptions of the proposed \nroute and an alternate route but she reiterated the Staff questions regarding the amount of overlap \nbetween these two routes. 5 Tr 1220-1222. With respect to need, Ms. Champion stated that the \ncompany provided information in its application supporting the need for the proposed transmission \nline based on system reliability, economic value, and support for policy mandates, and further that \nMETC provided information on the public and private benefits of the project. 5 Tr 1223-1226. \nShe further asserted that METC’s application contained information regarding the public impact of \nthe proposed transmission line, including the effects on public health and safety. 5 Tr 1226-1227. \nLastly, Ms. Champion recommended that the Commission direct the Staff to develop filing \nguidelines for Act 30 applications. 5 Tr 1227. \nd. Zachary C. Heidemann \n \nZachary C. Heidemann testified that he is a public utilities engineer in the Resource \nOptimization and Certification Section at the Commission. 5 Tr 1230. He sponsored Exhibits \nS-4.0 through S-4.41 and Confidential Exhibit S-4.42. \n \nMr. Heidemann’s testimony relates to the Staff’s due diligence and technical analysis of the \nproposed route and alternate route for both the Nelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line. He \nfirst testified to the overlap between these routes and notes that approximately 19.3 miles and \napproximately 12.11 miles of the proposed route and alternate route overlap for the Helix-Hiple \nLine and Nelson-Oneida Line, respectively. 5 Tr 1236-1237. In turn, he argued that it is therefore \nunclear if METC has adequately identified an alternate route for each proposed transmission line. \n5 Tr 1237-1238. \n\n\nPage 18 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nMr. Heidemann also testified as to the total expected benefits to LRZ 7 from both projects and \ncontended that these benefits are not based on the construction of the Nelson-Oneida Line and the \nHelix-Hiple Line alone. Rather, he asserted that the total expected benefits are contingent on the \nconstruction of the other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. 5 Tr 1238. Mr. Heidemann \nnoted that other MISO multi-value projects (MVPs) have not always received timely approval and \nthat a similar delay for the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio could impact the benefits to Michigan \nratepayers. 5 Tr 1238-1239. Additionally, he testified as to the private benefits of the projects and \ntheir estimated costs to ratepayers. 5 Tr 1240-1242. \n \nWith respect to METC’s route studies, Mr. Heidemann explained that the Staff reviewed the \nstudies and applied a normalization formula to rank the potential routes explored for both proposed \ntransmission lines. 5 Tr 1247-1248. Based on this analysis, he assessed how the proposed routes \nand the alternate routes performed and how the routes selected by METC were reasonable choices. \n5 Tr 1248-1249, 1253-1255. Furthermore, as part of the Staff’s analysis, he explained how scores \nfor the proposed routes and the alternate routes changed following the company’s refinement of \nthese routes based on agency and public input. 5 Tr 1256-1262, 1266-1269. Mr. Heidemann also \nrecapped the results of the Staff’s analysis of a single segment spliced into the proposed route as \nan alternative to one of the segments in the company’s original proposed route for the Helix-Hiple \nLine to avoid impacts to a rural airport.6 5 Tr 1263-1265. \n \nLastly, Mr. Heidemann testified about the human health and safety impacts of the projects and \nrecommended that METC be required to investigate noise complaints associated with the projects. \n \n 6 Act 30 enables parties to submit an alternative route for a proposed major transmission line. \nSee, MCL 460.568(4). \n\n\nPage 19 \nU-21471 et al. \n5 Tr 1272-1275. He further recommended that the Commission direct the Staff to develop filing \nguidelines for Act 30 applications. 5 Tr 1277. \n3. Citizens Utility Board of Michigan and Sierra Club \na. Douglas B. Jester \n \nDouglas B. Jester testified that he is the managing partner of 5 Lakes Energy LLC. 5 Tr 934. \nHe sponsored Exhibits CUB-1 through CUB-4. \n \nMr. Jester opined that MISO’s projections of the benefits of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio are \nreasonable. 5 Tr 943 (referencing Exhibit METC-3B). Further, he asserted that MISO’s \nprojections of the benefits to LRZ 7 may be understated due to the increased need for transmission \ninfrastructure to accommodate higher levels of clean energy incentivized by the federal Inflation \nReduction of Act of 2022 and Public Act 235 of 2023. 5 Tr 950-952. Additionally, Mr. Jester \nreferenced a report he co-authored that analyzed Michigan’s transmission needs and that produced \nsimilar results to those produced by MISO; he stated that the report also identified an additional \n300-megawatt (MW) import capability into LRZ 7 from non-MISO regions that was previously \nnot considered by MISO. 5 Tr 952. Mr. Jester also contended that the history of integrated \nresource plan (IRP) cases before the Commission has shown that increasing import capability by \nexpanding transmission capacity is an important component of the pathway to retire legacy fossil \nfuel generation and replace it with clean energy. 5 Tr 952-953. Accordingly, Mr. Jester opined \nthat the evidence demonstrates that the quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the \nproposed transmission lines justify their construction and that the Commission should grant \ncertificates for each of the projects. 5 Tr 956. \n\n\nPage 20 \nU-21471 et al. \n4. Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, and Clean \nGrid Alliance \na. Natalie Lyijynen \n \nNatalie Lyijynen testified that she is a sustainable business associate at MEIBC and IEI. \n5 Tr 811. She sponsored Exhibits MEIC-1 through MEIC-6. \n \nMs. Lyijynen testified in support of the projects as part of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio and \nemphasized that the public benefits of the projects justify their construction. She highlighted the \ncritical role of MISO’s long-range transmission planning in maintaining electric reliability across \nthe region and concurred with Mr. Marshall’s testimony regarding the public benefits of the \nprojects. 5 Tr 814-822. Ms. Lyijynen also asserted that the projects will support reliability, \nimprove grid flexibility, and alleviate congestion. 5 Tr 823-829. She further stated that the \nprojects are expected to increase access to more affordable generation resources and promote \ngreater competition. 5 Tr 829-837. Additionally, she testified that the projects will be essential \nfor achieving Michigan’s decarbonization targets. 5 Tr 837-842. As a result, Ms. Lyijynen \nrecommended that the Commission find that the quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits \nof the project justify their construction. 5 Tr 843. \nb. Michael Goggin \n \nMichael Goggin testified that he is a vice president at Grid Strategies LLC, a consulting firm \nbased in the Washington D.C. area. 5 Tr 847. He sponsored Exhibits MEIC-7 through MEIC-14. \n \nMr. Goggin provided testimony to demonstrate that the projects satisfy the statutory \nrequirement for the quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the projects to justify their \nconstruction. 5 Tr 848. He testified that the projects would lower electricity costs in Michigan by \nconnecting cheaper renewable resources from MISO’s western regions and delivering their output \nto Michigan ratepayers without being degraded by congestion. 5 Tr 860-876. Further, he asserted \n\n\nPage 21 \nU-21471 et al. \nthat the projects are essential to cost-effectively deliver renewable energy resources to meet \nMichigan’s renewable portfolio standard. 5 Tr 876-881. Mr. Goggin also stated that the projects \nwill enhance electric reliability and resilience while minimizing costs. 5 Tr 881-892. Finally, he \ncontended that the projects would contribute to pollution reduction in both Michigan and the \nMISO region. 5 Tr 892-895. \n5. Nelson-Oneida Intervenors \na. Brian C. Andrews \n \nBrian C. Andrews testified that he is a consultant in the field of public utility regulation and a \nprincipal with Brubaker & Associates, Inc. 5 Tr 974. He sponsored Exhibits NROL-1 through \nNROL-6. \n \nMr. Andrews asserted that the most important factors to consider when routing a transmission \nline include impacts to residences, cost, and the paralleling of existing linear infrastructure. \n5 Tr 979. Mr. Andrews, in turn, criticized METC’s route studies and argued that the company did \nnot adequately consider the use of an existing ROW owned by Consumers Energy Company \n(Consumers), which he asserted is an appropriate paralleling opportunity in this case. \n5 Tr 982-985. He also contended that METC did not evaluate the cost of any of the potential \nroutes for the transmission line, and he further argued that the alternate route for the \nNelson-Oneida Line is likely to cost less than METC’s proposed route due to fewer heavy angles \nneeding to be used and fewer wetlands impacted. 5 Tr 986-988. Furthermore, Mr. Andrews \nopined that the alternate route would have superior river crossings as compared to METC’s \nproposed route due to the geography of the crossing and the ability to avoid floodplain impacts. \n5 Tr 988-992. Accordingly, based on these deficiencies, Mr. Andrews argued that METC’s \n\n\nPage 22 \nU-21471 et al. \nproposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line is not the most feasible and most reasonable route. \n5 Tr 993. \n \nInstead, Mr. Andrews contended that the alternate route or an alternative route that utilizes \nMETC’s proposed route and the existing Consumers ROW is the most feasible and most \nreasonable route. 5 Tr 993. He argued that the alternative route proposed by the Nelson-Oneida \nIntervenors is superior to METC’s proposed route because it uses the existing Consumers ROW, \nreduces costs, and has better river crossings. 5 Tr 993-996. As a result, he advocated for the \nCommission to approve this alternative route. 5 Tr 997. Mr. Andrews also advocated for the \nCommission to alternatively approve the alternate route for the Nelson-Oneida Line because the \nroute outperforms METC’s proposed route on a number of evaluation factors. 5 Tr 998-999. \nLastly, Mr. Andrews highlighted the overlap between METC’s proposed route and the alternate \nroute and questioned METC’s decision not to utilize a route segment through the Maple River \nState Game Area, stating that another transmission line uses this public land. 5 Tr 1001-1002. \nb. Larry Strzalka \n \nLarry Strzalka testified that he lives on a farm in Eagle, Michigan, that is along METC’s \nproposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 1045. He sponsored Exhibit LS-1. \n \nMr. Strzalka stated that METC’s proposed route runs through the middle of his property, \nwhich he contended will disrupt his farming and beef cattle operation. 5 Tr 1045. According to \nMr. Strzalka, cattle cannot graze under high voltage transmission lines because the charge from the \nlines makes them uncomfortable. 5 Tr 1045-1046. He also asserted that the proposed \ntransmission line will damage drain tiles on his property, and he questioned why METC cannot \nuse the existing Consumers ROW. 5 Tr 1046-1047. Mr. Strzalka also expressed concerns \n\n\nPage 23 \nU-21471 et al. \nregarding the decrease in value to his land as well as the impact of the transmission line on his \ngrandchildren’s health and their ability to enjoy the property. 5 Tr 1047-1048. \nc. Stephen Colby \n \nStephen Colby testified that he resides on an approximately 43-acre parcel located along \nMETC’s proposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 1054. He sponsored Exhibits SC-1 \nthrough SC-3. \n \nMr. Colby asserted that construction of METC’s proposed route along the eastern parts of his \nproperty will compact and degrade soil and will disrupt crop production. 5 Tr 1056. Further, \nMr. Colby expressed his concern that the transmission line will negatively impact his horse pasture \nand will drastically diminish the beauty and value of his property. 5 Tr 1056. Additionally, \nMr. Colby stated that METC’s proposed route will impact the historical resources on his property, \nwhich he claimed has been used as a river crossing by early European settlers and Native \nAmericans, including alleged use of the area by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. \n5 Tr 1057-1059. Finally, Mr. Colby testified that the project would impact woodlands on his \nproperty that provide an eagle habitat, and that METC’s proposed route will be located on a steep \nravine that is not ideal for construction and will disrupt the boundary of his property. \n5 Tr 1059-1061. \nd. Joseph Haddix \n \nJoseph Haddix testified that he lives on property traversed by METC’s proposed route for the \nNelson-Oneida Line in Grand Ledge, Michigan. 5 Tr 1070. He sponsored Exhibit JH-1. \n \nMr. Haddix stated that METC’s proposed route will run through the center of his property, \nwhich he claimed will have a significant impact on farming and mining activities that occur on the \nproperty. 5 Tr 1070. He testified that the proposed transmission line will cause safety concerns \n\n\nPage 24 \nU-21471 et al. \ndue to the presence of towers and lines that will interfere with the equipment needed to mine his \nproperty. 5 Tr 1073. Additionally, Mr. Haddix testified that archeological artifacts were found on \nhis property when a natural gas pipeline was installed on the property. 5 Tr 1075. Finally, \nMr. Haddix questioned why METC’s proposed route would need to be located on his property and \ninflict significant impacts when an existing utility corridor is already available for use. \n5 Tr 1070-1072. \ne. Gordon Diemer \n \nGordon Diemer testified that he is the landowner of a 23-acre property adjacent to the \nNelson-Oneida Line in Grand Ledge, Michigan. 5 Tr 1081. He sponsored Exhibit GD-1. \n \nMr. Diemer explained that he has both educational and professional backgrounds in avionic \ntechnology and that he owns an avionics business whereby he operates a Federal Aviation \nAdministration (FAA)-approved workshop on his property to service aircraft. 5 Tr 1081-1082. \nHe stated that, historically, private aircraft owners could fly and land their aircraft on an airstrip \nlocated on the property and have maintenance work completed in his workshop. 5 Tr 1082. \nHowever, due to his wife’s recent illness, Mr. Diemer stated that he now works part-time and, as a \nresult, only performs his work at local airports and airfields. 5 Tr 1082-1083. Mr. Diemer has let \nthe property’s airstrip to a neighbor who now plants corn in the area; however, he testified that he \nintends to resume full-time work at his workshop and that the proposed transmission line will \nprevent pilots from ever using the airstrip on his property to access his workshop. 5 Tr 1083. \nf. \nAnthony Wohlscheid \n \nAnthony Wohlscheid testified that METC’s proposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line runs \nthrough his family’s 60-acre centennial farm in Eagle, Michigan. 5 Tr 1088. He sponsored \nExhibits AW-1 through AW-3. \n\n\nPage 25 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nMr. Wohlscheid explained that METC’s proposed route runs on approximately 9.2 acres of his \nproperty and encroaches upon recreational and wildlife spaces that include all-terrain vehicle \ntrails, drainage tiles, a mature orchard, hunting stands, food plots, and a small pond. \n5 Tr 1088-1089. He expressed his concerns regarding the safety of the transmission line as it \nrelates to his children’s use of the property for recreational purposes, the effect of EMF on his \nchildren, the ability to perform routine maintenance on his roof, and the impact on the use of a \nreserve drain field for a residence on the property. 5 Tr 1089-1090. Mr. Wohlscheid also \nconveyed his concerns about the transmission line’s effects on his family’s legacy in the property, \nwhich he stated dates to 1895, and the longstanding efforts to create wildlife habitat and \nrecreational opportunities on the property. 5 Tr 1089, 1091-1093. \n \nAdditionally, Mr. Wohlscheid testified as to the impact of the proposed transmission line on \nthe value of his property and the impact it will have on current and future farming activities. \n5 Tr 1094. He contended that METC did not provide his family the opportunity to provide input \non the relocation of the proposed route to the eastern portion of his property, and he asserted that \nhis concerns about the transmission line would be addressed if METC utilizes the alternate route \nthat incorporates Consumers existing ROW. 5 Tr 1094-1095. \ng. Dr. James Sikarskie \n \nDr. James Sikarskie testified that he is a retired professor of veterinary medicine and a fully \nlicensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. 5 Tr 1101. He sponsored Exhibits JS-1 through JS-4. \n \nDr. Sikarskie stated that he possesses expert qualifications in Michigan’s nesting eagle habitat, \nbehavior, and mortality through his academic studies and experiences studying and publishing \narticles on the subject. 5 Tr 1102, 1104. According to Dr. Sikarskie, eagles usually nest in the \nhighest tree to avoid human contact and prefer to eat fish and some aquatic birds and mammals. \n\n\nPage 26 \nU-21471 et al. \nAs a result, he stated that consideration should be given to the Nelson-Oneida Line’s placement at \nriver crossings that lie within nesting eagle habitat. 5 Tr 1105-1106. Dr. Sikarskie testified that \nMETC’s proposed route, if constructed as designed, would result in the destruction of a large stand \nof old growth trees at the Grand River crossing that offers nesting opportunities and prevents \nerosion and chemical contamination of nesting eagle habitat. 5 Tr 1108-1109. Conversely, he \nstated that the alternate route’s crossings at both the Looking Glass River and the Grand River \noffer advantages over METC’s proposed route given the alternate route’s limited impacts on \nwetlands, avoidance of the cutting of mature trees, and use of existing cleared corridors designated \nas a transmission line ROW. 5 Tr 1109-1110. Accordingly, based on his expertise and review of \nMETC’s proposed route and the alternate route for the Nelson-Oneida Line, Dr. Sikarskie opined \nthat the alternate route “will have much less harmful impact on the nesting eagle population and \nthe population of other raptors feeding and reproducing” in riverine habitats. 5 Tr 1105. \nh. Valerie Wohlscheid-Brennan \n \nValerie Wohlscheid-Brennan testified that she is a system engineer at HomeWorks Tri-County \nElectric Cooperative and that she owns property in Grand Ledge, Michigan, along METC’s \nproposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 1116, 1121. She sponsored Exhibits VWB-1 \nthrough VWB-4. \n \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan first asserted that METC failed to justify the need for a 200-foot \nROW for the Nelson-Oneida Line and that other MISO transmission lines use ROWs that are \nmuch smaller than the one requested for the projects. 5 Tr 1121-1124. She next contended that \nthe three most important routing factors are safety, damage to landowners and the environment, \nand cost. Based on these factors, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan argued that METC’s proposed route is \ndeficient because it includes a large loop to circumvent the Maple River State Game Area, which \n\n\nPage 27 \nU-21471 et al. \nshe contended unnecessarily increases costs. 5 Tr 1124-1126. Further, she asserted that METC’s \nfailure to utilize the existing Consumers ROW is unjustified and contrary to sound routing \nprinciples. 5 Tr 1126-1130. Finally, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan argued that the southern portion of \nMETC’s proposed route contains numerous angles that increase costs. She in turn argued that the \nalternate route for the Nelson-Oneida Line is superior and that METC’s proposed route is not \nfeasible or reasonable. 5 Tr 1130, 1132. \n \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan also testified as to the impacts of METC’s proposed route, including \nsafety concerns for airstrips and gravel pits located along the route. 5 Tr 1131-1132. She also \nstated that METC’s proposed route will disproportionately impact her farm, as well as her family’s \nnearby centennial farm, which includes impacts to endangered species. 5 Tr 1133-1137. \ni. \nAvery Sanborn \n \nAvery Sanborn testified on behalf of his family’s property and noted that he is a forest \ntechnician for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 5 Tr 1144. He sponsored \nExhibits AS-1 through AS-5. \n \nMr. Sanborn stated that he reviewed METC’s proposed route and the alternate route for the \nNelson-Oneida Line and conducted an additional analysis of the routes, including field \nreconnaissance. 5 Tr 1146-1147. Based on this analysis, he contended that there are significant \ndiscrepancies between METC’s studies and his observations regarding wetlands within the ROW \nfor the company’s proposed route. Specifically, Mr. Sanborn alleged that METC inaccurately \nclassified 35 acres along its proposed route as non-wetland. 5 Tr 1147. Furthermore, based on \nland cover maps he created, Mr. Sanborn asserted that an alternative route segment advocated for \nby the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, which makes use of the Maple River State Game Area, \noutperforms METC’s proposed route in at least 12 of the 21 routing factors and reduces the \n\n\nPage 28 \nU-21471 et al. \nnumber of stream crossings, including avoiding two previously unidentified trout streams. \n5 Tr 1148-1150. He also explained the historical significance of his family’s property. 5 Tr 1151. \nAs a result, Mr. Sanborn opined that the alternative route segment proposed by the Nelson-Oneida \nIntervenors significantly reduces overall impacts to humans and the environment. 5 Tr 1151-1152. \n6. Knaggs Intervenors \na. Ronald S. Bewersdorff \n \nRonald S. Bewersdorff testified that he is the owner of two parcels of property in Portland, \nMichigan, that will be impacted by the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 910-911. He stated that his \nproperty is subject to the terms of a trust that designates the property as a wildlife sanctuary and \nprohibits trees from being removed. 5 Tr 911. According to Mr. Bewersdorff, he is opposed to \nthe transmission line because construction would necessitate extensive land clearing that would \nviolate the terms of the trust and would result in significant environmental disturbances that would \naffect the local ecosystem and wildlife habitats. 5 Tr 912, 914. He further stated that the \ntransmission line would reduce the value of his properties, increase operating and maintenance \ncosts, severely limit access to his property, and result in higher medical expenses over time. \n5 Tr 912-913. Finally, Mr. Bewersdorff testified that construction of the transmission line would \nnegatively impact aesthetics and alter the existing rural scenery of the properties. 5 Tr 914. \nb. Brenda Birchman \n \nBrenda Birchman testified that she owns property in Portland, Michigan, that will be impacted \nby METC’s proposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 916. Ms. Birchman stated that she \nand her husband purchased the property 35 years ago because they often canoed the Looking Glass \nRiver and admired the mature woods and untouched land and wetlands in the area. 5 Tr 917. She \nexplained that approximately 30 acres of the property have remained unchanged since the \n\n\nPage 29 \nU-21471 et al. \nproperty’s purchase and that she has engaged professional loggers to responsibly maintain forests \non the property. 5 Tr 918. Ms. Birchman further testified that the proposed transmission line will \nnegatively impact her access to the Looking Glass River and her ability to explore the property \nwith her grandchildren, as well as result in the destruction of wetlands that provide habitat to a \nhost of animals. 5 Tr 919-920. She opposed METC’s proposed route and expresses concerns that \nthe transmission line will result in pollution, attract deer ticks, open her property to trespassing and \nhunting, and decrease the value of the property. 5 Tr 920-921. \nc. Daniel L. May \n \nDaniel L. May testified that he owns property in Portland, Michigan, that will be impacted by \nthe proposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 923-924. According to Mr. May, the \nproposed transmission line would deforest woods and strip the tree line on his property and cut a \n200-foot swath through the middle of his property. 5 Tr 924. Mr. May stated that the proposed \ntransmission line would reduce the amount of land that is currently leased for farming, negatively \nimpacting his income. 5 Tr 924-925. He further testified that there is an active sand mine on the \nproperty and that the proposed transmission line could interfere with contractual obligations \ngoverning the extraction of materials from this mine. 5 Tr 925-926. Finally, Mr. May stated that \nthe proposed transmission line would decrease the value of the property because the aesthetics of \nthe property and wildlife habitat would suffer. 5 Tr 926. \nd. Kenneth D. May \n \nKenneth D. May testified that he owns property in Portland, Michigan, that will be impacted \nby the proposed route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 929-930. Mr. May stated that the \nproperty’s farmland is leased to a local farmer and that construction of the transmission line will \ndiminish the amount of land that can be leased, which will reduce his income. 5 Tr 930. He also \n\n\nPage 30 \nU-21471 et al. \ntestified that the transmission line would alter the aesthetics of the property and negatively impact \nwildlife habitat and property values. 5 Tr 930. \n7. Robert V. Lust \n \nRobert V. Lust testified that he is the owner of a property that is contiguous to the Helix-Hiple \nLine in Eckford Township, Michigan. 5 Tr 961. He sponsored Exhibits LUS-1.1 through \nLUS-4.2. \n \nMr. Lust testified that he first learned of the Helix-Hiple Line in August 2024, when he \nreceived a notice of hearing and opportunity to comment in Case No. U-21471. 5 Tr 963. Upon \nreviewing the filings in the docket in that case, Mr. Lust stated that he discovered that the \nproposed transmission line traverses approximately 110 feet north of his property. 5 Tr 963. He \nexplained that METC’s proposed route for the Helix-Hiple Line is in an area of higher residential \nhousing density, is approximately 50% longer, and requires more acres of land and poles than the \nroute proposed in METC’s construction plan. 5 Tr 965. To mitigate these impacts, Mr. Lust \nsuggested that the route could be altered to make use of three largely unused parcels to the west of \nthe proposed route. According to Mr. Lust, use of these parcels would result in a shorter \ntransmission line that is farther away from residences and would utilize relatively unproductive \nland. 5 Tr 965-966. \nB. Rebuttal Testimony \n1. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC \na. Charles L. Marshall \n \nMr. Marshall provided rebuttal testimony to rebut the Staff’s and Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan’s \ndirect testimony. He sponsored Exhibits METC-29R and METC-30R. \n\n\nPage 31 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nMr. Marshall first disagreed with the Staff’s contention that the public benefits of the projects \nwill be unclear if the entire LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio is not constructed. He opined that the \nprojects, even if viewed in isolation, provide benefits to Michigan. 5 Tr 323-324, 326-327. \nAccordingly, he contended that the Staff’s proposed condition related to approval of the other \nprojects in the portfolio is unreasonable. 5 Tr 325-328. Mr. Marshall also stated that other MISO \nMVPs, including MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP) 11, should not be a source of \nconcern, but rather are demonstrative of MISO’s successful process. 5 Tr 330-332. Additionally, \nMr. Marshall conveyed his belief that filing guidelines are not necessary. 5 Tr 333. Finally, \nMr. Marshall asserted that Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan’s proposal to upgrade existing facilities \ninstead of constructing the proposed transmission lines is not a feasible alternative and that METC \nconsidered the use of existing ROWs in its planning process. 5 Tr 334-336. \nb. B. Ashley DuPree \n \nMr. DuPree provided rebuttal testimony addressing the Staff’s and the intervening \nlandowners’ direct testimony. 