By Melanie Stegner

news@pctribune.com

The Pope County Board of Commissioners received information from Ottertail Power Company at this week’s meeting regarding the company’s proposed Big Stone South to Alexandria 345 kV transmission line. Todd Langston with Ottertail Power was on hand to present the information.

According to materials published by OTPCo and distributed to the public, the proposed line appears to potentially affect Pope County, specifically on the western two-thirds of the county, as the company considers preliminary routes for the potential line. Because of the potential effect on county residents and because of the historical context of such a request in Pope County, the board felt it was necessary to discuss the proposed plans.

The proposed project comes with several benefits including low-cost renewable energy from wind generation, reducing congestion on the existing systems and improving reliability by strengthening the system. “According to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, 18 new transmission projects through the Midwest are needed by 2030 to ensure a reliable and resilient transmission system for the future,” stated Langston.

The project is divided into two segments, the BSSA Western Segment and then the Alexandria to