5 Tr 393. He sponsored Exhibits METC-31R through METC-37R. \n \nMr. DuPree defended METC’s route refinement process and stated that the company \nconsidered landowner input alongside engineering, environmental, and cost factors. He asserted \nthat METC considered all feedback and that the company’s proposed routes for the transmission \nlines were adjusted where feasible. 5 Tr 395-399. Mr. DuPree also contended that the current \nnumber of acquired easements is not indicative of METC’s intent to accommodate minor \nmodifications to its proposed routes and that the record demonstrates that the company considers \nlandowner input. 5 Tr 399-403. As such, he advocated for the Commission to reject the Staff’s \nproposed condition regarding documenting landowner accommodations. 5 Tr 403-404. \n\n\nPage 32 \nU-21471 et al. \nMoreover, Mr. DuPree stated that the transmission lines require a 200-foot ROW for maintenance \nand safety reasons. 5 Tr 404-411. \n \nAdditionally, Mr. DuPree argued that the Commission should reject approval of the alternative \nroutes proposed by the Staff and the intervening landowners for both the Helix-Hiple Line and the \nNelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 412-436. He further asserted that even after reviewing the Staff’s and \nthe intervening landowners’ testimony, METC recommends no further changes to its proposed \nroutes for the proposed transmission lines. 5 Tr 437. Lastly, Mr. DuPree disputed intervening \nlandowners’ testimony regarding safety concerns and disagrees with the Staff’s proposal to require \nMETC to resolve noise complaints, arguing that the company already adequately responds to such \ncomplaints. 5 Tr 437-440. \nc. M. Cynthia Stump \n \nMs. Stump provided rebuttal testimony to respond to the Staff’s and some intervening \nlandowners’ concerns about METC’s public comments, engagement, and notice process. She \ndisagreed with the Staff’s suggestion that a formalized process for providing individual feedback \nto landowners is necessary and argued that METC has taken extensive efforts to publicize public \nmeetings and engage with landowners, including through “open house” style public meetings and \nthrough land agents. 5 Tr 463-464. Further, she contended that the Staff’s critiques of METC’s \nsummary of public comments from public meetings is not reflective of the company’s actual \nconsideration of those comments. 5 Tr 464. Moreover, Ms. Stump argued that a condition to \nrequire METC to share contact information with landowners is unnecessary since that is the \ncompany’s current business practice. \n\n\nPage 33 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nAdditionally, Ms. Stump asserted that objections raised by Mr. Lust regarding public notice \nfor the public meetings are unfounded and that METC met its legal obligations, including \npublicizing the meetings through numerous avenues. 5 Tr 466-467. \nd. Carlo P. Capra \n \nMr. Capra provided rebuttal testimony to respond to the Staff’s proposal to condition the \nprojects on approval of the other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. He contended that the \nStaff’s proposed condition would create uncertainty that would likely delay the projects and cause \ncosts to increase. 5 Tr 499-500. He also rebutted Mr. Andrews’ assertion that the alternative route \nproposed by the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors for the Nelson-Oneida Line would cost less than \nMETC’s proposed route. Specifically, Mr. Capra disagreed that comparing the number of certain \ntypes of structures between the two routes is an accurate way to compare costs. 5 Tr 500. He also \ndisagreed with Mr. Andrews’ assertion that the floodplains near the Grand River and Looking \nGlass River crossings for METC’s proposed route will cause construction complications. \n5 Tr 501. Finally, Mr. Capra testified that METC’s use of BMPs during construction ensures that \ndamage to drain tiles will be limited to the extent possible and that the company will seek input \nfrom landowners about drain tiles to minimize impacts. 5 Tr 502. \ne. Stephen G. Thornhill \n \nMr. Thornhill provided testimony rebutting certain aspects of the Staff’s and the intervening \nlandowners’ testimony. 5 Tr 568. He sponsored Exhibit METC-38R. \n \nMr. Thornhill noted that METC did not apply any limit to the amount of overlap that could \noccur between the company’s proposed routes and alternate routes for the transmission lines; he \nfurther argued that such a limitation could hamper route studies. 5 Tr 570-572. Mr. Thornhill also \ndisputed the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ opinions regarding the most important factors for routing \n\n\nPage 34 \nU-21471 et al. \na transmission line and asserted that METC considered paralleling and cost during its route studies \nfor both projects. 5 Tr 573-577, 582-583. Mr. Thornhill also defended METC’s desktop wetland \nanalysis, noting the methodological differences between Mr. Sanborn’s wetland observations, and \nexplained that a final wetland delineation will occur during permitting for the projects. \n5 Tr 584-588. Additionally, Mr. Thornhill agreed with the Staff’s overall assessments of the \ncompany’s proposed routes for the projects and emphasized that routing decisions involve trade-\noffs among multiple factors. He explained that the existing Consumers ROW is undeveloped, \nnarrower than needed, and would not reduce environmental and residential impacts enough to \noutweigh its limited benefits. 5 Tr 589-595. Accordingly, Mr. Thornhill opined that none of the \nalternative routes proposed by the intervenors are superior to the company’s proposed routes, and \nhe contested the intervenors’ testimony regarding impacts on environmental and historical \nresources caused by the company’s proposed routes. 5 Tr 595-603. \nf. \nMark A. Israel, M.D. \n \nDr. Israel provided rebuttal testimony to address certain landowners’ concerns about EMF and \nhealth. He reiterated that the body of scientific research addressing EMF and health is conclusive \nand demonstrates that exposure to EMF does not cause or contribute to adverse health effects, \nincluding cancers. 5 Tr 638-639. He also rebutted Mr. Wohlscheid’s concerns about the effect of \nEMF exposure on his family, stating that EMF levels are not expected to exceed 24 milligauss \n(mG) and that this exposure is far lower than that used in studies that did not show long-term \neffects on animals exposed to EMF levels in the range of many thousands of mG. 5 Tr 639. \n\n\nPage 35 \nU-21471 et al. \ng. Gary B. Johnson, Ph.D. \n \nDr. Johnson provided rebuttal testimony to respond to the Staff’s and intervening landowners’ \nconcerns related to EMF, AN, and stray voltage associated with the projects. He sponsored \nExhibits METC-39R, METC-40R, and METC-49R. \n \nDr. Johnson first disagreed with the Staff’s contention that noise from the projects is a health \nand safety issue. He stated that he is unaware of any peer-reviewed study that shows that AN or \nRN will be produced at levels that cause health issues, and further that the highest levels of AN \nproduced at the edge of the transmission lines’ ROWs will be below target values established by \nthe EPA and the WHO. 5 Tr 691-692. Dr. Johnson also testified that stray voltage concerns \nexpressed by several landowners are unwarranted since shocks typically do not arise because \nexisting structures will provide grounding that will reduce or eliminate risks. 5 Tr 693-694. \n \nRegarding EMF levels, Dr. Johnson opined that the levels of EMF generated by the proposed \ntransmission lines are below those associated with typical household items, including vacuum \ncleaners, electric stand mixers, and electric ranges, and that EMF levels will be hundreds to \nthousands of times less than international guidelines. 5 Tr 694. \nh. Daniel L. Belin \n \nMr. Belin provided rebuttal testimony to respond to the Staff’s and the Nelson-Oneida \nIntervenors’ testimony regarding METC’s route studies and environmental impacts of the projects. \n \nMr. Belin argued that the Staff’s analysis of METC’s route studies did not indicate that the \ncompany’s methodology for identifying and selecting routes was flawed. He opined that METC’s \nroute studies were in line with industry standards and argued that the Staff’s analysis confirms the \nresults of the company’s route studies. 5 Tr 726-727. In response to testimony from \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan, Mr. Belin testified that while collocation is often used as a routing \n\n\nPage 36 \nU-21471 et al. \nfactor, it is only one of many factors that are used to determine the reasonableness and feasibility \nof a route. He further noted that METC considered factors that are often a proxy for collocation, \nnamely vegetation and residential proximity. 5 Tr 729. With respect to Mr. Andrews’ testimony, \nMr. Belin argued that paralleling is only preferred when it avoids or minimizes impacts, which is \nnot the case for the existing Consumers ROW. 5 Tr 730. Overall, he argued that the Staff’s and \nthe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ testimony regarding METC’s route studies did not change his \nopinion that the results of the studies were reasonable and defensible. 5 Tr 731. \n \nConcerning environmental impacts, Mr. Belin argued that the projects will not ruin wetlands \nand that many impacts on resources can be avoided or mitigated. He also asserted that the creation \nof new transmission line ROW can convert wildlife habitat from one form to another and that any \nimpact on wildlife habitat will not be significant.7 5 Tr 733. Finally, Mr. Belin stated that the \nenvironmental concerns raised by the intervening landowners in this case are well within the range \nof concerns he has seen for similar projects he has worked on. 5 Tr 734. \ni. \nDaniel J. Munzel \n \nDaniel J. Munzel testified that he is the director of real estate at ITC Holdings. 5 Tr 737. He \nsponsored Exhibit METC-41R. \n \nMr. Munzel first rebutted criticism from the Staff that METC is not meaningfully negotiating \nwith landowners. He stated that the number of finalized land agreements with landowners is not a \nreflection of the company’s current landowner efforts, and that METC retained a professional land \nacquisition firm with trained land agents to meet with landowners, share information about the \nprojects, learn about unique characteristics of properties, and answer questions. He asserted that \n \n 7 For example, Mr. Munzel testified that “if tree clearing is involved, the change is from \nmature forest to early successional habitat, which benefits an entirely different type of bird species \nas well as pollinators and insects important to wildlife and biotic integrity.” 5 Tr 733. \n\n\nPage 37 \nU-21471 et al. \nthe company has made initial contact with landowners, which incorporates specific landowner \nrequests related to the projects, and that land acquisition typically follows issuance of a certificate \ngiven the uncertainty of the final routes for the projects at this time. 5 Tr 740-741. As such, he \nclaimed that it is unnecessary for the Commission to condition the issuance of certificates on \nMETC considering minor modifications and documenting why specific accommodations cannot \nbe made. 5 Tr 742-743. Similarly, Mr. Munzel testified that it is unnecessary for the Commission \nto condition the certificates on METC providing landowners with contact information, since the \ncompany already provides this information to landowners. 5 Tr 743-744. \n \nMr. Munzel also addressed concerns raised by landowners, including impacts on farming, \nmining, access, recreation, and property values. He responded that these issues are typically \ncompatible with transmission lines and can be addressed through project design, minor \nadjustments, and a damage claim process. 5 Tr 744-745. He again stated that METC uses \nindependent consultants to determine fair compensation for landowners and argued that an \neasement agreement would not change applicable laws regarding ownership rights. 5 Tr 746-747. \nj. \nRichard E. Harness \n \nRichard E. Harness testified that he is a certified wildlife biologist at EDM International, Inc. \n5 Tr 750. He sponsored Exhibit METC-42R. \n \nMr. Harness responded to concerns raised by certain landowners regarding eagle habitats and \nother avian-related issues. He disagreed with the landowners’ contention that the Nelson-Oneida \nLine will harm eagle habitat or populations and testified that METC’s Avian Protection Plan \n(APP) follows federal guidelines and includes best practices that are aimed at minimizing risks to \navian species and improving system reliability. 5 Tr 752. He also opined that there is no evidence \nthat the transmission line will have a material impact on eagle habitat, that eagles in the project \n\n\nPage 38 \nU-21471 et al. \narea are not expected to be limited by the availability of potential nesting sites, and that the \ncompany will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid disturbing known bald \neagle nests. 5 Tr 753-754. Mr. Harness also argued that there is no biological data to support the \nlandowners’ contentions that the alternate route for the Nelson-Oneida Line would have less \nimpact on nesting eagles. 5 Tr 754. \n \nMr. Harness also opined that the Nelson-Oneida Line will not result in significant avian \nimpacts related to collisions or electrocutions. He stated that studies show that power line \ncollisions represent a small risk to eagles compared to vehicular collisions and that METC has \ncommitted to using bird diverters that reduce collisions. 5 Tr 756-757. Moreover, he stated that \nthe risk of electrocution from transmission lines is less than distribution lines due to transmission \nlines using a greater amount of space between conductors. 5 Tr 758. Overall, he maintained that \nthe Nelson-Oneida Line will not cause a meaningful decline in bird populations and that the \ncompany’s mitigation efforts are sufficient to protect avian species. 5 Tr 759-760. \nk. Nancy C. Lee, M.D. \n \nNancy C. Lee testified that she is a medical doctor, medical epidemiologist, and public health \nspecialist. 5 Tr 763. She sponsored Exhibit METC-43R. \n \nDr. Lee testified that she has reviewed the body of scientific literature on EMF and childhood \nleukemia and that current studies find no consistent or statistically significant link between EMF \nexposure and childhood leukemia. 5 Tr 773-776. She further stated that epidemiological research \nfrom public health organizations, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of \nthe National Institutes of Health, and the WHO, have not revealed links between EMF exposure \nand childhood cancer. 5 Tr 776-777. As a result, Dr. Lee opined that there is no scientific basis to \nconclude that EMF exposure will cause or contribute to childhood leukemia. 5 Tr 777. \n\n\nPage 39 \nU-21471 et al. \nl. \nKatherine Palmquist \n \nKatherine Palmquist, a principal scientist at Exponent, provided rebuttal testimony to address \nassertions from Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ witnesses Mr. Strzalka and Mr. Colby that \ntransmission lines are harmful to livestock, especially cattle. 5 Tr 782. She sponsored \nExhibit METC-44R. \n \nMs. Palmquist referred to published scientific studies that demonstrate that exposure to EMF \nfrom transmission lines does not negatively affect cattle’s behavior, growth, or health, and she \nnoted that cattle regularly graze underneath transmission lines without issue. 5 Tr 782-785. For \nexample, she stated that studies on cows exposed to high EMF levels (up to 400-kV lines) found \nno significant impacts on their growth, behavior, reproduction, or milk production. 5 Tr 783-784. \n \nIn response to Mr. Colby’s claim that livestock are sensitive to EMF, Ms. Palmquist \nhighlighted research on various animals, including cattle, pigs, and sheep, that shows no adverse \neffects from EMF exposure from high-voltage lines. 5 Tr 785. She further explained that the \nlayout of the proposed transmission lines near Mr. Colby’s property would reduce the potential for \nlivestock exposure. 5 Tr 785. \nm. Douglas K. Hodge \n \nDouglas K. Hodge testified that he is the chief appraiser at the Peoples Company. 5 Tr 789. \nHe sponsored Exhibits METC-45R through METC-48R. \n \nMr. Dodge responded to landowners’ concerns about the projects’ impact on farming and \ntestified that transmission lines generally have a minimal impact on most farmers’ ability to farm \ntheir property. He asserted that there are very few farming activities that are restricted by the \npresence of a transmission line on farmland and that farming activities like crop production and \ngrazing livestock can still occur. 5 Tr 792-793. Mr. Hodge also testified that impacts to drainage \n\n\nPage 40 \nU-21471 et al. \ntiles on farmland can be mitigated and that damage caused by construction of the projects can be \nrepaired. 5 Tr 795-796. Further, while construction can compact soil, Mr. Hodge testified that the \nconstruction of transmission line poles will not result in long-term soil compaction that affects \ncrop production. 5 Tr 796-798. Finally. Mr. Hodge testified that there are generally no \nrestrictions imposed by transmission lines that would prohibit landowners from using their \nproperty for recreational purposes or from accessing their property. 5 Tr 798-799. \n2. Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, and Clean \nGrid Alliance \na. Michael Goggin \n \nMr. Goggin provided rebuttal testimony to respond to the Staff’s testimony regarding the costs \nand benefits of the proposed major transmission lines, as well as the Staff’s proposal to condition \nissuance of a certificate upon approvals of other LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio projects. \n \nMr. Goggin argued that because the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio is an MVP, costs are allocated \nacross the broader MISO region. Thus, even if the projects are not constructed, he asserted that \nMichigan ratepayers will still bear the costs for the remainder of the portfolio that is developed. \n5 Tr 899. Further, he argued that Michigan will still need to provide relief for transmission \noverloads, and that alternative solutions are likely to cost more and be less effective than the \nprojects. 5 Tr 900-901. In turn, Mr. Goggin argued that the proper net cost the Commission \nshould weigh for the transmission lines is the “small cost allocation Michigan has for its share of \nthe two Projects, minus the large benefits they provide including avoiding the much higher cost \nMichigan ratepayers would pay” if the projects are not constructed. 5 Tr 901. \n \nMr. Goggin also advocated for the Commission to reject the Staff’s proposed condition related \nto approvals for other projects within the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. He argued that delaying the \nprojects could raise costs and jeopardize project timelines. He further contended that waiting on \n\n\nPage 41 \nU-21471 et al. \napproval from other states would introduce unnecessary uncertainty, that prompt action is in \nratepayers’ interests, and that it is unlikely that the other projects in the portfolio will not receive \napproval. 5 Tr 902-904. Additionally, Mr. Goggin testified that it is impractical to evaluate the \nbenefits of the individual projects within the portfolio, but that even in the absence of the \ndevelopment of the remainder of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio, the projects will still provide \nstandalone benefits. 5 Tr 904-905. \n3. Nelson-Oneida Intervenors \na. Brian C. Andrews \n \nMr. Andrews provided rebuttal testimony to rebut the Staff’s direct testimony. He first argued \nthat the Staff should have recommended to the Commission which route was the most reasonable \nand feasible route, which he contended the Staff should have determined is the alternate route for \nthe Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 1022-1023. Mr. Andrews also took issue with the Staff’s route \nanalysis and asserted that the analysis is flawed because the normalization formula used by the \nStaff is meaningless with a sample size of 1,304 routes. According to Mr. Andrews, a more valid \nprocedure would have been a Z-score normalization, which determines the mean value of a data \nset and compares each individual factor to the mean and then divides by the standard deviation of \nthe dataset.8 5 Tr 1024-1025. Mr. Andrews further contended that the Staff’s analysis is flawed \nbecause the Staff did not weigh any of the factors and because METC’s factors omit paralleling \ndata and cost estimates. 5 Tr 1025-1026. Additionally, Mr. Andrews asserted that selection of the \n \n 8 Mr. Andrews presents the Z-score normalization with the following formula: \n \n𝑧𝑧= 𝑥𝑥− 𝜇𝜇\nσ\n \n \nIn this formula, x is the raw data point, µ is the mean of the dataset, and σ is the standard deviation \nof the dataset. 5 Tr 1025. \n\n\nPage 42 \nU-21471 et al. \nbest route is almost never primarily a mathematical exercise but rather is a judgment call based on \nthe unique circumstances of the proposed line, and that even if the Commission accepts the Staff’s \nanalysis, the analysis demonstrates that the alternate route is the better route. 5 Tr 1024, 1026. \nFinally, Mr. Andrews agreed with the Staff’s recommendation to develop filing guidelines for \nAct 30 applications and testified that the alternate route and the alternative routes proposed by the \nNelson-Oneida Intervenors could be further refined to address concerns. 5 Tr 1028-1030. \nIII. PROJECT OVERVIEW \n \nIn its applications, METC states that it is an independent transmission company, as defined by \nAct 30, that seeks to construct two 345-kV double circuit major transmission lines with a 200-foot \nROW, namely, the Nelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line. See, Nelson-Oneida \napplication, p. 4; Helix-Hiple application, p. 4. A general description of each major transmission \nline, as proposed by METC, follows. \nA. Nelson-Oneida Line \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Line “is an approximately 39.5-mile 345 kV double circuit transmission \nline that will begin at the existing Oneida Substation in Oneida Charter Township, Eaton County \nand will end at the existing Nelson Road Substation in New Haven Township, Gratiot County, \nMichigan.” 5 Tr 218. The transmission line is part of MISO’s LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio, which \nconsists of projects approved under MISO’s LRTP initiative to meet the region’s shifting energy \nneeds and changing energy mix. Nelson-Oneida application, p. 2. METC plans to construct the \ntransmission line using tubular steel monopoles, typically supported by concrete drilled pier \nfoundations, with specialty structures being utilized based on site-specific circumstances. \n5 Tr 346-347; see also, Exhibit METC-14A. METC states that construction of the Nelson-Oneida \n\n\nPage 43 \nU-21471 et al. \nLine is expected to commence in the first quarter of 2028, and that the estimated capital cost for \nthe project will total $182 million. 5 Tr 263, 475. In the application and accompanying materials, \nMETC identifies the Nelson-Oneida Line’s proposed route (Proposed Route), as well as an \nalternate route (Alternate Route) for the transmission line. The Nelson-Oneida Line Proposed \nRoute is approximately 39.5 miles in length and is identified in Exhibit METC-15A. See, \nExhibit METC-15A, pp. 2-27. The Nelson-Oneida Line Alternate Route is approximately \n39.6 miles in length and is also identified in Exhibit METC-15A. See, Exhibit METC-15A, \npp. 28-53. \nB. Helix-Hiple Line \n \nThe Helix-Hiple Line involves the construction of a new Helix Substation located on an \napproximate 67-acre property in Clarence Township, Calhoun County, Michigan. 5 Tr 372. The \nHelix Substation will contain high-voltage electrical equipment and a control enclosure and will \nhave approximately six acres of fenced-in area. 5 Tr 373; see also, Exhibit METC-14B. \nAdditionally, the Helix-Hiple Line involves “an approximately 55-mile 345 kV double circuit \ntransmission line that will run from the new Helix Substation in Clarence Township in Calhoun \nCounty to the Michigan/Indiana state border in Gilead Township in Branch County.” 5 Tr 373. \nLike the Nelson-Oneida Line, the Helix Line is part of MISO’s LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. \nHelix-Hiple application, p. 2. METC plans on constructing the new Helix Substation in the fall of \n2025, with completion of the Helix-Hiple Line occurring by mid-2030. The Helix-Hiple Line will \nbe constructed generally using tubular steel monopoles, typically supported by concrete piers, with \nspecialty structures being utilized based on site-specific circumstances. 5 Tr 372-373; see also, \nExhibit METC-14B. METC estimates the overall capital cost of the project to total $442 million. \n5 Tr 318. In the application and accompanying materials, METC identifies the Helix-Hiple Line’s \n\n\nPage 44 \nU-21471 et al. \nproposed route (Proposed Route), as well as an alternate route (Alternate Route) for the \ntransmission line. The Helix-Hiple Line Proposed Route is approximately 54.8 miles in length and \nis identified in Exhibit METC-15B. See, Exhibit METC-15B, pp. 2-24. The Helix-Hiple Line \nAlternate Route is approximately 55.1 miles in length and is also identified in Exhibit METC-15B. \nSee, Exhibit METC-15B, pp. 25-49. \nIV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK \n \nUnder Act 30, a “major transmission line” is defined, in part, as a transmission line of five \nmiles or more in length through which electricity is transferred at system bulk supply voltage of \n345 kV or more. MCL 460.562(g). An independent transmission company must first apply to the \nCommission and receive a certificate of public convenience and necessity before beginning \nconstruction of a major transmission line. MCL 460.565, MCL 460.567(1). \n \nPrior to applying for a certificate, Act 30 requires an independent transmission company to \nsubmit to the Commission a construction plan outlining the general location and size of all major \ntransmission lines to be constructed within five years of planning, copies of relevant bulk power \ntransmission information, and any additional information required by the Commission. \nMCL 460.564(1). Additionally, before applying, an independent transmission company must first \nschedule and hold a public meeting in each municipality through which a proposed major \ntransmission line would pass, as well as offer in writing in the 60 days before the public meeting to \nmeet with the chief elected official of each affected municipality to discuss the company’s desire \nto build the transmission line and to explore the routes to be considered for that line. \nMCL 460.566(1) and (2). \n \nAn independent transmission company’s application for a certificate must contain the \ninformation outlined in Section 7(2) of Act 30, including a description of the transmission line’s \n\n\nPage 45 \nU-21471 et al. \nproposed route and at least one alternate route. MCL 460.567(2). Upon applying to the \nCommission, an independent transmission company must give public notice of an opportunity to \ncomment on the application by publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the \nareas affected by the transmission line and by sending a notice to each affected municipality and \neach affected landowner on whose property a portion of the proposed transmission line will be \nconstructed. MCL 460.568(1). \n \nThe Commission must conduct a contested case proceeding on the application and grant or \ndeny the application within one year after the application’s filing date. MCL 460.568(2) and (4). \nIf a party to the contested case proceeding submits an alternative route for the transmission line, \nthe Commission must either grant the application for the independent transmission company’s \nproposed route, the independent transmission company’s alternate route, or one of the proposed \nalternative routes or deny the application. MCL 460.568(4). The Commission is empowered to \ncondition its approval of the application upon the applicant taking additional actions to assure the \npublic convenience, health, and safety and reliability of the proposed transmission line. Id. \nSection 5(8) of Act 30, MCL 460.565(8), outlines the criteria the Commission must determine \nwhen reviewing an application and mandates that the Commission grant an application and issue a \ncertificate if it determines all of the following: (1) the quantifiable and nonquantifiable public \nbenefits of the proposed transmission line justify its construction, (2) the proposed or alternative \nroute for the transmission line is feasible and reasonable, (3) the proposed transmission line does \nnot present an unreasonable threat to public health or safety, and (4) the applicant has accepted any \nconditions contained in a conditional grant. A certificate issued for a major transmission line must \nidentify the transmission line’s route and estimated costs. MCL 460.568(6). If construction of the \nproposed major transmission line does not commence within five years of the date that the \n\n\nPage 46 \nU-21471 et al. \nCommission issues a certificate, the certificate is invalid, and an independent transmission \ncompany will be required to obtain a new certificate. MCL 460.568(7). \nV. \nDISCUSSION \nA. Pre-Application Requirements \n1. Construction Plan \n \nSection 4 of Act 30, MCL 460.564, requires an independent transmission company that plans \nto construct a major transmission line in the five years after planning has commenced to submit a \nconstruction plan to the Commission. MCL 460.564(1). The construction plan must contain, \namong other things, the general location and size of all major transmission lines to be constructed. \nMCL 460.564(1)(a). At the same time an independent transmission company submits the \nconstruction plan to the Commission, the company must also provide a copy of the plan to each \nmunicipality in which construction of the planned major transmission line is intended. \nMCL 460.564(2). \n \nMETC argues that it complied with Act 30 by submitting construction plans to the \nCommission for both the Nelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line. METC’s initial brief, \npp. 42-43. \n \nNo party contested this issue. \n \nHaving reviewed the record on this issue, the Commission finds that METC complied with \nrequirements outlined in MCL 460.564 relating to construction plans. The Commission finds that, \non August 14, 2023, METC submitted construction plans for both the Nelson-Oneida Line and the \nHelix-Hiple Line that contain a description of the general location and size of the respective \nproposed major transmission lines. See, filing #U-21471-0001, pp. 2-3; filing #U-21472-0001, \npp. 2-3. The Commission further finds that METC submitted copies of relevant bulk power \n\n\nPage 47 \nU-21471 et al. \ninformation concerning the lines. See, filing #U-21471-0001, pp. 3-4; filing #U-21472-0001, \npp. 4-5. Finally, the Commission finds that the evidence in the record shows that METC provided \ncopies of the construction plans to the municipalities in which construction of each respective \nmajor transmission line is intended. See, filing #U-21471-0001, p. 5; filing #U-21472-0001, p. 5. \n2. Public Meetings and Offers to Meet with Chief Elected Officials \n \nBefore applying for an application, an independent transmission company must schedule and \nhold a public meeting in each municipality through which a proposed transmission line for which a \nconstruction plan has been submitted will pass. MCL 460.566(1). A public meeting held in a \ntownship satisfies the requirement for a public meeting to be held in each village located within \nthat township. Id. Additionally, in the 60 days before a public meeting is held, the independent \ntransmission company must offer in writing to meet with the chief elected official of each \nmunicipality (or his or her designee) to discuss the company’s desire to build the transmission line \nand to explore the routes to be considered. MCL 460.566(2). \n \nMETC argues that it complied with the requirement to hold public meetings in each affected \nmunicipality and provides testimony, through its witness Ms. Stump, that the company held public \nmeetings in Dallas, New Haven, Westphalia, North Shade, Lebanon, Eagle, North Plains, and \nOneida Townships for the Nelson-Oneida Line, as well as public meetings in Coldwater, Lee, \nEckford, Butler, Girard, Clarence, Marengo, Sheridan, Clarendon, Tekonsha, Gilead, Bethel \nBatavia, and Union Townships for the Helix-Hiple Line. See, 5 Tr 447-450, 456-458. METC \navers that it publicized the public meetings through newspaper publications, landowner postcards, \npostings on the company’s website, and communications with public officials. See, 5 Tr 448, 456; \nsee also, Exhibits METC-20A and METC-20B. \n\n\nPage 48 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nMETC also argues that it complied with the requirement to offer to meet with the chief elected \nofficial of each affected municipality. The company again provides testimony, through its witness \nMs. Stump, that the company sent a form letter to each affected municipality offering to meet with \nthe chief elected official to discuss the proposed transmission lines and the routes to be considered. \nSee, METC’s initial brief, p. 43; see also, 5 Tr 450, 455-456; Exhibits METC-19A and \nMETC-19B. \n \nFollowing its review of the materials provided by METC, the Staff concludes that METC met \nthe statutory requirements to hold public meetings in each municipality where the proposed lines \nwould pass and to offer to meet with the chief elected official of each municipality. Staff’s initial \nbrief, pp. 30-31, 53; see also, 5 Tr 1199, 1217-1218. \n \nMr. Lust took issue with METC’s publicization of the public meetings for the Helix-Hiple \nLine. Specifically, Mr. Lust contended that he learned of the Helix-Hiple Line on August 29, \n2024, and that he did not receive any notification about the project prior to that date. \n5 Tr 964-965. Mr. Lust argued that other landowners, however, received invitations for a public \nmeeting in October 2023, and that this disparity resulted in “the de facto creation of one or more \ndisadvantaged classes of landowners.” 5 Tr 964. \n \nMETC responds that Mr. Lust’s concern about some landowners not receiving an invitation to \nattend the public meetings for the Helix-Hiple Line does not negate the fact that the company held \npublic meetings in compliance with Act 30 requirements. METC’s initial brief, p. 45. METC \nargues that Act 30 contains no specific requirements for invitations to public meetings and that the \ncompany sent postcards to a broader audience than would otherwise be required under Act 30 for \nstatutory notice once an application is filed. Id., p. 46. The company notes that the postcard \ninvitations were only one of the ways it publicized the public meetings for the projects and, \n\n\nPage 49 \nU-21471 et al. \ntherefore, asserts that its outreach efforts “were reasonable and designed to maximize awareness of \nthe Projects to those likely to be affected.” Id., p. 45. METC, in turn, urges the Commission to \nfind that it complied with the requirements outlined in MCL 460.566. Id., p. 46. \n \nThe Commission finds that METC complied with Act 30’s requirements to hold public \nmeetings in each municipality through which the proposed major transmission lines would pass \nand to offer in writing to meet with the chief elected official of each affected municipality. \nMCL 460.566(1) and (2). The Commission finds that METC provided unrefuted evidence in the \nrecord to demonstrate that it held public meetings in all townships where the proposed \ntransmission lines were proposed and that the company made reasonable efforts to publicize these \npublic meetings. See, 5 Tr 447-450, 456-458; see also, Exhibits METC-20A, METC-20B, and \nS-2.0. The Commission further finds that METC offered to meet with the chief elected official of \neach affected municipality by mailing letters offering to meet and discuss the proposed \ntransmission lines and their routes. See, 5 Tr 450, 455-456; see also, Exhibits METC-19A and \nMETC-19B. Accordingly, the Commission finds that METC complied with the requirements \noutlined in MCL 460.566. \nB. Application Requirements \n \nSection 7(1) of Act 30 requires an independent transmission company to apply to the \nCommission for a certificate for a proposed major transmission line. MCL 460.567(1). \nSection 7(2) of Act 30 outlines the information that an application submitted to the Commission \nmust contain. MCL 460.567(2). The parties largely do not dispute that METC’s applications for \n\n\nPage 50 \nU-21471 et al. \nthe proposed transmission lines contain the necessary information required by statute.9 However, \nsome disputes exist concerning the information contained in METC’s applications regarding \nalternate routes, estimated private benefits, and comments received at public meetings and the \napplicant’s response to those comments, each of which will be addressed, in turn, below. \na. Alternate Major Transmission Line Routes \n \nSection 7(2)(c) of Act 30 requires an application to contain “[a] description and evaluation of \n1 or more alternate major transmission line routes and a statement of why the proposed route was \nselected.” MCL 460.567(2)(c). \n \nThe Staff and the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors raise concerns regarding METC’s compliance \nwith the requirement to describe and evaluate an alternate route for each proposed transmission \nline. Specifically, for the Nelson-Oneida Line, the Staff noted that the Alternate Route overlaps \nthe Proposed Route for 12.11 miles, or approximately 30% of the total length of the routes. \n5 Tr 1202, 1237; see also, Exhibit S-4.0, pp. 3-4. Similarly, for the Helix-Hiple Line, the Staff \nnoted that the Alternate Route overlaps the Proposed Route for 19.3 miles, or approximately 35% \nof the total length of the routes. 5 Tr 1221-1222, 1236; see also, Exhibit S-4.0, pp. 1-2. The Staff \nstated that although it does not expect an alternate route to be completely unique, the extent of \n \n 9 The Staff agrees that METC’s applications contain the following information: (a) the \nplanned date for beginning construction (see, Staff’s initial brief, pp. 32, 46); (b) a detailed \ndescription of the proposed major transmission line, its route, and its expected configuration (see, \nid., pp. 32, 46); (c) a description of the location and manner in which a zoning ordinance prohibits \nor regulates the location or construction of the proposed route (see, id., pp. 42, 48, 54); (d) the \nestimated overall cost of the proposed major transmission line (see, id., pp. 42-43, 54); \n(e) information supporting the need for the proposed major transmission line (see, id., pp. 36-37, \n49); (f) estimated quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the proposed major \ntransmission line (see, id., pp. 37-38, 49-51); (g) information addressing potential effects of the \nproposed major transmission line on public health and safety (see, id., pp. 39, 53); and \n(h) information indicating that the proposed major transmission line will comply with all \napplicable state and federal environmental standards, laws, and rules (see, id., pp. 35, 48). \n\n\nPage 51 \nU-21471 et al. \nMETC’s overlap between the alternate routes and proposed routes for both transmission lines \ncreates uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the alternate routes. See, 5 Tr 1203, 1237-1238. \nAbsent a determination from the Commission regarding the extent of overlap permitted for an \nalternate route, however, the Staff argues that METC’s application complied with Section 7(2)(c). \nSee, 5 Tr 1203, 1222; see also, Staff’s initial brief, pp. 35, 55-56. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, through Mr. Andrews’ testimony, contended that METC’s \npresentation of the Alternate Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line is a misnomer. 5 Tr 999. Like the \nStaff, Mr. Andrews noted that nearly 31% of the Alternate Route overlaps the Proposed Route. \nMr. Andrews argued that this is a major flaw with METC’s application, and accordingly, he \nrequested the Commission to consider whether METC has fully complied with statutory \nrequirements. 5 Tr 999-1000, 1002. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC, through Mr. Thornhill’s testimony, stated that it did not use any \npercentage benchmark for overlapping segments in its route studies. Mr. Thornhill further stated \nthat he has never conducted a route study that was restricted by the percentage of overlap in \nselection of a proposed or alternate route and that such a restriction could hamper a route study by \ninadvertently limiting potentially viable alternatives and increasing impacts. 5 Tr 570-572. \nAdditionally, Mr. Thornhill noted that the Commission has approved transmission lines in \nprevious cases where the alternate route and proposed route overlapped, including one instance in \nwhich the Commission approved an application where the proposed and alternate routes included \nan overlap of approximately 79%. 5 Tr 571 (referencing Case Nos. U-16200 and U-17041). \nAccordingly, METC advocates for the Commission to decline to specify the degree of uniqueness \nrequired for alternate and proposed routes. METC argues that adoption of such a standard is \nbeyond the Commission’s statutory authority and would incentivize applications to present \n\n\nPage 52 \nU-21471 et al. \nnonviable alternate routes, thereby limiting the ability to compare desirable alternate routes from \nthe proposed route. METC’s initial brief, pp. 56-59. \n \nIn its brief, the Staff similarly argues that there are good reasons for the Commission to forgo \na requirement that an alternate route and proposed route be entirely separate. Like METC, the \nStaff argues that Act 30 does not require such a standard and that adoption of such a standard \ncould lead to viable alternate routes never being seriously considered. Staff’s initial brief, p. 56. \n \nThe Commission agrees with METC and the Staff and finds that good reasons exist for not \nrequiring an alternate route and a proposed route to be entirely separate. The Commission finds \nthat Act 30 does not restrict the amount of overlap that an alternate route may have with the \nproposed route, nor does it contain any requirement that the routes be wholly unique. To the \ncontrary, the plain language of the statute simply provides that an application must contain “[a] \ndescription and evaluation of 1 or more alternate major transmission line routes and a statement of \nwhy the proposed route was selected.” MCL 460.567(2)(c). The statute, therefore, is completely \ndevoid of any limitation on the amount of overlap the routes may possess. The Commission also \nnotes that it is unaware of any other jurisdiction that places a fixed, upper limit on the amount of \noverlap that may be permitted between a proposed and alternate route. Accordingly, the \nCommission declines to establish a bright line rule regarding the amount of overlap that an \nalternate route may have with a proposed route. \n \nAdditionally, the Commission finds that the Alternate Routes presented in METC’s \napplications comply with statutory requirements. As the record demonstrates, for the \nNelson-Oneida Line, the Alternate Route overlaps the Proposed Route for 12.11 miles, or \napproximately 30% of the total length of the routes. 5 Tr 1202, 1237; see also, Exhibit S-4.0, \npp. 3-4. Additionally, for the Helix-Hiple Line, the Alternate Route overlaps the Proposed Route \n\n\nPage 53 \nU-21471 et al. \nfor 19.3 miles, or approximately 35% of the total length of the routes. 5 Tr 1221-1222, 1236; see \nalso, Exhibit S-4.0, pp. 1-2. The record, therefore, reflects that approximately two-thirds of each \nAlternate Route is unique in comparison to the respective Proposed Route. The Commission has \npreviously approved certificates for transmission lines where the percentage of overlap between \nthe Alternate Route and the Proposed Route has been significantly higher. See, e.g., Case \nNo. U-17041. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Alternate Routes presented in METC’s \napplications are sufficient to comply with the requirement outlined in MCL 460.567(2)(c). \nb. Estimated Private Benefits \n \nSection 7(2)(h) of Act 30 requires an application to contain the “[e]stimated private benefits of \nthe proposed major transmission line to the applicant or any legal entity that is affiliated with the \napplicant.” MCL 460.567(2)(h). \n \nMETC provided testimony, through Mr. Marshall, regarding private benefits and stated that \nthe proposed transmission lines will be added to METC’s rate base investment base, which is \nsubject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdictional transmission rates. \nMr. Marshall also stated that the proposed transmission lines could enhance customer satisfaction \nby improving the reliability of the company’s transmission system. 5 Tr 262, 318. \n \nDuring discovery, the Staff inquired about the private benefits the proposed transmission lines \nwould provide to METC. See, Exhibit S-2.1. In its reply to this discovery request, METC stated \nthat the company would “receive a return on equity (ROE) of 9.98 percent which combined with \n[FERC’s] authorized incentive adders would result in the Company receiving a ROE total of 10.73 \npercent.” 5 Tr 1205 (citing Exhibit S-2.1, pp. 2-3). METC further averred that it would be \npremature to estimate the company’s profit from the proposed transmission lines because the final \ncost used for ratemaking has not yet been determined. 5 Tr 1205. Based on these responses, the \n\n\nPage 54 \nU-21471 et al. \nStaff argues that METC complied with the requirement to provide information on the proposed \ntransmission lines’ private benefits. 5 Tr 1205, 1226; see also, Staff’s initial brief, pp. 38, 50. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC added that the company’s testimony regarding private benefits is nearly \nidentical to the type of information provided in Case No. U-17041, which the Staff found to be \nsatisfactory. 5 Tr 334; see also, Exhibit METC-30R. Accordingly, METC asserts that its \napplications comply with statutory requirements. METC’s initial brief, pp. 62-63. \n \nThe Commission finds that, following responses to discovery requests, METC provided \nadequate information regarding the proposed transmission lines’ private benefits, which the Staff \nagrees fulfills the statutory requirement. See, 5 Tr 1205, 1226; see also, Staff’s initial brief, \npp. 38, 50. Accordingly, the Commission finds that METC’s applications complied with \nMCL 460.567(2)(h). The Commission, however, cautions METC and future applicants that \nAct 30 expressly requires applications under Act 30 to contain the “estimated” private benefits of a \nproposed major transmission line. This requirement plainly contemplates that an estimation of \nprivate benefits be included in the application. Therefore, in future cases, the Commission directs \nMETC and other applicants to present this information directly in the application filed with the \nCommission, and not merely in response to discovery requests. \nc. Summary of Comments \n \nSection 7(2)(j) of Act 30 requires an application to contain “[a] summary of all comments \nreceived at each public meeting and the applicant’s response to those comments.” \nMCL 460.567(2)(j). \n \nMETC argues that it complied with Section 7(2)(j) because its applications provided the \nrequired summary of public comments and the company’s responses to those comments. METC’s \ninitial brief, p. 67. METC provided testimony, from Ms. Stump, that it held in-person, “open \n\n\nPage 55 \nU-21471 et al. \nhouse” style public meetings that included subject matter experts to answer questions from the \npublic. 5 Tr 448. METC stated that the public could submit written comment cards provided at \nthe public meetings, as well as online through a survey. 5 Tr 449. METC further stated that its \napplications contained summaries of the public comments from each public meeting, along with \nthe company’s responses to those comments. See, Exhibits METC-21A and METC-21B. \n \nThe Staff testified, through Mr. Szajner and Ms. Champion, that METC provided comments \nreceived at each public meeting (in the form of Exhibits METC-21A and METC-21B) but they \nquestioned the quality of some of the summaries provided. 5 Tr 1207, 1218. Specifically, the \nStaff noted that any question regarding a specific parcel was generically written and answered. \nFor example, any question that was parcel-specific was written as, “Received parcel-specific \ncomments during the public comment process,” and was responded to with the same generic \nresponse directing persons to the testimony of Mr. DuPree for discussion on how the comments \nwere considered. See, 5 Tr 1207; see also, e.g., Exhibit METC-21A, p. 1. \n \nAccording to the Staff, “[a]lthough Act 30 does not require METC to respond to public \ncomments, Staff’s position is that METC should make every attempt to address commenter \nconcerns in the interest of open and transparent communication.” 5 Tr 1207 (quoting Direct \nTestimony of Naomi Simpson, Case No. U-17041, 3 Tr 347-348) (internal quotations omitted). \nThe Staff further argued that the company does not have a formal process to provide individual \nfeedback to landowners and that the general information provided to specific landowner questions \nregarding route refinements is unhelpful and makes it difficult for landowners to understand if \ntheir feedback was considered and whether, in fact, there will be any route modifications made as \na result of the landowner feedback. 5 Tr 1208, 1218; see also, Exhibit S-3.0. As a result, the Staff \ncontends that the company’s current process does not result in open and transparent \n\n\nPage 56 \nU-21471 et al. \ncommunication between METC and the public, and that more robust communication is needed. \n5 Tr 1208, 1219; see also, Staff’s initial brief, pp. 41-42, 53. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC disagreed that a formal process for landowners to receive individual \nfeedback is necessary. METC asserted that, “[a]lthough each public comment does not receive a \nformalized response, METC’s process promotes direct engagement with the public by \nincorporating a variety of avenues for the public to share feedback with METC and for METC to \nprovide responses where appropriate.” 5 Tr 463. METC also contended that the company already \nprovides individual feedback to landowners for minor modifications during construction by hiring \nland agents who serve as a direct line of communication with affected landowners. 5 Tr 463-464. \nFinally, METC asserted that it accurately summarized comments received at public meetings and \nthat the Staff’s critiques are not reflective of the company’s consideration of those comments nor \nthe extensive efforts the company undertook to inform the public of the projects. 5 Tr 464. As a \nresult, METC argues that the requirement for a formal feedback process is unnecessary and would \nbe burdensome to the route refinement process given that the company received hundreds of \ncomments from landowners on a wide range of topics. METC’s initial brief, pp. 66-67. \n \nThe Commission finds that the plain language of Section 7(2)(j) of Act 30 requires METC’s \napplications to contain “[a] summary of all comments received at each public meeting and the \napplicant’s response to those comments.” MCL 460.567(2)(j). Based on a review of the record, \nthe Commission finds that METC complied with this requirement. See, Exhibits METC-21A and \nMETC-21B. The Commission, however, cautions METC and other Act 30 applicants that the \nCommission expects future Act 30 applications to contain more detailed summaries of public \ncomments made and the applicant’s response to those comments, particularly with respect to \ncomments made by affected landowners and potential route refinements made in response to those \n\n\nPage 57 \nU-21471 et al. \ncomments. Additionally, the Commission encourages METC and other Act 30 applicants in future \nAct 30 cases to take increased action to notify and inform affected landowners of any route \nrefinements that have been made on that landowner’s property in response to specific comments \nreceived at public meetings. \nC. Public Notice \n \nUpon filing an application for a certificate, an independent transmission company must give \nnotice of an opportunity to comment on the application. MCL 460.568(1). The notice must be \npublished in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be affected within a reasonable time \nafter an application is provided to the Commission and must further be sent to each affected \nmunicipality and each affected landowner on whose property a portion of the proposed \ntransmission line will be constructed. Id. \n \nOn July 30, 2024, METC filed a proof of service averring that it sent a copy of a Notice of \nHearing and Notice of Opportunity to Comment via first class mail to cities, incorporated villages, \ntownships, counties, and affected landowners where each proposed transmission line may be \nconstructed. See, filings ##U-21471-0013 and U-21472-0015. On August 5 and 16, 2024, METC \nfiled additional proofs of service averring that it sent a copy of a Notice of Hearing and Notice of \nOpportunity to Comment via first class mail to additional affected landowners. See, filings \n##U-21471-0014, U-21471-0017, and U-21472-0017. Additionally, on August 15, 2024, METC \nfiled affidavits of publication showing that the company had caused a Notice of Hearing and \nNotice of Opportunity to Comment to be published in the Lansing State Journal, the Daily News \nGreenville, the Morning Sun, the Battle Creek Enquirer, and the Daily Reporter. See, filings \n##U-21471-0016 and U-21472-0019. \n\n\nPage 58 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nIn his testimony, Mr. Lust contended that 10 of the 21 landowners identified near his property \ndid not receive a Notice of Hearing and Notice of Opportunity to Comment. 5 Tr 964; see also, \nExhibits LUS-2.1 and LUS-2.2. In turn, Mr. Lust argued that this served to disadvantage certain \nlandowners. 5 Tr 964. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC argued that it complied with statutory obligations to provide notice and that \nit filed proofs of service in this case demonstrating the same. 5 Tr 467. \n \nAs previously noted, Section 8(1) of Act 30 provides, in pertinent part, that an independent \ntransmission company must send notice of an opportunity to comment on an application to “each \naffected municipality and each affected landowner on whose property a portion of the proposed \nmajor transmission line will be constructed.” MCL 460.568(1) (emphasis added). Therefore, \nunder the plain language of the statute, the Commission finds that METC was required to, among \nother things, send a notice of an opportunity to comment to each municipality and landowner on \nwhose property a portion of the Nelson-Oneida Line or Helix-Hiple Line is proposed to be \nconstructed. Having reviewed the record on this issue, the Commission finds that METC \ncomplied with this requirement. See, filings ##U-21471-0013, U-21471-0014, U-21471-0017, \nU-21472-0015, and U-21472-0017. \n \nAdditionally, the Commission finds that METC published a notice of an opportunity to \ncomment on the applications in newspapers of general circulation in the areas affected by the \nproposed major transmission lines within a reasonable time after the company filed its \napplications. See, filings ##U-21471-0016 and U-21472-0019. Thus, the Commission finds that \nMETC complied with all public notice requirements outlined in MCL 460.568(1). \n\n\nPage 59 \nU-21471 et al. \nD. Quantifiable and Nonquantifiable Public Benefits \n \nTo issue a certificate, the Commission must determine that “[t]he quantifiable and \nnonquantifiable public benefits of the proposed major transmission line justify its construction.” \nMCL 460.568(5)(a). \n1. Need for the Proposed Major Transmission Lines \n \nThe Commission has routinely found that assessing the need for a proposed major \ntransmission line is a relevant factor to be considered when determining whether the public \nbenefits justify its construction. See, May 31, 2007 order in Case No. U-14861, pp. 30-31; \nFebruary 22, 2008 order in Case No. U-14933 (February 22 order), pp. 14-17; July 29, 2013 order \nin Case No. U-17041 (July 29 order), pp. 22-25. \n \nThe Commission has previously explained its rationale for considering need as follows: \nAct 30 places comprehensive authority for transmission line location and \nconstruction with the Commission through the power to issue or deny a certificate. \nMCL 460.565. The certificate is one “of public . . . necessity.” MCL 460.562(b); \nMCL 460.565. Thus, it defies logic to posit that the Commission is required to \nignore the necessity for the proposed line in determining whether to issue a \ncertificate. \n \nIn Act 30, the four criteria that must be met in order for a certificate to issue do not \nuse the word “need,” though the 12 filing requirements do. Cf., \nMCL 460.568(5)(a)-(d) (“The commission shall grant the application and issue a \ncertificate if it determines . . . [t]he quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits \nof the proposed major transmission line justify its construction.”), and \nMCL 460.567(2)(f) (“An application for a certificate shall contain . . . [i]nformation \nsupporting the need for the proposed major transmission line.”). This is not \ntroubling to the Commission. The Legislature did not intend a useless act when it \nrequired applicants to file information supporting the need for the line. The \njustification for constructing the line must demonstrate the need for the line. \n \nFebruary 22 order, pp. 14-15. \n \nThe Michigan Court of Appeals has held that “MCL 460.568(5) does not specifically state that \nan applicant for a proposed transmission line must prove that the line is needed.” In re Application \n\n\nPage 60 \nU-21471 et al. \nof Michigan Elec. Transmission Co., 309 Mich. App. 1, 11; 867 N.W.2d 911 (2014), aff'd sub \nnom. In re Michigan Elec. Transmission Co. for Transmission Line, 500 Mich. 988, 894 \nN.W.2d 551 (2017). However, in light of the Legislature’s definition in MCL 460.562(b) of a \n“certificate” as “a certificate of public convenience and necessity,” the requirement in MCL \n460.567(f) that the application include information on the need for the transmission line, and \nCommission precedent, the Commission is persuaded that a determination regarding the need for \nthe proposed major transmission lines is appropriate in this case and serves to assist the \nCommission in determining whether the public benefits of the proposed transmission lines justify \ntheir construction.10 \n \nTurning to the merits of the arguments addressing need, METC argues that the record \nsufficiently demonstrates that the projects are needed to address current and future transmission \nneeds. METC’s initial brief, pp. 70-71. METC first argues that MISO’s approval of the LRTP \nTranche 1 portfolio demonstrates that the projects are needed to address the concerns outlined in \nMISO’s Reliability Imperative. Specifically, through Mr. Marshall’s testimony, METC testified \nthat MISO’s 2020 Reliability Imperative Report identified a strong need for long range \ntransmission planning to address changing energy resources in the MISO region and to address \nreliability challenges. 5 Tr 226; see also, Exhibit METC-1A; METC’s initial brief, p. 6. In \nsupport of this contention, METC conveys MISO’s conclusion that: \nReal-time conditions in the last few years have been significantly different than the \nfirst 10 years of MISO operations. Power plant retirements, lower overall reserve \nmargins, and increasing outage levels of conventional generation have required \nMISO to operate with less available capacity than in the past. A growing fleet of \nrenewables that operate differently and, as the graphic below illustrates, can \nfluctuate on a day-to-day and even an hour-by-hour basis. At times of high wind \n \n 10 Indeed, as METC acknowledges in its initial brief, “the need drives the solution, and the \nsolution establishes the public benefits that will result if the solution is constructed.” METC’s \ninitial brief, p. 69. \n\n\nPage 61 \nU-21471 et al. \noutput, transmission congestion is leading to increased levels of curtailment * * * * \nAnd as the climate changes, history becomes a less reliable predictor of future \nconditions. \n \n5 Tr 226 (quoting Exhibit METC-1A, p. 8) (emphasis in original). According to METC, the LRTP \nTranche 1 portfolio resulted from MISO’s planning process to address the most pressing needs \nidentified in developed future scenarios. 5 Tr 242-243. In turn, METC stated that the LRTP \nTranche 1 represents “a set of least-regrets transmission projects that will help to ensure a reliable, \nresilient and cost-effective transmission system as the resource mix continues to change[.]” \n5 Tr 231 (quoting Exhibit METC-3A, p. 1) (original quotations omitted) (emphasis omitted). As a \nresult, METC contends that the projects are needed to meet the current and future transmission and \nreliability needs identified by MISO. METC’s initial brief, pp. 70-71. \n \nMETC also argues that the projects are needed to facilitate an increase of the CIL to LRZ 7. \nId., p. 71. METC asserted that increasing the CIL will be essential for maintaining North \nAmerican Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards and to cost-effectively \nprovide service to customers. 5 Tr 237. Illustrating this point, METC stated that LRZ 7 failed to \nclear cost of new entry (CONE) at the 2020/2021 Planning Resource Auction (PRA), resulting in \nan estimated cost of $911 million, and that LRZ 7 was the first and only MISO zone with \ninsufficient resources to meet NERC required planning reserve margins. 5 Tr 237-238. Similarly, \nMETC noted that LRZ 7 again failed to clear CONE at the 2022/2023 PRA and that auction prices \nat the 2024/2025 PRA roughly tripled due to tighter capacity conditions. 5 Tr 238. \n \nAdditionally, METC argues that the projects are needed to provide reliable and efficient \nservice to customers as Michigan’s energy landscape changes. METC’s initial brief, p. 71. \nMETC states that Michigan, like the larger MISO region, is shifting from centralized conventional \ngeneration resources to distributed and renewable energy sources. Id., p. 72; see also, 5 Tr 234. \n\n\nPage 62 \nU-21471 et al. \nMETC points to, among other things, clean energy standards and renewable energy credit \nportfolios established in recent state energy legislation, as well as wholesale users’ shift towards \nrenewable generation to support this contention. 5 Tr 234-235; see also, METC’s initial brief, \np. 72. In turn, METC argues that the projects are necessary to maintain system reliability during \nthis transition given the operating characteristics of renewable generation and variability of local \nrenewable generation. 5 Tr 235-236; see also, METC’s initial brief, p. 73. \n \nFinally, METC argues that the projects are needed to address reliability concerns identified by \nMISO, including impacts from extreme weather events. METC’s initial brief, p. 73 (citing \n5 Tr 229, 284). METC contends that the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio is needed to address thermal \nreliability violations across the MISO Midwest subregion and to address numerous voltage issues. \n5 Tr 246; see also, METC’s initial brief, pp. 73-74. \n \nMEIC, based on its review of previous Commission orders, asserts that the Commission’s \nprior analyses regarding need have demonstrated that “transmission infrastructure can provide a \nhost of benefits, both in economic and reliability terms, some of which are more easily \nquantifiable than others,” and that, “so long as conditions are such that economic and reliability \nbenefits are more than hypothetical, and so long as costs are not out of proportion on account of \nunproven, experimental and higher-unit-cost designs or materials,” the Commission has generally \nfound the need for a proposed transmission line to be justified. MEIC’s initial brief, pp. 6-7 \n(quoting July 29 order, p. 5) (internal quotations omitted). MEIC, in turn, asserts that the projects, \nas part of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio, will improve grid resiliency, reliability, and capacity, and \nwill do so in a least-cost manner. See, 5 Tr 814, 899; see also, METC’s initial brief, p. 7. MEIC, \ntherefore, argues that the projects easily meet the criteria previously established by the \nCommission to demonstrate need. MEIC’s initial brief, p. 8. \n\n\nPage 63 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, through testimony from Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan, \nquestioned the need for the Nelson-Oneida Line. Specifically, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan noted \nthat METC’s Request for Approval of Abandoned Plant Incentive under FERC Docket \nNo. ER24-1482-000 stated that the project would “[r]educe loading and avoid future reliability \nupgrades, avoiding the cost for replacing facilities due to age and condition.” 5 Tr 1138 (internal \nquotations removed) (emphasis in original). She, thus, questioned why METC cannot simply \nupgrade existing facilities in lieu of condemning land for the proposed transmission line. \n5 Tr 1139. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC stated that it considered other transmission solutions, including rebuilding \nor reconducting existing facilities, but that these alternatives were insufficient to meet the \nreliability and transmission capacity needs that the Nelson-Oneida Line addresses. 5 Tr 334-335. \n \nThe Commission finds that sufficient evidence exists in the record to substantiate the need for \nboth the Nelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line. As the record reflects, both major \ntransmission lines are needed to serve as new transmission to address the state’s growing need for \nenergy reliability, capacity, and renewable resource integration. Specifically, the Commission \nfinds that the proposed projects are needed to increase the CIL to the region, which will be a \ncritical component of maintaining reliability standards and cost-effectively providing service to \ncustomers. See, 5 Tr 237. The Commission further finds that the projects are needed to maintain \nreliable service to customers. 5 Tr 234-236. The projects also have a demonstrated need to \naddress thermal reliability violations across the state and region. 5 Tr 246. Importantly, the \nCommission agrees with METC that upgrading existing facilities alone is insufficient to meet the \nreliability and transmission capacity needs that the projects will address; however, the \nCommission still expects METC to make cost-effective transmission upgrades where necessary. \n\n\nPage 64 \nU-21471 et al. \nAccordingly, the Commission determines that there is a need for the Nelson-Oneida Line and the \nHelix-Hiple Line. \n2. Public Benefits of the Proposed Major Transmission Lines \n \nRegarding the benefits of the projects, METC argues that the projects will provide a host of \nquantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits. At a high-level, METC stated that the projects \nwill serve as “new backbone transmission” to expand access to cost-effective generation resources \nand to increase the import capabilities of the state. 5 Tr 221, 276. \n \nMore pointedly, METC contended that the projects will aid in increasing the CIL for LRZ 7 \nby approximately 1,292 MW, which the company argued will result in both economic and \nreliability benefits. 5 Tr 221, 276. Specifically, METC noted that MISO estimates that the LRTP \nTranche 1 portfolio will provide a 20-year benefit of $624 million to LRZ 7, which METC \nattributed to improved market access, reduced zonal capacity requirements, and stabilized prices \nduring extreme weather events. 5 Tr 260, 316. METC also argued that increasing the CIL for \nLRZ 7 will result in greater grid resiliency by expanding the grid with new segments and paths \nthat will harden the grid, provide geographic diversity, support climate adaptation, and reduce the \noverall risk profile of the grid. 5 Tr 221, 277. The company further noted that the projects, in \nconjunction with the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio projects 12-18, will help to mitigate 600 \ntransmission thermal violations on 77 monitored facilities, including 28 thermal violations in \nMichigan. 5 Tr 248-249, 304; see also, Exhibit METC-3A, pp. 54-55. \n \nAdditionally, METC argued that the public will benefit from the projects’ ability to support \nMichigan’s energy policy goals. 5 Tr 221, 277. METC testified that the projects will help support \nmodest load growth, including an energy growth of 0.48% per year and a demand growth of \n0.60% per year, as well as reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by nearly 20 metric tons per \n\n\nPage 65 \nU-21471 et al. \nyear for the first 20 years, which results in estimated benefits between $687 million and \n$3,638 million to LRZ 7. 5 Tr 261, 316-317. Moreover, METC asserted that the projects will \nsupport connection of approximately 20.1 gigawatts (GW) of new generation across the subregion, \nincluding 1.4 GW in LRZ 7. 5 Tr 247, 302. \n \nMETC further noted that MISO conducted a BCA of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio that \nshowed that LRZ 7 will receive a total of $6.1 billion to $9.4 billion in benefits over 20 years. \n5 Tr 261, 317. According to METC, “[t]hese benefits far exceed the costs to Michigan energy \nconsumers—the portfolio has a benefit/cost ratio of 2.2 to 3.4 in LRZ 7.” 5 Tr 262, 317 \n(referencing Exhibits METC-3A, p. 4, and METC-3B, p. 4). \n \nFinally, METC argued that the projects will result in significant local capital investment that \nwill benefit the public. For the Nelson-Oneida Line, METC estimated approximately $80 million \nof the $182 million in capital expenditures to be local investments, which the company contended \nwill generate an estimated 1,148 jobs in Michigan with an associated $60 million in earnings. \nMETC asserted that the transmission line will also result in demand for $171 million in goods and \nservices associated with capital investments. 5 Tr 260. For the Helix-Hiple Line, METC \nestimated approximately $195 million of the $442 million in capital expenditures to be local \ninvestments, which will generate 2,793 jobs with an associated $146 million in earnings. The \ncompany asserted that the transmission line will result in demand for $416 million in goods and \nservices associated with the capital investments needed to construct the line. 5 Tr 315-316. \n \nLike METC, MEIC also argues that the projects will result in numerous public benefits. \nThrough Mr. Goggin’s testimony, MEIC asserted that MISO’s projections for renewable \ndeployment have more than doubled since the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio was finalized, thereby \nincreasing the need for transmission and the benefits of the projects. 5 Tr 849, 857-858. MEIC \n\n\nPage 66 \nU-21471 et al. \nalso argued that the projects will reduce electric rates by reducing congestion costs for Michigan \nratepayers by between $1 billion and $3 billion. 5 Tr 849, 860. Additionally, MEIC contended \nthat the projects will provide greater access to low-cost renewable generation, including wind and \nsolar generation resources, by connecting Michigan to resources in western MISO states. \n5 Tr 849, 861-866; see also, Exhibits MEIC-11 through MEIC-13. Finally, MEIC argued that the \nprojects will increase the ability to transfer power within and into Michigan and that the renewable \nenergy delivered by the portfolio will reduce emissions of CO2 and other air pollutants, benefiting \nthe public health and environmental resources of Michigan. 5 Tr 877-878, 892-895. \n \nCUB and Sierra Club also argue that the projects result in public benefits that justify their \nconstruction. Through Mr. Jester’s testimony, CUB and Sierra Club explained MISO’s projected \nbenefits for the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio and further asserted that these benefits may be \nunderstated due to the increased need for transmission infrastructure to accommodate higher levels \nof renewable energy. 5 Tr 950-952. Additionally, CUB and Sierra Club referenced a report that \nidentifies an additional 300 MW import capability into LRZ 7 that was not considered by MISO. \n5 Tr 952. \n \nThe Staff agrees with METC that the quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits justify \nconstruction of the proposed major transmission lines but conditions its support on the remainder \nof the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio being constructed. The Staff, through Ms. Simpson’s testimony, \nargued that the estimated quantifiable benefits of the projects are based upon the entire LRTP \nTranche 1 portfolio and not just the individual projects at issue in this case. 5 Tr 1187. As a \nresult, the Staff contended that if the entire portfolio is built, the projects’ public benefits clearly \njustify the costs; however, if the entire portfolio is not built, the Staff contended that it is unclear if \nthe quantifiable public benefits justify construction. 5 Tr 1187-1188. Similarly, Mr. Heidemann \n\n\nPage 67 \nU-21471 et al. \ntestified that the total benefits the projects would independently produce is unknown and that a \ndelay in the approval of other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio could negatively affect the \nbenefits to Michigan ratepayers. 5 Tr 1238. Mr. Heidemann recalled how other projects in \nprevious MVP portfolios developed by MTEP 11 have been delayed. 5 Tr 1239. He further stated \nthat other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio may be at risk of delays, including projects in \nIowa and Indiana, and that METC failed to conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine what the \nbenefits of the projects would be if other projects in the portfolio are delayed. 5 Tr 1239-1240. \nAccordingly, the Staff recommended that the Commission condition approval of certificates for \nthe projects on the other portions of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolios receiving regulatory approval \nand advocates for METC to be required to provide a memorandum in this docket documenting \neach project’s regulatory approval. 5 Tr 1188. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC disagreed with the Staff’s assessment that the public benefits of the projects \nare unclear unless the entire LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio is constructed. METC argued that, even \nwhen viewed individually, the projects provide significant public benefits, including grid \nreliability, supporting clean energy goals, increasing the CIL, and stimulating job creation and \ngrowth in Michigan. 5 Tr 323-324, 326-327. METC further argued that the Staff’s proposed \ncondition is impractical and could delay Michigan’s clean energy transition and lead to adverse \neffects on the reliability of the state’s transmission system, including uncertainty impacting the \ndevelopment of the future LRTP Tranche 2.1 projects. 5 Tr 324-326. Through Mr. Capra’s \ntestimony, METC also contended that the Staff’s proposed condition would likely result in \nsignificant delays to the in-service dates of the projects and would increase costs. 5 Tr 499-500. \n \nMETC also took issue with the Staff’s concerns regarding potential delays in other projects in \nthe LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. Regarding historical delays, METC stated that MTEP 11 \n\n\nPage 68 \nU-21471 et al. \ndemonstrates that MISO has a proven process for developing successful regional transmission \nplanning and noted that the delayed projects have since been placed in service. 5 Tr 330. METC \nargued that the Staff’s concerns about potential delays are factually unsupported and exclude new \ninformation regarding the updated status of the other projects in the portfolio. 5 Tr 331-332. \n \nMEIC, through Mr. Goggin’s testimony, also rebutted the Staff’s proposed condition and \nargued that the Commission should not delay or condition approval on regulatory decisions in \nother states. 5 Tr 906. MEIC stated that, due to the cost allocation of MVPs, Michigan ratepayers \nwould still be liable for their share of the costs of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio, even if the \nMichigan projects are not approved. 5 Tr 899. Additionally, MEIC asserted that other \ntransmission upgrades would need to be developed if the projects are not approved, and that these \nupgrades would come at a significantly higher cost. 5 Tr 899-901. MEIC further argued that \nconditioning the projects on other jurisdictional approvals would delay the projects and harm \nMichigan ratepayers in the form of increased costs given the large lead times (4 to 5.5 years) for \nmaterials. Finally, MEIC contended that Michigan would still benefit from the projects even if \nsome portion of the greater portfolio is not developed in the form of increased abilities to import \nenergy, capacity, and renewable energy. 5 Tr 904-905. Accordingly, MEIC advocated for the \nCommission to reject the Staff’s proposed condition. 5 Tr 906. \n \nIn its initial brief, the Staff maintains its recommendation for the Commission to condition \napproval of the projects on certain portions of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio (segments 12, 13, 14, \n15, and 16) receiving regulatory approval. Staff’s initial brief, pp. 10, 26-27, 57. The Staff argues \nthat risks exist as to whether the other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio will be built and \nthat METC’s failure to conduct a sensitivity analysis on the effects of these projects being denied \napproval make the total benefits of both proposed transmission lines at issue in this case unknown. \n\n\nPage 69 \nU-21471 et al. \nId., pp. 58-59. Further, the Staff contends that, although there may be some benefits associated \nwith the projects in isolation, no party has included any robust analysis or evidence in the record of \nthe quantifiable or nonquantifiable benefits that could be expected (outside of construction \nactivities) absent construction of the entire LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. Id., pp. 27-29. The Staff \nalso takes issue with METC’s opposition to the Staff’s condition based on purported delays and \nargues that METC can continue engineering and design work on the projects, as well as other parts \nof the project that do not include actual construction, while awaiting regulatory approvals for other \nportions of the portfolio. Id., pp. 27-28. \n \nMETC replies and argues that there is no basis to support the Staff’s proposed condition. \nMETC cites the testimonies of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Goggin to assert that the record demonstrates \nthat the public benefits of the projects justify their construction, even without the development of \nthe entire LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. METC’s reply brief, pp. 13-15 (citing 5 Tr 326-327, \n904-905). According to METC, no party challenged this testimony and the Staff’s contention that \nMETC failed to perform a robust analysis of the projects benefits in isolation does not refute these \nexperts’ opinions. Id., pp. 15-16. METC also contends that the Staff fails to support its assertion \nthat the other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio will be delayed, and that adopting the \nStaff’s proposed condition will result in significant delays for the projects and potential delays to \nfuture transmission projects. Id., pp. 16-19. \n \nIn their replies, MEIC and CUB and Sierra Club agree with METC and state that the evidence \nin the record demonstrates that the projects will provide public benefits that justify their \nconstruction even absent the development of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. MEIC’s reply brief, \npp. 4-6; CUB and Sierra Club’s reply brief, pp. 7-9. Like METC, CUB and Sierra Club also argue \nthat the Staff’s proposed condition would cause unnecessary delays and that the Staff’s concerns \n\n\nPage 70 \nU-21471 et al. \nabout the potential delay of the remainder of the portfolio are mitigated by MISO’s planning \nprocess. CUB and Sierra Club’s reply brief, pp. 10-15. MEIC further contends that it is \nimpractical to require an independent analysis of the public benefits of the projects in isolation \ngiven the numerous potential scenarios that would need to be evaluated, and that Act 30 does not \nrequire such an analysis. MEIC’s reply brief, pp. 6-9. \n \nIn initial briefing, METC advocates for the Commission to reject the Staff’s proposed \ncondition and argues that there is no legal basis in Act 30 to condition approval on actions taken \nby anyone other than the applicant. METC’s initial brief, pp. 81-83. Additionally, METC argues \nthat the Staff’s focus on the costs of the projects is misplaced given that ratepayers will be \nresponsible for a portion of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio, regardless of if the projects are built. \nId., pp. 84-85. METC and MEIC also argue that it is unlikely that the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio \nwill ultimately not be built given the history of other MISO MVPs. Id., pp. 85-86; MEIC’s initial \nbrief, pp. 29-30. Finally, METC, MEIC, and CUB and Sierra Club all assert that the record \ndemonstrates that the public benefits justify construction even if the entire portfolio is not \nconstructed. METC’s initial brief, pp. 86-87; MEIC’s initial brief, pp. 30-31; CUB and Sierra \nClub’s initial brief, pp. 30-34. \n \nIn reply, the Staff disagrees with METC’s contention that Act 30 limits conditions to things \nthe applicant can control and argues that the Staff’s proposed condition is premised on METC, the \napplicant, taking additional action to assure that the portfolio upon which the public benefits are \nreliant is realized. Staff’s reply brief, p. 3. The Staff asserts that Act 30 supports a broad \napproach, rather than a narrow focus, and that a project’s benefits must clearly outweigh costs, \nwhich the Staff contends are not demonstrated for the projects in isolation. Id., pp. 3-6. \nAccordingly, the Staff maintains its proposed recommendation and its position that METC failed \n\n\nPage 71 \nU-21471 et al. \nto adequately demonstrate the public benefits of the projects absent development of the broader \nLRTP Tranche 1 portfolio. Id., pp. 7-8. \n \nThe Commission has reviewed the record and finds that substantial evidence exists to \ndemonstrate that the public benefits of the proposed projects justify their construction. The \nCommission agrees that the proposed transmission lines will provide general benefits in the form \nof providing new transmission in the state that will support reliable energy delivery under a variety \nof conditions, add operational flexibility and geographic diversity, and provide flexibility for \nbringing new power on the grid and servicing new load. 5 Tr 221, 276. Additionally, the \nCommission finds that the projects will aid in increasing the CIL to LRZ 7 by 1,292 MW, which \nwill help improve market access, reduce capacity requirements, and stabilize prices during extreme \nweather. 5 Tr 257, 312-313. The projects will also address numerous thermal reliability violations \nand voltage issues around the regions. 5 Tr 248-249, 304; see also, Exhibit METC-3A, pp. 54-55. \nFurther, the projects will benefit the public by supporting Michigan’s energy policy goals, \nincluding increasing access to lower-cost renewable energy resources outside of the state’s borders \nas well as enabling more renewable capacity to be deployed. 5 Tr 221, 277, 861-862, 871. The \nCommission also finds that the Helix Substation will benefit the public by serving as an electrical \nhub that will loop in existing 345 kV transmission line segments, which will improve market \naccess and add capacity. 5 Tr 326-327. Accordingly, the Commission determines that the \nquantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the Nelson-Oneida Line and Helix-Hiple Line \njustify their construction. MCL 460.568(5)(a). \n \nThe Commission is also not persuaded that the issuance of certificates for the proposed \ntransmission lines should be conditioned on other portions of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio \nreceiving regulatory approval. As METC and other intervenors note, MVPs, like the LRTP \n\n\nPage 72 \nU-21471 et al. \nTranche 1 portfolio, are regionally cost-shared. Consequently, Michigan ratepayers will be \nobligated to pay a portion of the portfolio regardless of whether the Nelson-Oneida Line or \nHelix-Hiple Line are constructed. 5 Tr 246, 301. Moreover, the Commission finds that MISO has \nbeen responsive to potential delays to other projects in the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio and would be \nobliged to propose alternative solutions should the entire portfolio fail to be developed. \n5 Tr 331-332, 329. As a result, the Commission declines to adopt the Staff’s proposal to condition \napproval of the projects on certain portions of the LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio (segments 12, 13, 14, \n15, and 16) receiving regulatory approval. \nE. Feasible and Reasonable Routes \n \nIf a party submits an alternative route for a proposed major transmission line, Act 30 requires \nthe Commission to do one of three things: (1) grant the application for the proposed route, \n(2) grant the application for one alternative route, or (3) deny the application. MCL 460.568(4). \nIn granting an application and issuing a certificate, the Commission must determine that the \nproposed or alternative route is feasible and reasonable. MCL 460.568(5)(b). Importantly, in \nmaking its decision, the Commission notes that it is not required to determine that the selected \nroute is more feasible and more reasonable than any other route proposed by any party; rather, the \nCommission finds that it need only determine that the proposed or alternative route selected is \nfeasible and reasonable. See, In re Application of Michigan Elec. Transmission Co., 309 Mich \nApp 1, 13; 867 NW2d 911 (2014), aff’d sub nom, In re Michigan Elec. Transmission Co. for \nTransmission Line, 500 Mich 988; 894 NW2d 551 (2017). \n \nAct 30 does not define what constitutes a “feasible” and “reasonable” route. When a statute \nfails to define a term, courts have routinely construed the term according to its common and \napproved usage. See, e.g., Jennings v Southwood, 446 Mich 125, 139; 521 NW2d 230 (1994). \n\n\nPage 73 \nU-21471 et al. \nWhen construing a term’s common and approved usage, it is appropriate to resort to dictionary \ndefinitions of that term. See, Nelson v Grays, 209 Mich App 661, 664; 531 NW2d 826 (1995). \nThe Commission, therefore, finds that it is acceptable to refer to a dictionary for the common use \nof the words “feasible” and “reasonable” to determine the meaning of these terms in the context of \nAct 30. Consistent with dictionary definitions, the Commission finds that a “feasible” route is one \nthat is “capable of being done or carried out” or that is “capable of being used or dealt with \nsuccessfully: suitable.”11 Additionally, the Commission finds that a “reasonable” route is one that \nis “[r]eflecting good judgment; fair and proper under the circumstances; rational, sound, and \nsensible.” See, Reasonable, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed). \n \nWith these principles in mind, the Commission addresses each major transmission line’s \npotential routes, below. \n1. Nelson-Oneida Line \na. Proposed Route \n \nIn its application, METC identifies and describes the Proposed Route for the Nelson-Oneida \nLine. Nelson-Oneida application, p. 8; see also, 5 Tr 348-351; Exhibit METC-15A. METC \nargues that the Proposed Route is feasible and reasonable and should be approved by the \nCommission. Specifically, the company argues that both METC’s and the Staff’s route studies \nshow that the Proposed Route was a reasonable selection. METC’s initial brief, p. 111. \n \nThe Staff recommends that the Commission find that the Proposed Route is reasonable and \nfeasible. Staff’s initial brief, pp. 20, 69-70; see also, 5 Tr 1189. \n \n 11 See, Feasible, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-\nwebster.com/dictionary/feasible (accessed June 30, 2025). \n\n\nPage 74 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, however, contend that the Proposed Route is not reasonable \nbecause METC selected the route contrary to paralleling principles and without first conducting a \ncost analysis. The Nelson-Oneida Intervenors further argue that the Proposed Route will have \nsignificant impacts on historical, land use, ecological, and economic interests. The Commission \naddresses each of these objections, in turn, below. \ni. \nRouting Study \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors first object to the Proposed Route because, as they assert, the \nroute study upon which METC relied to select the Proposed Route was flawed. \n \nBy way of background, and as described in Mr. Thornhill’s adopted testimony, METC stated \nthat it hired an independent consulting firm, BMcD, to perform its routing analysis. METC \ntestified that BMcD first established a study area between the Nelson Road Substation and the \nexisting Oneida Substation and then developed route segments that were combined to form \npotential routes for the transmission line. 5 Tr 512-513; see also, METC-23A, pp. 11-18, 24-26. \nIn total, METC stated that BMcD identified 1,304 different potential routes for the transmission \nline. 5 Tr 513; see also, Exhibit METC-23A, p. 27. BMcD then compared the potential routes \nbased on 21 evaluation factors, which were grouped into engineering, environmental, and social \ncategories. 5 Tr 514-515; see also, METC-23A, pp. 27-35. As BMcD explained, “[n]o one route \nwas found to have the lowest impact for all factors; therefore, the evaluation of routes focused on \nthe route options that best balanced the engineering, environmental, and social factors among the \nkey evaluation factors.” Exhibit METC-23A, p. 34. Based on this evaluation, BMcD identified a \nProposed Route and Alternate Route for the project’s construction plan “through minimizing land \nuse conflicts and overall social and natural resources impacts while still providing an economical \nand feasibly constructible route.” 5 Tr 515. \n\n\nPage 75 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nIn support of its selection of the Proposed Route, METC stated that, among other things, the \nProposed Route was below the average length of all routes evaluated, showed below average \nimpacts in most evaluation factors, and would require a below average amount of woodland \nclearing. Exhibit METC-23A, p. 39. Additionally, METC stated that the Proposed Route was the \nroute that best minimized overall impacts by avoiding protected lands, minimizing the total \nnumber of residences within 500 feet of the centerline of the transmission line, having a minimal \nnumber of center pivots crossed, and avoiding recorded and potentially eligible National Register \nof Historic Places sites. 5 Tr 516. Moreover, as compared to the selected Alternate Route, METC \nasserted that the Proposed Route showed slightly more wetland impacts but less hydric soil \nimpacts, requires more new ROWs but crosses fewer parcels, and has a slightly lower residential \nproximity score. Exhibit METC-23A, p. 39. \n \nFollowing agency input and public meetings, METC stated that it further refined the Proposed \nRoute and the Alternate Route for inclusion in its application to the Commission. 5 Tr 344. \nAccording to METC, “[t]hese refinements incorporated public input and further engineering \nreview to balance human, environmental, engineering, cost, and design considerations, with no \none category being dispositive.” 5 Tr 346. In turn, METC asserted that the route study’s \nextensive analysis and route development ensures that the Proposed Route is reasonable and \nfeasible. 5 Tr 320. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors took issue with METC’s selection of the Proposed Route and \nargued that the route study was flawed because METC, among other things, did not follow \nparalleling principles (namely in the form of rejecting the use of the existing Consumers ROW). \nThrough Mr. Andrews’ testimony, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors testified that, while all routing \nfactors should be considered, some factors should receive greater weight when selecting a \n\n\nPage 76 \nU-21471 et al. \ntransmission line’s route. 5 Tr 978. Specifically, Mr. Andrews asserted that the most important \nrouting factors include paralleling of existing linear infrastructure. 5 Tr 979. Mr. Andrews then \nopined that METC’s selection of the Proposed Route was deficient because the company did not \nconsider this important factor in the route study. As claimed by Mr. Andrews, although METC \nclaimed to have considered paralleling, there was no paralleling data included in the evaluation \nfactors used in the routing study, thereby making it impossible for paralleling opportunities to be \nadequately considered. 5 Tr 982. He further contended that paralleling opportunities exist in this \ncase, namely in the form of the existing Consumers ROW that is utilized by the Alternate Route. \nAs Mr. Andrews explained, “[t]he use of an unoccupied utility corridor represents an excellent \nrouting opportunity for this proposed project. Constructing the Proposed Project within this \ncorridor can minimize the adverse impacts that will be caused by the transmission line.” 5 Tr 984. \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan shared this critique of the route study’s purported lack of consideration \nfor paralleling and stated: \n[t]he second, and a far more momentous, routing fault is METC’s rejection of \nprioritizing nearly 8 miles of existing and available transmission right-of-way in \nsegments 68 and 70 for use in the proposed route. This is 20% of the entire project! \nIt is such a significant departure from route selection principles that, absent some \nstrong justification, it must be regarded as a gross departure from normal and \naccepted route selection practice. \n \n5 Tr 1126-1127. \n \nAdditionally, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors criticized METC’s route study because, as they \nalleged, it did not evaluate the costs of any route options. 5 Tr 986. Like paralleling, the \nNelson-Oneida Intervenors contended that cost is one of the most important factors to consider \nwhen routing a transmission line. See, 5 Tr 979, 1124. Mr. Andrews stated that METC did not \nevaluate cost and that neither the Proposed Route, the Alternate Route, nor any of the 1,304 route \noptions from the route study were evaluated for differences in estimated cost. 5 Tr 986. \n\n\nPage 77 \nU-21471 et al. \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan further testified that the southern section of the Proposed Route contains \nnumerous angles, many of which are heavy angles. She opined that the inclusion of this section of \nthe Proposed Route, as compared to the Alternate Route (utilizing the existing Consumers ROW), \nsignificantly increases the cost of the Proposed Route. 5 Tr 1130. In turn, \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan argued that the Proposed Route is not feasible or reasonable because it \ndoes not utilize the existing Consumers ROW and that “[b]y not using the available siting to the \ngreatest extent feasible, the proposed route adds unreasonable costs to the project. The \nfundamental utility principle is to provide consumers with reliable power at the least cost.” \n5 Tr 1132. \n \nThe Staff testifies that it conducted an analysis of METC’s routing study for the \nNelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 1249, 1251. Based on discovery responses, the Staff stated that it \nfound that METC’s analysis “did not score or have weighting factors for the evaluation of \npotential routes but rather relied on averages and conflicts with land use.” 5 Tr 1247-1248; see \nalso, Exhibit S-4.7. As a result, the Staff conducted its own analysis by taking the data from \nMETC’s route study and normalizing the data so that different evaluation factors could be summed \nand possible routes could be ranked, with a lower score indicating better performance.12 \n5 Tr 1247-1248. The Staff then presented sums and rankings for all 1,304 potential routes both on \nan overall as well as on an individual factor category (engineering, environmental, and social) \nbasis. Exhibit S-4.10, pp. 19-53; see also, 5 Tr 1253. The Staff stated that its analysis showed \n \n 12 The Staff testifies that it normalized data using the following equation: \n \n𝑦𝑦=\n𝑥𝑥−𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀\n𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀−𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 \n \nIn this equation, y is the normalized evaluation factor, x is the raw evaluation factor, Min is the \nminimum of the evaluation factor for the data set, and Max is the maximum evaluation factor for \nthe data set. 5 Tr 1248. \n\n\nPage 78 \nU-21471 et al. \nwide variability between the potential routes, with some performing well in certain factor \ncategories while performing poorly in others. 5 Tr 1253. Further, the Staff asserted that the \nresults of its analysis were similar to those in METC’s route study, namely that “the results were \nless clear-cut as to which grouping of routes minimized disruption to people and the environment, \nwhile still maintaining a low Engineering score.” 5 Tr 1253. \n \nConcerning the Proposed Route, the Staff stated that the Proposed Route was not the highest \noverall ranked route; rather, through its analysis, the Staff noted that the Proposed Route was the \nsixth-best overall ranked route, ranking second in the social factor category, 340th in the \nengineering factor category, and 612th for the environmental factor category. 5 Tr 1254; see also, \nExhibit S-4.10, pp. 36-53. Nonetheless, the Staff still found that the Proposed Route is reasonable. \n5 Tr 1189. As the Staff explained: \nthere are likely multiple reasonable choices for the basis of the Proposed Route. If \nyou look at the top scoring potential routes from each of the evaluation categories, \nthere seem to be tradeoffs and no clear winner. However, [the Proposed Route] is \none of the reasonable choices particularly because it has such a low Social score. \nThese lines will affect someone and [the Proposed Route] seems to be one of the \noptions that minimizes impact on individual landowners. \n \n5 Tr 1255. 13 \n \nIn rebuttal, METC argued that what constitutes the most important routing factors is \nsubjective and that the routing of transmission lines requires professional judgment to balance a \nhost of factors that vary from project to project. 5 Tr 573-574. Moreover, METC disputed the \nNelson-Oneida Intervenors’ claim that the company did not consider paralleling opportunities with \n \n 13 The Staff testifies that Route 217 (the highest overall ranked route) was only ranked 28th for \nthe social factor category, 69th for the environmental factor category, and 303rd for the engineering \nfactor category. 5 Tr 1253-1254. Similarly, for Route 222 (the second overall ranked route), the \nroute had a better social factor category than the Proposed Route but would require more new \nROWs and cross more parcels of land than the Proposed Route. 5 Tr 1254. \n\n\nPage 79 \nU-21471 et al. \nexisting ROWs. Specifically, METC claimed that its route study used multiple evaluation factors \nthat served as a proxy for consideration of existing ROWs and that the location of existing \ntransmission lines in the study area provided few opportunities to parallel the Nelson-Oneida Line. \n5 Tr 575-576. METC also disputed the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ claim that the company failed \nto consider the cost between the potential routes identified in the route study. According to \nMETC, \n[c]ost differences are evaluated as part of planning and design considerations but \nnot specifically separate. Routing factors such as heavy angles, length, \ntransmission line crossings, clearing, wetlands/hydric soils, stream/road crossings, \nnew right-of-way required, and parcels crossed, all play a role in the total cost of \nthe transmission line, which were considered as part of the study area for each \nRoute Study and the evaluation factors for each Route Study as well. \n \n5 Tr 577. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors provided rebuttal testimony challenging the Staff’s route \nanalysis, arguing that the Staff’s normalization formula was flawed. Through Mr. Andrews’ \ntestimony, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors argued that the Staff’s formula is not useful for a sample \nsize of 1,304 routes and that the formula was a not a statistically fundamental procedure because it \nis skewed by extreme highs and lows within the data set. 5 Tr 1024-1025. They also asserted that \nthe Staff’s analysis was flawed because, like METC’s route study, it did not weigh any of the \nindividual factors. 5 Tr 1025-1026. \n \nIn initial briefing, METC argues that its route studies were reasonable and comprehensive. \nMETC asserts that a formal ranking or weighing of routes is not necessary and that the company’s \nuse of professional judgment to identify and select routes for the transmission lines represents best \npractice. METC’s initial brief, p. 89. METC also argues that the suite of evaluation factors it used \nto analyze potential routes was comprehensive and that several evaluation factors served as \nproxies for cost and paralleling. Id., pp. 90-91. The Nelson-Oneida Intervenors respond and \n\n\nPage 80 \nU-21471 et al. \nreiterate that METC’s expert has considered paralleling in prior route studies, but did not do so in \nthis case, and further that federal and state law demonstrates that paralleling is a best practice. \nJoint Intervenors’ reply brief, pp. 19-21. \n \nIn their initial brief, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors again argue that METC’s route study is \nflawed because it did not incorporate the paralleling principle and because it did not present an \nevaluation of the incremental cost differences between the various route options. They first \nmaintain their assertion that METC’s route study failed to incorporate the principle of paralleling \ndespite it being a critical factor for determining a transmission line’s route, despite other \njurisdictions having such a requirement, and despite the fact that METC’s expert had previously \nincorporated the principle in her prior route studies. Joint Intervenors’ initial brief, pp. 13-16. \nThey further contend that the Commission has applied the paralleling principle and required a \ntransmission line to run parallel with existing infrastructure. Id., pp. 9-10 (referencing Case \nNo. U-14861). \n \nConcerning cost, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors argue that, in a past docket, the Commission \ndirected METC to “present a complete analysis of the incremental quantifiable and \nnonquantifiable benefits to warrant the additional cost relative to alternative approaches,” but that \nthe company made no such presentation and instead relied solely on MISO’s overall cost estimate. \nJoint Intervenors’ initial brief, pp. 18-22 (quoting July 29, 2013 order in Case No. U-17041, p. 25) \n(internal quotations omitted). \n \nMETC replies that its route study did consider paralleling, as evidenced by the use of the \nexisting Consumers ROW in the Alternate Route, but that there were legitimate reasons for not \nincluding this ROW in the Proposed Route. METC’s reply brief, pp. 25-27. METC further \nresponds that the laws used by other states only require consideration of paralleling, and do not \n\n\nPage 81 \nU-21471 et al. \ninclude a mandate to collocate transmission lines, and that Act 30 contains no formal paralleling \nrequirement. In support of this point, METC references the Commission’s decision to reject \nparalleling in the May 31, 2007 order in Case No. U-14861. Id., pp. 28-29. Additionally, METC \nargues that Act 30 does not require applicants to provide a BCA when comparing route options, \nand that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ reliance on the Commission’s purported directive in Case \nNo. U-17041 is misplaced because the cost analysis referred to in that case related to a comparison \nof alternative solutions to address the need for the transmission line, and not potential alternate \nroutes. Id., pp. 30-32. \n \nIn its initial brief, the Staff defends its analysis of the route study and argues that a \nmathematical ranking of the potential routes is a necessary step. Staff’s initial brief, p. 61. \nFurther, the Staff argues that even if paralleling was used as a separate, weighted factor, the results \nof its analysis would likely have not resulted in a finding that the use of the existing Consumers \nROW was preferred given the fact that the existing ROW is devoid of any existing infrastructure. \nId., p. 63. The Staff reiterates that the results of its analysis were similar to METC’s route study in \nthat no one route was identified as the best route considering all factors. Accordingly, the Staff \nargues that, while not perfect, METC’s route analysis for the Nelson-Oneida Line was a \nreasonable basis for establishing potential routes for the transmission line. Staff’s initial brief, \np. 59. \n \nThe Commission has reviewed the record and finds that, although not perfect, METC’s route \nstudy was not so flawed as to render the results of the study unreasonable. As confirmed by the \nStaff’s independent analysis, the Commission finds that no one potential route for the \nNelson-Oneida Line performed best across all evaluation factors; rather, the results were varied \nand thus necessitated some level of professional judgment to assess and determine appropriate \n\n\nPage 82 \nU-21471 et al. \ntrade-offs to identify optimal routes. See, Exhibit S-4.10. As such, given the variability of results, \nthe Commission finds that METC’s route study was a reasonable method for identifying potential \nroutes for the Nelson-Oneida Line and for ultimately selecting the Proposed Route and the \nAlternate Route. \nii. Historical, Land Use, Ecological, and Economic Impacts \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors also contend that selection of the Proposed Route will cause \nsignificant historical, land use, ecological, and economic impacts. \n \nAs an initial matter, the Commission finds that all landowner objections to the Nelson-Oneida \nLine, apart from the impacts alleged by Mr. Sanborn,14 are based on impacts to property located \nsolely on the Proposed Route. As further explained below, infra, the Commission is approving the \nAlternate Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. Consequently, because the alleged impacts caused \nby the Proposed Route will not materialize, the Commission declines to issue a determination on \nthese specific issues. \n \nWith respect to the objections raised by Mr. Sanborn, which involve property located along \nthe portion of the Proposed Route that overlaps with the Alternate Route, Mr. Sanborn first argued \nthat his family’s property has historically been used by Native Americans and that stone artifacts \nhave been discovered on the property. In turn, he argued that the property has historical and \narcheological significance. 5 Tr 1151. METC responded to these concerns and stated that it \nconducted a record review of the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office historic and \narcheological sites, as well as of the National Register of Historic Places database, and that this \nreview did not reveal any historically significant sites in the vicinity of the Proposed Route. \n \n 14 Mr. Sanborn alleges impacts to property that is located on the portion of the Proposed Route \nand Alternate Route that overlap. \n\n\nPage 83 \nU-21471 et al. \n5 Tr 602-603. Further, METC stated that it developed an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the \nprojects in the event of discovery of unknown archeological resources. 5 Tr 602-603. Finally, \nMETC stated that it communicated with representatives of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe \nwho confirmed that the Tribe did not have any specific concerns with the projects. 5 Tr 467. \n \nMr. Sanborn next asserted that the Nelson-Oneida Line will negatively impair ecological \nresources, including previously unidentified wetlands and trout streams, as well as trees and other \nvegetation. 5 Tr 1147-1149. METC responded and challenged Mr. Sanborn’s purported \nidentification of previously omitted wetlands from the company’s environmental report. \n5 Tr 584-588. Additionally, the company asserted that as part of construction of the project it will \nimplement measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waterbodies, including wetlands and \nstreams. 5 Tr 599-601. Concerning the protection of waterbodies, METC stated that: \n[v]egetation clearing, earth working activities, and increased traffic over disturbed \nsoils have the potential to impact waterways if they increase erosion into \nwaterways. However, direct impacts to waterbodies will be avoided to the extent \npracticable. METC will obtain any permits or approvals required for work in or \nnear waterbodies when necessary and will comply with the terms and conditions of \nthose permits or approvals, which typically include measures related to erosion and \nsedimentation control. Any work in documented trout streams will occur only in \naccordance with EGLE [Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and \nEnergy] requirements. Staging areas will be located in areas where potential spills \ncannot reach wetlands, lakes, or streams, as practicable; typically, it is \nrecommended to be at least 100 feet from such features. Where this is not possible, \nMETC will ensure that contamination is not able to reach actively flowing water. \n \nExhibit METC-24A, p. 29. \n \n \nThe Commission acknowledges that the siting of a major transmission line necessarily entails \nsome level of unavoidable impact on landowners and the environment. Indeed, the record in this \ncase demonstrates that all the potential routes explored for the Nelson-Oneida Line impact these \nresources. See, Exhibit METC-23A, pp. 30-33. \n\n\nPage 84 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nWith respect to the historical and ecological impacts testified to by Mr. Sanborn, the \nCommission is not persuaded that these alleged impacts warrant a finding that the Nelson-Oneida \nLine is not feasible and reasonable under the circumstances. The Commission finds that the \nevidence demonstrates that METC has reasonably assessed the potential for historical impacts \ncaused by the project and, moreover, that the company has developed an Unanticipated \nDiscoveries Plan in the event unknown archeological resources are discovered. See, 5 Tr 602-603; \nsee also, Exhibit METC-23A, p. 45. Similarly, regarding ecological impacts, the Commission \nfinds that METC has considered these impacts and has committed to implementing mitigation \nmeasures to avoid or minimize impacts to these resources, including impacts to wetlands, trout \nstreams, and vegetation. See, Exhibit METC-24A, pp. 13-15, 26-27, 29. As such, the \nCommission finds that the impacts caused by the Nelson-Oneida Line do not render it \nunreasonable. \nb. Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ Proposed Alternative Routes \n \nThrough testimony and in briefing, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors propose alternative routes \nfor the Nelson-Oneida Line, namely: (1) the Alternate Route or the Nelson Road to Oneida \nLandowner (NROL) Hybrid Route, and (2) the Maple River State Game Area Route.15 The \nCommission addresses each of these alternatives, in turn, below. \ni. \nAlternate Route and Nelson Road to Oneida Landowner Hybrid Route \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors first advocate for the Commission to approve either the \nAlternate Route or the NROL Hybrid Route. Joint Intervenor’s initial brief, p. 55. \n \n 15 The Commission notes that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors state that the use of the Alternate \nRoute’s river crossings for the Grand River and the Looking Glass River, referred by METC as the \n“Sikarskie Alternative,” is not a separately proposed alternative route. See, Joint Intervenors’ \nreply brief, p. 22; see also, METC’s initial brief, pp. 109-111. Accordingly, the Commission does \nnot address this alternative route separately. \n\n\nPage 85 \nU-21471 et al. \n \n METC identified and described the Alternate Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. \n5 Tr 352-355; see also, Exhibit METC-15A, pp. 28-53. The NROL Hybrid Route, as described by \nMr. Andrews, uses the portion of METC’s Alternate Route south of West Jason Road and the \nProposed Route north of West Jason Road, with the routes connected with a proposed crossover \nsegment that is just south of Westphalia, Michigan. 5 Tr 993-994; see also, 5 Tr 994, Figure 5. \nMr. Andrews stated that the NROL Hybrid Route most closely resembles Route 276 from \nMETC’s route study. 5 Tr 993-994. The southern portions of both the Alternate Route and the \nNROL Hybrid Route utilize the existing Consumers ROW. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors argued that the Alternate Route and the NROL Hybrid Route \nare superior to METC’s Proposed Route because these alternative routes utilize the existing \nConsumers ROW, which they claim better aligns with routing principles and results in cost \nsavings. According to the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, approximately 7.89 miles, or 20% of the \ntotal length, of the Alternate Route and NROL Hybrid Route makes use of the existing Consumers \nROW, which they claimed makes an excellent routing opportunity that will minimize adverse \nimpacts. 5 Tr 985. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors also rebuffed METC’s stated rationale for choosing not to \nincorporate the existing Consumers ROW into the Proposed Route, namely, that the existing ROW \nis not wide enough to support the Nelson-Oneida Line and that using the existing ROW corridor \nwill limit flexibility in a way that could increase the proximity of the transmission line to existing \nstructures. See, 5 Tr 1129 (referencing Exhibit METC-23A). They claimed that although the \nexisting Consumers ROW is only approximately 130-feet wide, METC has failed to justify its \nneed for a 200-foot-wide ROW for the Nelson-Oneida Line. 5 Tr 985, 1121. The Nelson-Oneida \nIntervenors noted that 345 kV transmission lines in other states only require a ROW of 150 feet, \n\n\nPage 86 \nU-21471 et al. \nthat MISO’s own cost estimation guide identifies a 175-foot ROW for 345 kV transmission lines, \nand that METC is the only transmission line provider constructing 345 kV transmission lines in \nthe LRTP Tranche 1 portfolio that is requesting a 200-foot ROW. 5 Tr 986, 1122-1123; see also, \nExhibit VWB-1. As such, they argued that METC has unjustifiably designed the Nelson-Oneida \nLine to use a larger ROW that will create more impacts to landowners and result in higher costs. \n5 Tr 1123-1124. Moreover, even if the Nelson-Oneida Line requires a 200-foot ROW, the \nNelson-Oneida Intervenors contended that utilizing the existing Consumers ROW will reduce the \namount of new ROW required for the project. 5 Tr 986. \n \nFurther, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors contended that a review of geographic information \nsystem data revealed no residences or buildings within the proposed 200-foot ROW along the \nexisting corridor. Additionally, they argued that “[a]nyone living next to a 132['] transmission \ncorridor that was acquired by purchase, rather than by the power of eminent domain, has already \naccepted their transmission line neighbor by choice, making this existing ROW a golden siting \nopportunity for METC.” 5 Tr 1129. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors next argued that using the existing Consumers ROW will \nresult in cost savings for the project. Specifically, they argued that the southern sections of the \nAlternate Route and the NROL Hybrid Route, through use of the existing ROW, contain seven \nfewer heavy angles, 1.07 fewer miles of line, and impact fewer wetlands as compared to the \nProposed Route. 5 Tr 1130. In turn, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors contended that these reduced \nimpacts will result in lower costs for the transmission line, with the Alternate Route estimated to \nbe $6.5 million, or six percent, less expensive than the Proposed Route. See, 5 Tr 987-988; see \nalso, Exhibit NROL-4. \n\n\nPage 87 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nFinally, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors argued that the Alternate Route has better river \ncrossings than the Proposed Route. Through Mr. Andrews’ testimony, the Nelson-Oneida \nIntervenors stated that the Proposed Route crosses the Grand River at a bend, which they asserted \nwill make it likely that the transmission line’s support tower will be located in the middle of a \nfloodplain and thus subject to flooding that would complicate construction and maintenance. \n5 Tr 989-990. Conversely, they stated that the Alternate Route’s crossing of the Grand River \ncould entirely span the floodplain, and further, that it would utilize the already existing utility \ncorridor. 5 Tr 990-991. \n \nAdditionally, Dr. Sikarskie testified that the Alternate Route’s crossings of the Grand River \nand the Looking Glass River both include less wetlands and more open land. 5 Tr 1108. As a \nresult, Dr. Sikarskie opined that these crossings, as compared to the Proposed Route, will have \nmuch less impact on nesting eagle populations and other raptors that utilize the woodlands at these \ncrossings. 5 Tr 1105. \n \nThe Staff stated that it examined the Alternate Route under its normalization formula and \nfound that the Alternate Route had an overall ranking of 289th, with an engineering evaluation \nfactor ranking of 285th, an environmental evaluation factor ranking of 268th, and a social \nevaluation factor ranking of 235th. 5 Tr 1255; see also, Exhibit S-4.10. After route refinement, the \nStaff noted that the Alternate Route’s total evaluation score increased, primarily due to increased \nengineering and environmental evaluation factor scores, but that the social evaluation factor score \ndecreased. 5 Tr 1266-1267; see also, Exhibit S-4.29, p. 16. The Staff, in turn, opined that the \nAlternate Route is feasible and reasonable under Act 30. 5 Tr 1189. \n \nFor the NROL Hybrid Route, the Staff’s normalization formula showed that the route had an \noverall ranking of 83rd, with an engineering evaluation factor ranking of 257th, an environmental \n\n\nPage 88 \nU-21471 et al. \nevaluation factor ranking of 264th, and a social evaluation factor ranking of 59th. See, \nExhibit S-4.10. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC disputed the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ contention that the Alternate \nRoute or the NROL Hybrid Route are superior to the Proposed Route. Regarding the use of the \nexisting Consumers ROW, METC stated that the existing ROW is not an existing utility corridor \nbut rather is currently undeveloped and uncleared of vegetation. 5 Tr 592. METC further stated \nthat the existing ROW is not wide enough to support the transmission line and that a 200-foot \nROW is necessary to comply with NERC requirements to safely operate the transmission line and \nto maintain adequate separation from vegetation that could impact reliability. 5 Tr 360. As such, \nMETC argued that using the existing Consumers ROW will still require the company “to acquire \nadditional lands outside of the 130-feet to accommodate the [Nelson-Oneida Line], which will \nincrease the social impacts due to the increase proximity to residents.” 5 Tr 429. Specifically, \nMETC asserted that the use of the existing Consumers ROW will cross more parcels and will \nimpact 15 more residences than the Proposed Route. 5 Tr 596; see also, Exhibit METC-38R. In \nturn, METC asserted that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors merely seek to shift the impacts of the \ntransmission line onto other landowners for their own benefit. 5 Tr 429. \n \nRegarding the alleged cost savings of utilizing the existing Consumers ROW, METC stated \nthat, at this point in the project, detailed cost estimates are preliminary and that any cost \ndifferences between routes are not expected to be significant. 5 Tr 420. METC further stated that \nthe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ reliance on a few construction elements to make detailed cost \ncomparisons is inappropriate and that such analysis will not provide an accurate cost comparison. \n5 Tr 500. METC also asserted that the desire to straighten the transmission line route through the \n\n\nPage 89 \nU-21471 et al. \nelimination of angled structures is unrealistic and will have negative design implications. \n5 Tr 420. \n \nFinally, regarding river crossings, METC argued that the presence of a floodplain will not \nresult in construction or maintenance complications and that the company has experience \nconstructing transmission lines in floodplains and wetlands like the areas present at the river \ncrossings. 5 Tr 501. METC further reiterated that the existing Consumers ROW has no existing \ninfrastructure so any purported benefit of using the existing easement at the crossing of the Grand \nRiver is not meaningful. 5 Tr 422. \n \nRegarding impacts to nesting eagles, METC argued that Dr. Sikarskie has not provided any \nevidence pointing to a specific eagle nesting site that will be impacted by the Proposed Route. \n5 Tr 599. Further, METC asserted that eagle and other avian populations will not be significantly \nimpacted by the project due to the company’s implementation of its APP and line markers. \n5 Tr 752-754, 757; see also, Exhibit METC-33R. \n \nIn briefing, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors maintain that the Alternate Route and NROL \nHybrid Route are preferred to the Proposed Route. They further argue that any increased social \nimpacts caused by the use of the existing Consumers ROW are acceptable given that the owners of \nproperty adjacent to this existing corridor have either been compensated or have purchased their \nproperty with knowledge of Consumers’ ownership. Joint Intervenors’ initial brief, pp. 16-18. In \nreply, METC argues that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ arguments in favor of the existing \nConsumers ROW are speculative and unsupported in the record and that they provided no facts to \nrebut the company’s testimony regarding the need for a 200-foot ROW nor the factual basis for \nMETC’s decision to choose the Proposed Route over the Alternate Route. METC’s reply brief, \npp. 25-27. \n\n\nPage 90 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nThe Staff argues that METC’s route refinements to the Nelson-Oneida Line were reasonable \nand that some of the increase in overall scores for the Proposed Route and Alternate Route was the \nresult of accommodations for landowner requests, while other increases were due to increased \ngranularity of data and were attempting to reduce the social and environmental impacts of the \nroutes. Staff’s initial brief, pp. 70-71. The Staff clarifies in its initial brief that although the \nAlternate Route had a better overall score than the Proposed Route, there are still valid reasons the \nProposed Route may be preferable, namely its lower social score. Id., p. 70. \n \nIn its initial brief, METC advocates for the Commission to reject the Alternate Route and \nNROL Hybrid Route and instead choose the Proposed Route. METC maintains that the alleged \nbenefits of using the NROL Hybrid Route do not outweigh the tradeoffs in the form of increased \nsocial impacts and increased residential proximity. METC’s initial brief, pp. 96-99. METC again \nreiterates that the existing Consumers ROW is undeveloped, thereby negating many of the \nenvironmental benefits that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors claim arise from its use. Id., \npp. 99-100. METC also maintains that any purported cost savings are marginal at this stage of the \nproject and that eliminating angled structures is unrealistic given that these structures are required \neven on straight routes to prevent cascading during an emergency. Id., pp. 100-101. METC \nfurther argues that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ assertions regarding river crossings are \nunfounded and that constructing the transmission line through a floodplain does not cause \ncomplications that would warrant use of the alternative routes. Id., pp. 102-103. METC also \nadvocates for the Commission to reject the Alternate Route because both the company’s route \nstudy and the Staff’s analysis confirm that the Proposed Route is reasonable and results in fewer \nsocial impacts. Id., pp. 111-112. \n\n\nPage 91 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors respond and maintain that the existing Consumers ROW \noffers a superior alternative to the Proposed Route. They further argue that by including the \nAlternate Route in its application, METC has acknowledged that the use of the existing \nConsumers ROW is feasible and reasonable. Joint Intervenors’ reply brief, pp. 16-17. \n \nThe Commission has reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on this issue and declines \nto adopt the NROL Hybrid Route as the approved route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. Although the \nNROL Hybrid Route may be reasonable under Act 30, the Commission is not persuaded that the \nroute is superior to the Proposed Route or the Alternate Route. As the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors \nacknowledge, the Commission finds that the record does not demonstrate that landowners located \non the NROL Hybrid Route’s proposed crossover route segment have received direct notice of the \nproject or had a meaningful opportunity to participate in this contested case. See, 5 Tr 997. This \nstrikes the Commission as a major flaw in Act 30 in that although Act 30 clearly empowers the \nCommission to select an alternative route as proposed by an intervening party (see, MCL \n460.568(4)), doing so could well result in the use of eminent domain over a landowner’s property \nwithout the landowner ever being made aware that such a result was possible or providing the \nlandowner with the opportunity to participate in the proceeding. Such an outcome, at a minimum, \nstrains the limits of the concept of due process. As such, the Commission is not persuaded to \napprove the NROL Hybrid Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. \n \nThe Commission, however, agrees with the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors and finds that the \nAlternate Route is preferrable to the Proposed Route. The Commission finds that the Alternate \nRoute has fewer heavy angles, road crossings, acres of wetlands within the ROW, and acres of \nhydric soils within the ROW when compared to the Proposed Route. See, Exhibit S-4.29, p. 15. \nAdditionally, the Commission agrees with the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors and finds that the \n\n\nPage 92 \nU-21471 et al. \nAlternate Route better exhibits sound routing principles by utilizing the existing Consumers ROW. \nThis is demonstrated by the fact that the Alternate Route requires significantly fewer acres of new \nROW as compared to the Proposed Route (817.9 acres compared to 938.6 acres). See, \nExhibit S-4.29, p. 15. Thus, although the Alternate Route has a higher social evaluation category \nscore than the Proposed Route (primarily based on the number of parcels crossed and residences \nlocated within 101-500 feet), the Commission finds that these increased social impacts are \nreasonable given that the Alternate Route utilizes an existing ROW that landowners are either \naware of or can reasonably be expected to be aware of. Moreover, even accounting for the \nAlternate Route’s increased social impacts, the Staff’s analysis demonstrates that, overall, the \nAlternate Route performs better than the Proposed Route. See, Exhibit S-4.29, p. 16. \nAccordingly, the Commission finds that the Proposed Route, while feasible, is not reasonable \ngiven the opportunity to use an existing ROW, but that the Alternate Route is both feasible and \nreasonable. \nii. Maple River State Game Area Alternative Route \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors also advocate for the Commission to incorporate a segment of \nan alternative route that traverses the Maple River State Game Area. \n \nBy way of background, METC’s route study originally identified a route, Route 309, as the \nAlternate Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. Importantly, Route 309 included a segment of an \nalternative route (Segment 36), which crosses 0.5 miles of the Maple River State Game Area. \nHowever, as METC explained, additional analysis was performed to accommodate engineering \nand practical restraints related to the use of public lands. As a result, METC developed additional \nroute segments to permit the final Alternate Route to circumvent the Maple River State Game \n\n\nPage 93 \nU-21471 et al. \nArea by using certain segments of the Proposed Route referred to by the parties as “the Sanborn \nLoop.” See, Exhibit METC-23A, pp. 36, 38. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors contended that the use of the Sanborn Loop will add eight \nturns and 1.9 miles of additional length to the project that will result in substantial costs. \n5 Tr 1001, 1124, 1152. Further, through Mr. Sanborn’s testimony, they argued that the use of the \nSanborn Loop, as compared to Segment 36, would result in greater impacts. Specifically, \nMr. Sanborn testified that he conducted field reconnaissance that revealed a 35-acre wetland \nsoutheast of Jessup Road in North Plains Township that was omitted from METC’s route study. \n5 Tr 1147; see also, Exhibit AS-2, Exhibit METC-24A, Appendix E, p. 9. Mr. Sanborn also \ntestified that he developed his own land cover maps for certain sections of the Sanborn Loop and \nSegment 36. Through this analysis, Mr. Sanborn asserted that utilization of a route that \nincorporates Segment 36 will result in reduced impacts in 12 of the 21 routing factors considered \nby METC, including, among other things, reduced wetlands/grasslands/pastures/croplands within \nthe ROW, road crossings, parcels crossed, new ROW required, and residences within 500 feet of \nthe transmission line’s ROW. 5 Tr 1148, 1150; see also, Exhibits AS-3 and AS-4. Additionally, \nMr. Sanborn stated that the use of Segment 36 will avoid impacting two previously unidentified \ntrout streams. 5 Tr 1149. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors also argued that METC has not provided an adequate \nexplanation for avoiding use of the Maple River State Game Area. They asserted that other \ntransmission lines, including those operated by METC, have been located on public lands, \nincluding existing transmission lines in the Maple River State Game Area and the nearby \nPotterville State Game Area. See, 5 Tr 1002, 1125. Accordingly, the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors \n\n\nPage 94 \nU-21471 et al. \nargued that METC should be required to make a reasonable attempt to site the transmission line \nusing Segment 36. 5 Tr 1125. \n \nThe Staff testified that routes that use Segment 36 have reduced wetland and archeological \nimpacts, while routes that do not use Segment 36 have a reduced average amount of hydric soil \nwithin the ROW. 5 Tr 1253; see also, Exhibit S-4.10, p. 18. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC defended its environmental studies as complying with industry standards. \nMETC further asserted that Mr. Sanborn’s wetland analysis did not conform to U.S. Army Corps \nof Engineers’ requirements, so it is unsurprising that there are deviations in the results. \n5 Tr 584-585. The company also disputed that its environmental studies had misidentified 35 \nacres of wetlands, pointing out that some of Mr. Sanborn’s land cover maps had overlaps with \nMETC’s wetlands maps. 5 Tr 586-587, Figures SGT-1 and SGT-2. Additionally, METC disputed \nthe argument that routes that use Segment 36 perform better, arguing that such a route would \nfragment protected lands and require clearing of trees and wetlands. 5 Tr 597. METC also \nasserted that trout streams will be protected because the company will still need to comply with \napplicable permit requirements when constructing the Proposed Route. 5 Tr 600-601. \n \nRegarding the use of a ROW on public land, METC argued that there are significant safety \nand reliability issues associated with routing the transmission line through the Maple River State \nGame Area. According to METC, these public lands are owned and managed by MDNR, which \nhas a policy that limits permitting for ROWs for overhead electric transmission lines to 100 feet in \nwidth. 5 Tr 431 (referencing MDNR Policy and Procedure No. 28.46-05).16 METC contended \nthat this limited ROW is insufficient to design the Nelson-Oneida Line in a way that ensures safety \n \n 16 A copy of the referenced MDNR Policy and Procedure is available at \nhttps://www.michigan.gov/dnr/-/media/Project/Websites/dnr/Documents/RealEstate/2846-05.pdf \n(accessed June 10, 2025). \n\n\nPage 95 \nU-21471 et al. \nand reliability. 5 Tr 431. Additionally, METC argued that the other transmission lines located on \npublic lands are distinguishable, and that these lines either predate designation of the land as \npublic land or were compatible with MDNR’s 100-foot ROW limitation. As such, METC argued \nthat although it considered routing the transmission line through the Maple River State Game Area \nit found that such a route would not be feasible. 5 Tr 432-434. \n \nThe Commission is not persuaded that Segment 36 should be incorporated into the approved \nroute for the Nelson-Oneida Line. The Commission finds, based on the record in this case, that the \nevidence does not demonstrate that it is feasible for METC to construct the transmission line \nthrough the Maple River State Game Area. MCL 460.568(5)(b). Specifically, while the \nCommission finds that the MDNR’s internal policy limits utility lines’ ROWs to 100-feet when \ncrossing MDNR land, based on the evidence presented in this case, it is unclear whether the \nNelson-Oneida Line is capable of being constructed through the Maple River State Game Area, \nespecially in light of the fact that both METC and the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors have suggested \nthat a ROW wider than 100-feet is typically used for 345-kV transmission lines. See, MDNR \nPolicy and Procedure No. 28.46-05, p. 5; see also, 5 Tr 406, 986, 1112 and Exhibit VWB-1. \n \nThe Commission, however, admonishes METC for its efforts in this case to explore the \nfeasibility of routing the Nelson-Oneida Line through public land. In its application, METC relies \non a single email response from the MDNR to categorically reject routing the Nelson-Oneida Line \nthrough the Maple River State Game Area. Exhibit METC-23A, Appendix A. The Commission \nfinds this level of engagement to be lacking and completely inadequate. Thus, while the \nCommission acknowledges the MDNR’s internal policy limiting ROWs for utility lines to \n100-feet, the Commission expects METC and other Act 30 applicants in future Act 30 cases to \nconduct a more robust examination of the feasibility of routing transmission lines through public \n\n\nPage 96 \nU-21471 et al. \nlands, and for this examination to be thoroughly documented in any applications filed with the \nCommission. \nc. Approved Route \n \nHaving reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on this issue, the Commission grants \nMETC’s application for the Nelson-Oneida Line Alternate Route. Pursuant to Section 8(5) of \nAct 30, the Commission determines that the Alternate Route is both feasible and reasonable. \nMCL 460.568(5)(b). \n \nAs explained above, supra, the Commission finds that substantial evidence in the record \ndemonstrates that the Alternate Route is reasonable and is the preferred route when compared to \nthe Proposed Route. The Commission finds that METC’s route study demonstrates that the \nAlternate Route has a length that is below the average length of the routes evaluated and has below \naverage impacts in most of the evaluation factors assessed by METC, including for wetlands, \nhydric soils, number of parcels crossed, and residential proximity. See, Exhibit METC-23A, p. 41. \nThe Staff’s independent analysis of METC’s route study confirms the reasonableness of the \nAlternate Route, showing that, before route refinement, the Alternate Route ranks well above \nmany of the other 1,304 potential routes evaluated. See, 5 Tr 1255; see also, Exhibit S-4.10. \nMoreover, after route refinement, the Staff’s analysis demonstrates that the Alternate Route has \nfewer heavy angles, road crossings, acres of wetlands within the ROW, and acres of hydric soils \nwithin the ROW when compared to the Proposed Route, and that the Alternate Route has a better \noverall score than the Proposed Route. See, Exhibit S-4.29, pp. 15-16. \n \nAdditionally, the Commission finds that the Alternate Route’s utilization of the existing \nConsumers ROW supports the reasonableness of the route. The Commission is persuaded by the \nNelson-Oneida Intervenors’ argument that the paralleling of transmission lines with existing utility \n\n\nPage 97 \nU-21471 et al. \ncorridors represents sound routing principles and finds that the use of existing utility ROWs to \nminimize the condemnation of private land is an important factor for establishing a reasonable \nroute under Act 30. As such, the Commission expects METC and future Act 30 applicants to \nthoroughly explore utilizing existing ROWs, and any potential ROWs through public lands, when \nselecting potential routes for a major transmission line. \n \nFinally, in conformance with Section 8(6) of Act 30, the Commission finds that the estimated \ncost for the Nelson-Oneida Line is $182 million. See, 5 Tr 263. The Commission identifies the \napproved route for the Nelson-Oneida Line as the Alternate Route identified and described by \nMETC. See, 5 Tr 352-355; see also, Exhibit METC-15A, pp. 28-53. \n2. Helix-Hiple Line \na. Proposed Route \n \nMETC identifies and describes the Proposed Route for the Helix-Hiple Line. Helix-Hiple \napplication, p. 8; see also, 5 Tr 373-378; Exhibit METC-15B. The company argues that the record \ndemonstrates that the Proposed Route is feasible and reasonable and should be selected by the \nCommission. \n \nLike the Nelson-Oneida Line, METC stated that, through BMcD, it developed the Proposed \nRoute for the Helix-Hiple Line through a routing study that identified a study area and developed \npotential route segments. 5 Tr 540; see also, Exhibit METC-23B. Through this process, BMcD \nidentified a total of 511 potential routes for the Helix-Hiple Line. 5 Tr 541; see also, Exhibit \nMETC-23B, p. 28. These potential routes were then evaluated using 22 factors, which were \ngrouped into engineering, environmental, and social evaluation categories. 5 Tr 542-543; see also, \nExhibit METC-23B, pp. 28-29. BMcD then identified trends in the route data that identified two \ngeneral groupings of routes: Western Corridor routes and Eastern Corridor routes. According to \n\n\nPage 98 \nU-21471 et al. \nBMcD, the Eastern Corridor routes were retained for further analysis because they best minimized \noverall impacts. 5 Tr 543-544. “In consideration of minimizing overall land use conflicts and the \nevaluation factors considered, it was determined that the route that best minimized the overall \nimpacts to resources was [the Proposed Route].” 5 Tr 544. \n \nIn support of its selection of the Proposed Route, METC stated that the Proposed Route was \ndetermined to be the route that best minimized overall impacts to resources by avoiding protected \nlands, minimizing the total number of residences within 0-500 feet of the centerline, avoiding \neligible or potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places sites, minimizing the number of \ncenter pivots crossed, and by having the shortest overall length of routes studied in the Eastern \nCorridor. 5 Tr 444; see also, Exhibit METC-23B, p. 37. \n \nFollowing agency input and public meetings, METC stated that it further refined the Proposed \nRoute for inclusion in its application with the Commission. 5 Tr 369, 371. According to METC, \nthe refinements incorporated public input to balance human, environmental, engineering, cost, and \ndesign considerations. 5 Tr 371. In turn, METC argued that the Proposed Route is the most \nreasonable and feasible route. 5 Tr 566. \n \nThe Staff testified that, as with the Nelson-Oneida Line, it conducted an independent analysis \nof METC’s route study. The Staff stated that it again took data from METC’s route study and \nnormalized the data so that different evaluation factors could be summed, and possible routes \ncould be ranked, with a lower score indicating better performance. 5 Tr 1247-1248. The Staff \nthen presented the sums and rankings for all 511 potential routes both on an overall as well as on \nan individual evaluation category (engineering, environmental, and social) basis. Exhibit S-4.8, \npp. 18-23. Based on its analysis, the Staff contended that the Proposed Route “is a reasonable \nchoice for the basis of the primary route.” 5 Tr 1248. The Staff stated that the Proposed Route has \n\n\nPage 99 \nU-21471 et al. \nthe lowest overall score of all potential routes, and ranks first in the engineering evaluation \ncategory, second in the social evaluation category, and fifteenth in the environmental evaluation \ncategory. 5 Tr 1248-1249. \n \nThe Staff noted, however, that the Proposed Route crosses a rural airport owned by Robert and \nRose Williams. 5 Tr 1263-1264; see also, Exhibit S-4.26, p. 1. The Staff stated that, at the time of \nMETC’s route study, the airport was not classified as an airport by the FAA. 5 Tr 1264. \nHowever, following development of the Proposed Route, and prior to their knowledge of the \nproject, the Williamses applied to the FAA to have their property classified as a registered airport. \n5 Tr 1264; see also, Exhibit S-4.26, pp. 2-3. As of November 27, 2023, the airport on the \nWilliams’ property is an FAA approved and registered airport, which is a point in time that comes \nafter METC submitted its construction plans but seven months before METC filed its applications \nfor a certificate of public convenience and necessity in this proceeding. See, Exhibit S-4.26, p. 3. \nNevertheless, despite the presence of the airport on the Williams’ property, the Staff contended \nthat the Proposed Route is feasible and reasonable. 5 Tr 1189. In rebuttal, METC agreed with the \nStaff’s finding that the Proposed Route is reasonable. 5 Tr 590. \n \nIn initial briefing, METC argues that the record demonstrates that the Proposed Route is \nfeasible and reasonable. METC’s initial brief, p. 117. METC contends that both the company’s \nand the Staff’s route studies demonstrate that the Proposed Route is a reasonable choice. Id. \nMETC highlights the Staff’s analysis of the route study, which shows that the Proposed Route \nranked first overall out of all the potential routes studied. Id. Moreover, METC argues that its \ncontinued refinement of the Proposed Route after agency and public feedback adds to the \nreasonableness of the route. Id., pp. 117-118. Accordingly, METC advocates for the Commission \nto approve the Proposed Route. Id., p. 118. \n\n\nPage 100 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nIn supplemental briefing, METC argues that the undisputed record demonstrates that the \nProposed Route is reasonable. METC notes that the only two parties who addressed the \nHelix-Hiple Line were the company and the Staff, both of whom agree that the Proposed Route is \nreasonable. METC’s supplemental brief, p. 5. METC further asserts that the Williams’ airport is \nan airstrip intended for private use, and is not a certified public airport. The company claims that \nthe airport is required to comply with applicable laws and regulations and questions whether the \nairport is properly licensed. Id, pp. 6-9. METC, therefore, argues that the Commission should not \ngive preferential treatment to this land use over others. Id., pp. 8-9. Additionally, METC argues \nthat the Proposed Route is reasonable even with potential impacts on the Williams’ airport and that \nany refinement to the route to avoid these impacts would result in a significant shift to the studied \nroute. Id., p. 10. Finally, METC contends that the Commission’s analysis of the Proposed Route \nshould not be comparative or a search for the “best” route and the company asserts that no \njustification exists in the record to reject the Proposed Route and to choose a different route that \nwill impact more landowners. Id., pp. 11-14. \n \nThe Staff argues that the findings of its analysis of the Helix-Hiple Line were unrebutted, and \nthat both its and METC’s analyses showed that the Proposed Route is reasonable despite using \ndifferent methodologies. Staff’s initial brief, pp. 62, 65. Accordingly, the Staff recommends that \nthe Commission find the Proposed Route to be feasible and reasonable as designed, a contention \nthat the Staff reiterates in its supplemental brief. Id., p. 20; see also, Staff’s supplemental brief, \npp. 6-7. \n \nThe Commission has reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments and finds that the \nProposed Route is feasible and reasonable. The Commission finds that the Proposed Route \nreduces overall impacts to environmental and human resources and that the route scores better than \n\n\nPage 101 \nU-21471 et al. \nthe majority of routes analyzed in the engineering, environmental, and social evaluation categories \nand that the Proposed Route has the lowest overall score of all potential routes studied for the \nHelix-Hiple Line, as demonstrated by the Staff’s independent analysis. See, Exhibit S-4.8, p. 18. \n \nThe Commission disagrees with METC’s contention that the Commission is required to \napprove the Proposed Route simply because no party expressly asserted that the Proposed Route is \nunreasonable. On the contrary, Act 30 requires the Commission to independently determine \nwhether a proposed or alternative route is feasible and reasonable. MCL 460.568(5)(b). In this \ncase, the Staff produced evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Proposed Route traverses a \nregistered airport. Certainly, given this evidence, the Commission would be within its authority to \ndetermine that the placement of a transmission line through a known airport is unreasonable and \ndoes not demonstrate sound judgment. However, given the specific facts presented in this case, \nthe Commission is not persuaded to reach such a conclusion.17 The Commission notes that the \nsiting of transmission lines necessarily causes disruptions to land uses and entails balancing \ntradeoffs between these competing land uses. Here, the Commission finds that the record does not \nsupport a finding that the impacts to the Williams’ airport would be more disruptive than impacts \nto other land uses so as to render the Proposed Route unreasonable. Moreover, the Commission \nfinds that shifting the Helix-Hiple Line to the Alternate Route to avoid impacts to the Williams’ \nairport would result in increased social impacts, namely in the increased archeological sites within \nthe ROW, significantly increased residences within 500 feet of the ROW, and increased parcels \n \n 17 The Commission notes that the Williamses, although parties to this case, did not directly \nsubmit evidence through testimony or briefing regarding the impacts of the proposed transmission \nline on their airport. Although the Williamses and several other individuals submitted comments \nregarding the transmission lines’ purported impacts on the airport, these comments are not part of \nthe record and therefore cannot serve as a basis for the Commission’s decision in this matter. See, \nMCL 24.285. \n\n\nPage 102 \nU-21471 et al. \ncrossed. See, Exhibit S-4.11, p. 15. The Commission, therefore, declines to find the Proposed \nRoute unreasonable given its location through the Williams’ property. \nb. Proposed Route Prime \n \nAs previously explained, the Staff testifies that it learned that the Proposed Route crosses a \nrural airport. As part of a discovery response to the Staff’s inquiry about this airport, the Staff \nnotes that Mr. and Mrs. Williams suggested the use of an alternative to the Proposed Route (PR \nPrime) that would avoid impacts to their property. 5 Tr 1264-1265. PR Prime would modify the \nProposed Route by substituting route segments that would shift the Proposed Route to the east to \ncircumvent the Williamses’ property. See, Exhibit S-4.26, p. 6. \n \nThe Staff states that it evaluated PR Prime using the same normalization methodology it used \nto evaluate the Proposed Route. 5 Tr 1265. According to the Staff, the results of its analysis show \nthat PR Prime performs better overall in each evaluation category when compared to the Proposed \nRoute. 5 Tr 1265. Specifically, the Staff’s analysis shows that, when compared to the Proposed \nRoute, PR Prime is shorter; has fewer heavy angles; impacts fewer acres of wetlands, hydric soils, \nwoodlands, and grasslands/pastures; requires fewer acres of new ROW; and has fewer residences \nwithin 500 feet of the centerline. Exhibit S-4.28, pp. 1-2. Consequently, PR Prime scores better \nthan the Proposed Route overall, as well as in the engineering, environmental, and social \nevaluation categories. Exhibit S-4.28, p. 3. However, the Staff states that PR Prime would impact \ndifferent landowners and would impact more landowners than the Proposed Route (23 compared \nto 20). 5 Tr 1265. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC disagrees with the Staff that PR Prime performs better than the Proposed \nRoute and asserts that the alternative route underperforms in several areas. 5 Tr 415. METC \nfurther argues that PR Prime does not include important design considerations and that the \n\n\nPage 103 \nU-21471 et al. \nalternative route has not been subjected to additional review and diligence necessary to fully assess \nthe route. 5 Tr 416. Accordingly, METC advocates for the Commission to reject PR Prime. \n5 Tr 417. \n \nIn briefing, METC maintains its call for the Commission to reject PR Prime. METC argues \nthat PR Prime would shift the centerline of the transmission line to property owners who have not \nbeen noticed in this case and have not had an opportunity to comment and provide feedback. The \ncompany again reiterates that PR Prime has not been subjected to detailed line design, unlike the \nProposed Route. Finally, METC asserts that an environmental analysis has not been conducted for \nthe alternative route. For these reasons, METC argues that the Commission should reject adoption \nof PR Prime. METC’s initial brief, pp. 115-117. \n \nIn reply, the Staff acknowledges that PR Prime would entail impacting different landowners. \nThe Staff, however, states that METC’s objections to PR Prime would result in a scenario where \nno alternative route could be adopted given that alternative routes will involve new landowners \nand given that alternative routes will have not undergone engineering design or environmental \nanalysis. Staff’s reply brief, pp. 15-17. \n \nIn its supplemental briefing, the Staff argues that the most reasonable route is PR Prime. The \nStaff reiterates that a comparison of PR Prime with the Proposed Route and Alternate Route \ndemonstrates that PR Prime performs the best under the evaluated factors. Staff’s supplemental \nbrief, pp. 4-5. In turn, the Staff suggests that the Commission could condition approval of the \nProposed Route on METC filing a separate, truncated Act 30 case for the original segment of the \nProposed Route that was replaced by PR Prime. Id., p. 6. According to the Staff, \n[u]nder this separate Act 30 case, METC would provide notice to all landowners \n1000 ft outside the centerline of the original route segment that crosses [the \nWilliams’ airport] and the substitute segment of PR Prime and all of the landowners \nin-between. The solution space could be limited between the Proposed Route \n\n\nPage 104 \nU-21471 et al. \nsegment and the substitute segment. By limiting the scope of the case to a single \nsegment and by limiting it to a defined solutions [sic] space the Commission avoids \na situation where the case becomes a revolving door of updates to the Proposed \nRoute. This also limits possible delays for METC as they would have approval for \nthe rest of the Proposed Route and could continue with engineering and \nprocurement for the remainder of the Proposed Route. \n \nId., p. 6. \n \n \nIn conclusion, the Staff asserts that PR Prime appears to be a feasible and reasonable route and \nthat, based on the information in the record, both the Proposed Route and the Alternate Route are \nalso feasible and reasonable under the statute. Id., pp. 6-7. \n \nThe Commission has reviewed the record and is not persuaded to approve PR Prime. The \nCommission agrees with METC and finds that despite performing better in some factors, the \nalternative route has not undergone engineering design or environmental analysis. As such, it is \nunclear if this alternative route is feasible and reasonable. Further, the Commission finds that PR \nPrime will involve impacting property whose owners have not received direct notice. As noted \nabove, this potential represents a major flaw in the structure of Act 30. As such, although Act 30 \nclearly empowers the Commission to approve the alternative route, the Commission is not inclined \nto do so under the facts of this case. Additionally, having found the Proposed Route to be feasible \nand reasonable, the Commission declines to adopt the Staff’s proposal to conditionally approve the \nHelix-Hiple Line on METC filing a separate Act 30 case for the route segment associated with PR \nPrime. \nc. Lust Alternative Route \n \nMr. Lust proposes mitigating impacts on landowners by suggesting an alternative route that \nwould shift the Proposed Route to the northwest of his property and utilize three parcels that \nMr. Lust claims are largely unused or unproductive. According to Mr. Lust, there are many \npotential alternative routes that could leverage these parcels to relocate the Proposed Route farther \n\n\nPage 105 \nU-21471 et al. \naway from residences and to make the Proposed Route shorter, which he asserts would preserve \nmore agricultural and timber land. 5 Tr 965-966. Mr. Lust provides Exhibit LUS-4.2 as an \nexample of one such alternative route (Lust Alternative Route). 5 Tr 966; see also, \nExhibit LUS-4.2. \n \nMETC argues that the Lust Alternative Route would be problematic from a line design \nperspective for several reasons. First, METC argues that moving the Proposed Route would place \nthe transmission line in marshy wetlands, which would result in increased environmental impacts \nand more difficulty in constructing the line. 5 Tr 413, 597; see also, METC’s initial brief, \npp. 113-114. Next, METC asserts that the Lust Alternative Route would be closer to the Brooks \nField Airport and would impose difficulties pertaining to structure height and placement \nrequirements. 5 Tr 413, 597; see also, METC’s initial brief, p. 114. Finally, METC argues that \nMr. Lust fails to provide adequate evidence to support his claim that properties used for the Lust \nAlternative Route are unused, and notes that Mr. Lust claims one of the properties is used as a \nshooting range, which METC contends presents safety concerns for its personnel. 5 Tr 413-414; \nsee also, METC’s initial brief, p. 114. For these reasons, METC advocates for the Commission to \nreject the Lust Alternative Route. METC’s initial brief, p. 115. \n \nMr. Lust did not respond to METC’s rebuttal testimony or initial briefing. \n \nThe Commission has reviewed the record and is not persuaded to approve the Lust Alternative \nRoute. The Commission finds that the Lust Alternative Route would entail greater environmental \nimpacts. Further, the Commission agrees with METC that there is not sufficient evidence in the \nrecord to demonstrate the impacts to land use that would be associated with the alternative route. \nAs such, the Commission declines to approve the Lust Alternative Route. \n\n\nPage 106 \nU-21471 et al. \nd. Approved Route \n \nHaving reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on this issue, the Commission grants \nMETC’s application for the Helix-Hiple Line Proposed Route. Pursuant to Section 8(5) of Act 30, \nthe Commission determines that the Proposed Route is both feasible and reasonable. MCL \n460.568(5)(b). The Commission further approves, as part of the Helix-Hiple Line, the \nconstruction of the new Helix Substation as proposed by METC. See, 5 Tr 373; see also, \nExhibit METC-14B. \n \nAs stated above, the Commission finds that the Proposed Route reduces overall impacts to \nenvironmental and human resources. The Commission further finds that the Proposed Route \nscores better than the majority of routes analyzed in the engineering, environmental, and social \nevaluation categories and that the route has the lowest overall score of all potential routes studied \nfor the Helix-Hiple Line. See, Exhibit S-4.8, p. 18. \n \nIn conformance with Section 8(6) of Act 30, the Commission finds that the estimated cost for \nthe Helix-Hiple Line is $442 million. See, 5 Tr 318. The Commission identifies the approved \nroute for the Helix-Hiple Line as the Proposed Route identified and described by METC. See, \nHelix-Hiple application, p. 8; see also, 5 Tr 373-378; Exhibit METC-15B. \nF. Unreasonable Threat to Public Health or Safety \n \nThe Commission must also determine that the proposed major transmission lines do “not \npresent an unreasonable threat to public health or safety.” MCL 460.568(5)(c). \n \nMETC argues that the record demonstrates that the projects align with public health and \nsafety, and that its policies for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the projects avoid \nor minimize impacts to human resources, health risks associated with EMF, and noise. METC’s \n\n\nPage 107 \nU-21471 et al. \ninitial brief, pp. 118, 130-134. In support of this position, METC provides opinions from expert \nwitnesses concerning the impacts of EMF and noise on human health and safety.18 \n \nThe Staff testified that METC’s expert witness testimony contained credible sources and \nassumptions related to EMF and noise generated by the transmission lines and their effects on \nhuman health. 5 Tr 1272-1274. As a result, the Staff argues that there is no credible evidence to \nsupport the contention that EMF or noise from the projects will jeopardize public health and \nsafety. 5 Tr 1189; see also, Staff’s initial brief, pp. 20-22. The Staff did, however, state that “the \nmost credible and frequent issue with human health and safety regarding these lines would be \nnoise. Even this would be mostly an annoyance under the worst circumstances; however, \nincreased noise could mean that maintenance is required.” 5 Tr 1275. The Staff thus advocates \nfor METC to investigate every noise complaint received from landowners to ensure that there is \nnot a system issue that needs to be addressed. 5 Tr 1275; see also, Staff’s initial brief, pp. 22, \n71-73. The Staff, though, noted that METC provided a notification process that landowners can \nuse during and after construction to inform the company of concerns, including noise. 5 Tr 1189. \n \nBoth the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors and the Knaggs Intervenors raised general concerns about \nthe transmission lines’ effects on health and safety. Mr. Bewersdorff expressed concerns that \nextended exposure to EMF has been linked to increased health risks, which he contended can lead \nto increased medical expenses. 5 Tr 913-914. Similarly, Mr. Strzalka conveyed his concerns \nabout the potential health effects on his grandchildren and that studies regarding the possible \nadverse effects on young children, including leukemia, are inconclusive. 5 Tr 1048. Finally, \nMr. Wohlscheid stated his concerns regarding the safety of his young children, whom he claimed \n \n 18 See, Direct Testimony of Mark A. Israel, M.D. (5 Tr 606-635); Direct Testimony of Gary B. \nJohnson, Ph.D. (5 Tr 642-688). \n\n\nPage 108 \nU-21471 et al. \nutilize the property for recreation all year and whom he stated have bedrooms along the proposed \nROW. 5 Tr 1090. Mr. Wohlscheid further stated his concern for safety issues associated with the \nfact that his home is on a hill, and thus closer to the transmission lines, and that he has hunting \nstands on the property that will be near the proposed transmission line. 5 Tr 1090, 1092. \n \nMETC provided rebuttal testimony from several expert witnesses to address the Staff’s and \nthe intervening landowners’ concerns. In response to the Staff’s concerns regarding noise, \nDr. Johnson testified that he is unaware of any peer-reviewed study that suggests that AN or RN at \nlevels produced by the projects cause human health or safety issues. 5 Tr 691. Dr. Johnson \nfurther testified that AN levels at the edge of the ROWs will not exceed 49 decibels (dBA), which \nis below target values established by the EPA and the WHO. 5 Tr 691-692. Finally, Dr. Johnson \nstated that RN levels for the project are below institutional design guidelines, and that the projects \nwill produce RN levels below levels produced by common household items, including fluorescent \nlights, power tools, and microwave ovens. 5 Tr 692. Accordingly, METC argued that it does not \nagree with the Staff that noise complaints are a frequent health or safety issue, and METC adds \nthat since 2008, the company has only received eight AN inquiries for nearly 6,000 miles of \ntransmission lines. 5 Tr 439. METC, therefore, argues that the projects do not present an \nunreasonable threat to public health or safety and that the Commission should reject the Staff’s \nproposal because the evidence in the record demonstrates that the company’s current process for \ninvestigating noise complaints is adequate. METC’s initial brief, pp. 131-133. \n \nMETC also provided rebuttal testimony to address the intervening landowners’ concerns \nregarding safety and the effects of EMF. Concerning EMF, Dr. Israel disagreed that the scientific \nresearch addressing EMF and health was inconclusive and reiterated his opinion that the body of \nthis research does not show that EMF causes or contributes to adverse health effects, including \n\n\nPage 109 \nU-21471 et al. \nleukemia and other cancers. 5 Tr 638-639. Dr. Israel further testified that EMF levels at the edge \nof the projects’ ROWs are not expected to exceed 24 mG, which he stated is well below the levels \nused in research to study the long-term effects of EMF on health. 5 Tr 639.19 Dr. Lee also \nprovided expert testimony on the issue and opined that the “epidemiology studies that have \nexamined power frequency EMF and childhood leukemia do not provide a reliable scientific basis \nto conclude that exposure to EMF would cause or contribute to childhood leukemia.” 5 Tr 777. \n \nWith respect to safety, Dr. Johnson testified that the risk of nuisance shock associated with the \ntransmission lines’ proximity to homes is low and generally limited to areas within the \ntransmission lines’ ROW. 5 Tr 695. Because no homes are located within the projects’ ROWs, he \nargued that there should be no concerns from homeowners when performing maintenance. \nDr. Johnson did, however, caution that recreational activities such as flying kites and drones \nshould not take place within the ROW. 5 Tr 695. \n \nThe Commission finds that the substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that both the \nNelson-Oneida Line and the Helix-Hiple Line do not present an unreasonable threat to public \nhealth or safety. The record contains unrefuted expert testimony from several witnesses that \nshows that EMF and noise from the projects will not adversely impact human health. This \nincludes unrefuted testimony that exposure to EMF from the projects will not cause or contribute \nto the development of cancer, including leukemia. See, 5 Tr 620, 635, 777. Additionally, the \nrecord contains unrefuted expert testimony that the projects’ EMF, electric fields, AN, and RN \nwill be below levels recommended by government and scientific organizations and that these \n \n 19 METC also provides rebuttal testimony addressing the specific effects of the EMF on \nMr. Wohlscheid’s home. Dr. Johnson testified that the EMF levels at Mr. Wohlscheid’s home \nwould be about 4 mG, which he states is below levels associated with typical household items, \nincluding vacuums (300 mG), electric stand mixers (100 mG), and electric ranges (30-200 mG). \n5 Tr 694; see also, Exhibit METC-39R. \n\n\nPage 110 \nU-21471 et al. \nlevels are below those typically found in some household items. See, 5 Tr 664, 687-688, 692-694. \nAccordingly, the Commission determines that the proposed major transmission lines do not \npresent an unreasonable threat to public health or safety. MCL 460.568(5)(c). \n \nAdditionally, the Commission agrees with the Staff and finds that it is reasonable and \nappropriate to require METC to investigate every noise complaint received by landowners to \nensure that there is not a system issue that needs to be addressed. \nG. Conditions \n \nAct 30 empowers the Commission to condition its approval of an application “upon the \napplicant taking additional action to assure the public convenience, health, and safety and \nreliability of the proposed major transmission line.” MCL 460.568(4). To grant an application \nand issue a certificate, the Commission must determine that “[t]he applicant has accepted the \nconditions contained in a conditional grant.” MCL 460.568(5)(d). \n1. Minor Route Modifications \n \nThe Staff recommended that the Commission condition issuance of the certificates on \nMETC’s commitment to consider minor route changes at the request of impacted landowners and \nto provide documentation in this case when a landowner’s request cannot be accommodated. \n5 Tr 1191. The Staff urged METC: \nto make minor adjustments for landowners where possible, especially those most \nimpacted due to proximity to residence and percentage of property impacted by the \nright-of-way. Some examples of minor adjustments include but are not limited to \navoiding the placement of a pole within an access drive to the property, ensuring \nthat pole placement is such to minimize blocking the scenic view from inside the \nhome, and avoiding placing a pole in the center of a landowner’s pond. These \nminor adjustments aren’t meant to significantly change the line or remove the right-\nof-way from a given landowner’s property altogether, but rather to aid in \nminimizing impact to the landowners’ daily lives to the greatest extent possible. \n \n5 Tr 1191. \n\n\nPage 111 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC asserted that minor modification of a transmission line’s route can be \nappropriate for numerous reasons and that the company already considers landowner requests and \nimpacts when designing the line. 5 Tr 400-402. Moreover, METC stated that it has already \nrequested approval from the Commission to make minor modifications to routes where landowners \nhave received notice and where the modification remains within the ROW’s study area. 5 Tr 400; \nsee also, Nelson-Oneida application, p. 11; Helix-Hiple application, p. 11. As such, METC argued \nthat it is unnecessary for the Commission to condition the permit and require the company to do \nsomething it already performs as normal business practice. 5 Tr 403. METC further argued that a \nrequirement to file a memorandum in this docket documenting why a landowner request was not \naccommodated would create an undue burden that would not benefit landowners. 5 Tr 403-404. \n \nIn briefing, the Staff maintains its recommendation for the Commission to condition approval \nupon a commitment from METC to consider minor route adjustments and to document the process \nin this docket. Staff’s initial brief, pp. 10, 24-25. The Staff disagrees that such a condition would \nbe unnecessary and argues that the condition would provide an assurance of accountability that \nwould benefit landowners. Id., p. 25. METC replies that there is no evidence to support the \ncontention that the company will not consider landowner requests. METC’s reply brief, p. 6. \n \nIn its initial brief, METC argues that the company’s current practice is sufficient and that it \nalready considers landowner requests for minor modifications. METC asserts that the route is not \nfinal at this stage and that individual requests for modifications are handled on a case-by-case \nbasis. The company further argues that the record demonstrates that METC has engaged with \nlandowners and has even made modifications to the route in response to concerns expressed by \nindividual landowners. METC’s initial brief, pp. 136-138. As such, METC maintains that the \nStaff’s condition is unnecessary and that the company’s own request for authority to make minor \n\n\nPage 112 \nU-21471 et al. \nadjustments addresses the Staff’s concerns. METC’s initial brief, p. 136. The Staff responds that \nit is concerned that METC’s assertion that additional conditions are not needed is an attempt by \nthe company to thwart transparency and accountability. Staff’s reply brief, p. 9. \n \nThe Commission finds that it is appropriate to authorize METC to make minor route \nmodifications to the transmission lines’ approved routes to ensure the public convenience, health \nand safety, and reliability of the transmission lines. MCL 460.568(4). The Commission notes that \nit has approved similar requests in previous Act 30 cases. See, e.g., July 29 order, p. 26. The \nCommission limits any minor modifications METC may make to the areas studied in the \ncompany’s environmental reports (i.e., 250 feet on either side of each centerline) and where \nlandowners have received proper notice under Act 30. \n \nThe Commission, however, agrees with the Staff that it is appropriate to require METC to take \nadditional action to consider landowners’ specific requests for minor modifications to the \napproved routes that impact their properties. While METC contends that there is no evidence that \nthe company will not consider landowner requests (see, METC’s reply brief, p. 6), the \nCommission notes that there were a number of instances in this proceeding where METC’s \nengagement with landowners was cursory at best, ranging from the pro forma summaries of \ncomments from individual landowners seeking to explore minor route modifications to the single \nemail exchange with MDNR officials that resulted in eliminating the crossing of the Maple River \nState Game Area from consideration, resulting in 16 additional private parcels being included in \nthe route for the Nelson-Oneida Line. Accordingly, the Commission conditions approval of this \ncertificate on METC’s commitment to consider minor modifications to the approved routes, like \nthose described in the Staff’s testimony, at the request of impacted landowners. See, 5 Tr 1191. \nMoreover, to ensure transparency and accountability in this process, the Commission directs \n\n\nPage 113 \nU-21471 et al. \nMETC to file a memorandum in this docket detailing the process by which impacted landowners \ncan submit minor route modification requests to the company. The Commission also directs \nMETC to file monthly reports in this docket documenting any minor modification requests that the \ncompany receives and the reason why the company did or did not accommodate the request. \n2. Communication with Landowners \n \nThe Staff also recommended that the Commission condition issuance of the certificates on the \nrequirement that METC provide landowners located on the approved routes with contact \ninformation so that they can communicate concerns during and after construction of the projects, \nincluding concerns regarding damage to property outside the approved routes’ ROWs. 5 Tr 1206. \n \nIn rebuttal, METC attested that it will already be providing landowners with contact \ninformation, which includes a phone number and website where landowners can contact METC \nwith concerns. 5 Tr 465, 743-744; see also, Exhibit S-2.4. METC also stated that landowners will \nbe assigned a dedicated land agent to whom concerns can be addressed. As such, METC argued \nthat the Staff’s proposed condition is unnecessary. 5 Tr 465. \n \nIn briefing, the Staff maintains its proposed condition that the Commission should require \nMETC to provide landowners and those adjacent to the approved routes’ ROW with contact \ninformation. According to the Staff, such a condition will assure the public convenience, health \nand safety, and reliability of the transmission lines and will provide a level of assurance to affected \nlandowners that they will be able to contact the company with their concerns. Staff’s initial brief, \np. 26. METC replies and argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the company does not \nprovide contact information and that the proposed condition is unnecessary. METC’s reply brief, \npp. 6-7. \n\n\nPage 114 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nThe Commission agrees with the Staff and finds that conditioning issuance of the certificates \non METC taking additional action to address landowners’ concerns during and after construction \nis warranted to ensure the public convenience, health and safety, and reliability of the transmission \nlines. MCL 460.568(4). The Commission, therefore, directs METC to provide landowners \nlocated along the approved routes, as well as adjacent landowners, with contact information so that \nthey can communicate any concerns regarding the projects. Additionally, to ensure transparency \nand accountability, the Commission directs METC to file monthly reports in this docket \ndocumenting communications received from these landowners that contain, at a minimum, the \nfollowing information: (1) the date the company was contacted by the landowner, (2) details of \nthe specific concerns communicated to the company by the landowner, (3) the date METC replied \nto the landowner, (4) the name and title of the person who responded to the landowner on METC’s \nbehalf, (5) substantive details about METC’s response to the landowner’s concerns, and (6) any \naction METC took, including the date of such action, in response to the specific concerns raised by \nthe landowner. \nH. Filing Guidelines \n \nAs part of its recommendations in this case, the Staff requests that the Commission require the \nStaff to develop filing guidelines for Act 30 applications. Specifically, the Staff argued that Act \n30 lacks specificity regarding issues concerning what constitutes an alternate route, to what degree \nprivate benefits need to be estimated in advance of a project, and whether the law provides for \nsufficient and clear interaction between an applicant and landowners. 5 Tr 1209-1210; see also, \nStaff’s initial brief, p. 43. The Staff also argued that filing guidelines will help standardize the \ntype of information submitted in applications, which the Staff asserts will reduce the need to \nconduct burdensome discovery. 5 Tr 1276. According to the Staff, “[a]llowing Staff to develop \n\n\nPage 115 \nU-21471 et al. \nfiling guidelines will create more concise guidance on what information a company should supply \nin its application, give Staff better information to work with in its analysis of future cases, and \nbring greater transparency and accountability for how companies interact with the public.” Staff’s \ninitial brief, pp. 43-44 (citing 5 Tr 1209-1210). The Staff notes that it does not intend for the filing \nguidelines to supplant statutory requirements or to be overly prescriptive and that it would be \namenable to working with METC before future Act 30 filings are submitted to the Commission to \nreview pertinent issues and data to minimize the need for discovery. Id., pp. 73-74. \n \nThe Nelson-Oneida Intervenors, through Mr. Andrews’ rebuttal testimony, stated that they \nagree with the Staff’s proposal to develop filing guidelines and that if permitted, the Staff should \ninvestigate how transmission lines are approved in the state of Texas and use a similar process. \n5 Tr 1028. \n \nMETC responds to the Staff’s proposal and stated that each application for a certificate under \nAct 30 varies depending on the project, and therefore, it would be overly burdensome to require \ncertain information through filing guidelines that would not be applicable to a specific project. \n5 Tr 333. METC argues that Act 30 and previous Act 30 cases provide sufficient guidance on the \ninformation that is required in applications. METC’s initial brief, p. 139. Further, the company \nargues that Act 30 already provides the Commission with the ability to require additional \ninformation or impose additional standards, but only through the rulemaking process. Id., \npp. 139-140 (referencing MCL 460.567(l)). METC, therefore, contends that adopting and \nenforcing application guidelines exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority. The company, \nhowever, states that it is willing to meet with the Staff to discuss future Act 30 filings and cases. \nId., p. 140. \n\n\nPage 116 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nIn its reply brief, the Staff agrees that informal discussions would benefit future filings but \nmaintains that application guidelines are necessary. The Staff clarifies that it is not “proposing \nrequirements or guidelines beyond what Act 30 requires of an application, rather it would be \noptional guidance that applicants could follow to reduce the amount of discovery between parties \nand provide further information that Staff believes would be necessary for a thorough analysis.” \nStaff’s reply brief, p. 11. The Staff, in turn, states that it would like the opportunity to make \nguidelines to help inform future applicants about the specific information needed to enable the \nStaff to complete its review more efficiently. Id., pp. 11-12. \n \nThe Commission agrees with the Staff and finds that the development of filing guidelines will \nhelp provide clarity, efficiency, and transparency to the application process under Act 30. As \nsuch, the Commission is concurrently issuing an order in Case No. U-21930 to direct the Staff to \nwork with interested persons to develop filing guidelines for future applications submitted under \nAct 30. In addition, the Commission also notes its intention to initiate rulemaking pursuant to \nMCL 460.567 to codify, among other things, the information to be included in future Act 30 \napplications. \nI. \nMichigan Environmental Protection Act \n \nPursuant to Section 1705(1) of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), \nMCL 324.1701 et seq., if administrative proceedings and judicial review of such proceedings are \navailable by law, an agency may permit the Attorney General or any other person to intervene as a \nparty and file a pleading asserting that the proceeding “involves conduct that has, or is likely to \nhave, the effect of polluting, impairing, or destroying the air, water, or other natural resources or \nthe public trust in these resources.” MCL 324.1705(1). Section 1705(2) of MEPA, in turn, states \nas follows: \n\n\nPage 117 \nU-21471 et al. \nIn administrative, licensing, or other proceedings, and in any judicial review of \nsuch a proceeding, the alleged pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, \nwater, or other natural resources, or the public trust in these resources, shall be \ndetermined, and conduct shall not be authorized or approved that has or is likely to \nhave such an effect if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the \nreasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare. \n \nMCL 324.1705(2). \n \nThus, under the plain language of the statute, if a party has asserted that conduct has, or is \nlikely to, pollute, impair, or destroy natural resources, the Commission must first determine the \nalleged pollution, impairment, or destruction of those natural resources. Once determined, MEPA \nthen prohibits the Commission from authorizing or approving the conduct if there is a feasible and \nprudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of public health, safety, and \nwelfare. Notably, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that the Commission does not have a \nduty to independently investigate the environmental impacts of the proposed conduct, but rather, \nmay rely on materials submitted by the parties to make its determinations. See, Buggs v Mich Pub \nServ Comm’n, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 13, 2015 \n(Docket No. 315058), p. 8. \n \nIn its initial brief, METC argues that no party in this proceeding has alleged environmental \nimpacts that would necessitate an analysis under MEPA. METC’s initial brief, p. 120, n. 23. \nHowever, the record demonstrates that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors allege that the \nNelson-Oneida Line will negatively impact environmental and other natural resources on their \nproperties. Specifically, with respect to the Alternate Route, Mr. Sanborn alleged that the \nNelson-Oneida Line will negatively impair wetlands, waterbodies (including trout streams), trees, \nand other vegetation. 5 Tr 1147-1149. The Commission, therefore, finds that the intervenors have \n\n\nPage 118 \nU-21471 et al. \nalleged the pollution, impairment, or destruction of natural resources caused by the construction of \nthe Nelson-Oneida Line that necessitates an analysis under MEPA. MCL 324.1705(2).20 \n \nBased on a review of the substantial evidence in the record, the Commission finds that \nconstruction of the Alternate Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line is likely to pollute, impair, or \ndestroy natural resources, including wetlands, streams, and trees.21 Indeed, METC’s own \nenvironmental report supports this finding. As noted in the company’s environmental report, the \nAlternate Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line will cross approximately 155 acres that have a \nmedium to high probability of wetland occurrence. See, Exhibit METC-24A, Appendix C, p. 6. \nAlthough METC states that it will span wetlands when practicable, the company acknowledges \nthat there will be loss of some wetlands. See, Exhibit METC-24A, p. 26. Accordingly, the \nCommission finds that it is probable that the Alternate Route will affect wetlands in an injurious \nmanner and therefore impair these resources. See, Mich United Conservations Clubs v Anthony, \n90 Mich App 99, 105-06, 280 NW2d 883 (1979). \n \nRegarding stream impacts, the Commission finds that the Alternate Route will cross 32 \nwaterbodies, including an impaired stream and seven regulated trout and salmon streams. See, \nExhibit METC-24A, Appendix C, p. 6. As METC acknowledges, “[v]egetation clearing, earth \nworking activities, and increased traffic over disturbed soils have the potential to impact [these] \nwaterways if they increase erosion into waterways.” Exhibit METC-24A, p. 29. Further, METC \n \n 20 The Commission finds that none of the intervenors allege the pollution, impairment, or \ndestruction of natural resources caused by the Helix-Hiple Line. However, even assuming that the \nconstruction of the Helix-Hiple Line would pollute, impair, or destroy natural resources, for the \nreasons discussed by the Commission infra, the Commission finds that there is no feasible and \nprudent alternative. \n \n 21 The Commission finds that the Nelson-Oneida Intervenors’ alleged environmental impacts \ncaused by the Proposed Route for the Nelson-Oneida Line will not pollute, impair, or destroy \nnatural resources since the Commission has not approved construction of that route. \n\n\nPage 119 \nU-21471 et al. \nstates that vegetated areas will be permanently impacted due to maintaining the transmission lines’ \nROW. See, Exhibit METC-24A, p. 41; see also, Exhibit METC-24A, Appendix C, p. 8 (stating \nthat approximately 7.8% of the Alternate Route is deciduous forest). Accordingly, the \nCommission finds that the Alternate Route will likely impair waterbodies and result in the \ndestruction of natural resources. See, City of Portage v Kalamazoo Cnty Rd Comm’n, 136 Mich \nApp 276, 281, 355 NW2d 913 (1984) (“The removal of trees, a form of wildlife, constitutes \ndestruction of a natural resource under the MEPA.”). \n \nHaving determined that the project will likely impair and destroy natural resources, the \nCommission must determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the \nreasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare to assess whether it is prohibited \nfrom approving the conduct that will cause the likely impairment or destruction. \nMCL 324.1705(2). As an initial matter, the Commission finds that the “conduct” at issue for \npurposes of its MEPA analysis is that which METC has submitted applications for and is the \nsubject of Act 30 (i.e., the construction of a major transmission line). See, Nelson-Oneida \napplication, p. 1; Helix-Hiple application, p. 1; see also, In re Enbridge Energy to Replace & \nRelocate Line 5, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 19, \n2025 (Docket No. 369156), p. 15 (“The Commission, by looking to the desired ‘conduct’ was \nfollowing the plain language of MCL 324.1705(2).”). \n \nMETC argues that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to constructing the major \ntransmission lines. METC’s initial brief, p. 120, n. 23. Through Mr. Marshall, METC proffers \ntestimony that MISO evaluated five alternatives to the projects. While these alternatives addressed \nmany thermal issues in Michigan, METC claims that they did not resolve as many contingencies \nacross the MISO region and that these alternatives added costs, offered less flexibility, or showed \n\n\nPage 120 \nU-21471 et al. \nreductions in performance. 5 Tr 249-250. Similarly, METC states that it analyzed several \nalternatives to the projects but that it independently concluded that the projects are needed to \nsupport long-term reliability and to create value. As METC contends, no other option studied was \na prudent replacement component for the projects. 5 Tr 251-254. METC further argues that \nhigher and lower voltage lines would not cost effectively meet the needs that the projects address, \nand that renewable generation could not meet those needs. 5 Tr 254-255. As a result, METC \nasserts there is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the projects. 5 Tr 256. \n \nNo party rebutted METC’s testimony regarding alternatives to the projects. \n \nBased on the unrefuted evidence in the record, the Commission finds that there are no feasible \nand prudent alternatives to constructing the proposed major transmission lines that are consistent \nwith the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare. See, 5 Tr 249-256. \nAccordingly, because there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the requested conduct, the \nCommission determines that MEPA does not prohibit it from granting certificates of public \nconvenience and necessity for the Nelson-Oneida Line or the Helix-Hiple Line. \nMCL 324.1705(2). The Commission further finds that the applications, testimony, and exhibits \nsupport and satisfy the required agency review and environmental obligations of the Commission \nthat arise from MEPA and the Michigan Supreme Court’s application of MEPA in Mich State Hwy \nComm v Vanderkloot, 392 Mich 159, 185; 220 NW2d 416 (1974). The Commission notes, \nhowever, that a finding of public convenience and necessity pursuant to Act 30 is not a \ndetermination that the project complies with any other applicable statutes or environmental \nreviews. \n \n \n\n\nPage 121 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nTHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: \n \nA. Pursuant to Public Act 30 of 1995, MCL 460.561 et seq., the certificates of public \nconvenience and necessity requested by Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, to \nconstruct a major transmission line between the existing Nelson Road Substation in New Haven \nTownship, Gratiot County, Michigan, and the existing Oneida Substation in Oneida Charter \nTownship, Eaton County, Michigan, and a major transmission line between the proposed new \nHelix Substation in Clarence Township, Calhoun County, Michigan, and the Michigan/Indiana \nborder in Gilead Township, Branch County, Michigan, are granted. \n \nB. For the major transmission line to be constructed between the existing Nelson Road \nSubstation in New Haven Township, Gratiot County, Michigan, and the existing Oneida \nSubstation in Oneida Charter Township, Eaton County, Michigan, the Commission approves the \nAlternate Route proposed by Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, as described in this \norder. \n \nC. For the major transmission line to be constructed between the new Helix Substation in \nClarence Township, Calhoun County, Michigan, and the Michigan/Indiana border in Gilead \nTownship, Branch County, Michigan, the Commission approves the Proposed Route proposed by \nMichigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, as described by this order. \n \nD. It is a condition of the certificates of public convenience and necessity granted by this \norder that Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, take additional action to consider \nlandowners’ specific requests for minor modifications to the major transmission line routes \napproved in this order. The Commission directs Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, \nto file a memorandum in this docket detailing the process by which impacted landowners can \nsubmit minor route modification requests to the company and to further file a monthly report in \n\n\nPage 122 \nU-21471 et al. \nthis docket documenting any minor modification requests that the company receives and the \nreason why the company did or did not accommodate the landowner’s request. \n \nE. It is a condition of the certificates of public convenience and necessity granted by this \norder that Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, provide landowners located along the \napproved routes, as well as adjacent landowners, with contact information so that they can \ncommunicate any concerns regarding the projects. The Commission further directs Michigan \nElectric Transmission Company, LLC, to file monthly reports in this docket concerning the \ncommunications received from these landowners, as described in this order. \n \nF. It is a condition of the certificates of public convenience and necessity granted by this \norder that Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, investigate every noise complaint \nreceived from landowners to ensure that there is not a system issue that needs to be addressed. \n \nG. As described in this order, the Commission directs Michigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC, and other Public Act 30 of 1995 applicants to include an estimation of private \nbenefits directly in the application filed with the Commission pursuant to MCL 460.567(2)(h). \n \nThe Commission reserves jurisdiction and may issue further orders as necessary. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\nPage 123 \nU-21471 et al. \n \nAny party desiring to appeal this order must do so in the appropriate court within 30 days after \nissuance and notice of this order, pursuant to MCL 462.26. To comply with the Michigan Rules of \nCourt’s requirement to notify the Commission of an appeal, appellants shall send required notices \nto both the Commission’s Executive Secretary and to the Commission’s Legal Counsel. \nElectronic notifications should be sent to the Executive Secretary at LARA-MPSC-\nEdockets@michigan.gov and to the Michigan Department of Attorney General - Public Service \nDivision at sheac1@michigan.gov. In lieu of electronic submissions, paper copies of such \nnotifications may be sent to the Executive Secretary and the Attorney General - Public Service \nDivision at 7109 W. Saginaw Hwy., Lansing, MI 48917. \n \nMICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION \n \n \n \n________________________________________ \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Daniel C. Scripps, Chair \n \n \n \n ________________________________________ \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Katherine L. Peretick, Commissioner \n \n \n \n________________________________________ \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Alessandra R. Carreon, Commissioner \n \n \nBy its action of July 10, 2025. \n \n \n \n________________________________ \nLisa Felice, Executive Secretary \n \n \n \n \n\n\nP R O O F O F S E R V I C E \n STATE OF MICHIGAN ) \nCase No. U-21471 et al. \n County of Ingham \n) \nBrianna Brown being duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 10, 2025 A.D. she \nelectronically notified the attached list of this Commission Order via e-mail transmission, \nto the persons as shown on the attached service list (Listserv Distribution List). \n_______________________________________ \nBrianna Brown \n Subscribed and sworn to before me \n this 10th day of July 2025. \n _____________________________________ \nAngela P. Sanderson \nNotary Public, Shiawassee County, Michigan \nAs acting in Eaton County \nMy Commission Expires: May 21, 2030 \n\n\nService List for Case:\nU-21471\nName\nOn Behalf Of\nEmail Address\nAmit T. Singh\nMPSC Staff\nsingha9@michigan.gov\nChristopher M. Bzdok\nSierra Club\nchris@tropospherelegal.com\nChristopher M. Bzdok\nCitizens Utility Board of Michigan chris@tropospherelegal.com\nChristopher S. Saunders\nALJs - MPSC\nsaundersc4@michigan.gov\nClifford A. Knaggs\nBrenda Birchman\ncaknaggs@kblawpc.com\nClifford A. Knaggs\nRonald Bewersdorff, Trustee of the \nJeanne G. Bewersdorff Trust\ncaknaggs@kblawpc.com\nClifford A. Knaggs\nJosip Zokvic, Trustee of the Josip \nZokvic Trust\ncaknaggs@kblawpc.com\nClifford A. Knaggs\nKenneth May\ncaknaggs@kblawpc.com\nClifford A. Knaggs\nDaniel and Lori May\ncaknaggs@kblawpc.com\nClifford A. Knaggs\nRonald and Cynthia Bewersdorff\ncaknaggs@kblawpc.com\nCourtney F. Kissel\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nckissel@dykema.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nLynn and Stephen Colby\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nDanielle and Anthony Wohlscheid fmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nLawrence and Coreen Strzalka\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nValerie Wohlscheid-Brennan and \nRobert Brennan\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nKarol and Eugene Sanborn\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nJoseph and Jennifer Haddix\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nDiane and Charles Wohlscheid\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nFrederick M. Baker Jr.\nGordon and Vossie Diemer\nfmbjrpllc@outlook.com\nHaley Waller Pitts\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nhwallerpitts@fredlaw.com\nHannah E. Buzolits\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nhbuzolits@dykema.com\nHeather M.S. Durian\nMPSC Staff\ndurianh@michigan.gov\nJohn R. Liskey\nCitizens Utility Board of Michigan john@liskeypllc.com\nJustin K. Ooms\nClean Grid Alliance\njjkooms@varnumlaw.com\nJustin K. Ooms\nInstitute for Energy Innovation\njjkooms@varnumlaw.com\nJustin K. Ooms\nMichigan Energy Innovation \nBusiness Council\njjkooms@varnumlaw.com\nKyle M. Asher\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nkasher@dykema.com\nLaura A. Chappelle\nInstitute for Energy Innovation\nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com\nLaura A. Chappelle\nMichigan Energy Innovation \nBusiness Council\nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com\nLaura A. Chappelle\nClean Grid Alliance\nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com\n\n\nLauren A. Teichner\nSierra Club\nlauren@teichnerlaw.com\nLauren A. Teichner\nCitizens Utility Board of Michigan lauren@teichnerlaw.com\nLisa M. Agrimonti\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nlagrimonti@fredlaw.com\nMichael J. Orris\nMPSC Staff\norrism@michigan.gov\nMichigan Electric \nTransmission Company, LLC\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\ncmarshall@itctransco.com\nMonica M. Stephens\nMPSC Staff\nstephensm11@michigan.gov\nOlivia R.C.A. Flower\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\noflower@dykema.com\nRichard J. Aaron\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nraaron@dykema.com\nRobert V. and Dawn H. Lust\nRobert V. and Dawn H. Lust\nScott and Louri Blanchard\nScott and Louri Blanchard\nsblanchard@tenneco.com\nThomas M. Wardrop\nCeres Farms, LLC\nmac@wardroplaw.com\nThomas M. Wardrop\nCeres Partners, LLC\nmac@wardroplaw.com\nTimothy J. Lundgren\nMichigan Energy Innovation \nBusiness Council\ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com\nTimothy J. Lundgren\nInstitute for Energy Innovation\ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com\nTimothy J. Lundgren\nClean Grid Alliance\ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com\n\n\nService List for Case:\nU-21472\nName\nOn Behalf Of\nEmail Address\nChristopher M. Bzdok\nCitizens Utility Board of \nMichigan\nchris@tropospherelegal.com\nChristopher S. Saunders\nALJs - MPSC\nsaundersc4@michigan.gov\nCourtney F. Kissel\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nckissel@dykema.com\nHaley Waller Pitts\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nhwallerpitts@fredlaw.com\nHannah E. Buzolits\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nhbuzolits@dykema.com\nHeather M.S. Durian\nMPSC Staff\ndurianh@michigan.gov\nJohn R. Liskey\nCitizens Utility Board of \nMichigan\njohn@liskeypllc.com\nJustin K. Ooms\nInstitute for Energy Innovation\njjkooms@varnumlaw.com\nJustin K. Ooms\nMichigan Energy Innovation \nBusiness Council\njjkooms@varnumlaw.com\nJustin K. Ooms\nClean Grid Alliance\njjkooms@varnumlaw.com\nKyle M. Asher\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nkasher@dykema.com\nLaura A. Chappelle\nInstitute for Energy Innovation\nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com\nLaura A. Chappelle\nMichigan Energy Innovation \nBusiness Council\nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com\nLaura A. Chappelle\nClean Grid Alliance\nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com\nLisa M. Agrimonti\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nlagrimonti@fredlaw.com\nMichigan Electric \nTransmission Company, \nLLC\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\ncmarshall@itctransco.com\nMonica M. Stephens\nMPSC Staff\nstephensm11@michigan.gov\nOlivia R.C.A. Flower\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\noflower@dykema.com\nRichard J. Aaron\nMichigan Electric Transmission \nCompany, LLC\nraaron@dykema.com\nScott and Louri Blanchard\nScott and Louri Blanchard\nsblanchard@tenneco.com\nTimothy J. Lundgren\nInstitute for Energy Innovation\ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com\nTimothy J. Lundgren\nMichigan Energy Innovation \nBusiness Council\ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com\nTimothy J. Lundgren\nClean Grid Alliance\ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com\n \n\n\n \n \n \nP R O O F O F S E R V I C E \n \n \n STATE OF MICHIGAN ) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCase No. U-21471 et al. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n County of Ingham \n) \n \n \n \nBrianna Brown being duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 10, 2025 A.D. she served a \ncopy of the attached Commission order by first class mail, postage prepaid, or by inter-\ndepartmental mail, to the persons as shown on the attached service list. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n_______________________________________ \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nBrianna Brown \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSubscribed and sworn to before me \nthis 10th day of July 2025. \n \n \n \n \n_________________________________ \nAngela P. Sanderson \nNotary Public, Shiawassee County, Michigan \nAs acting in Eaton County \nMy Commission Expires: May 21, 2030 \n \n\n\nService List for Case:\nU-21471\nName\nOn Behalf Of\nAddress\nWilliam & Linda Martin\nWilliam & Linda Martin\n","page_count":129,"has_text":true,"extracted_at":"2026-02-07T21:01:56.823425Z"}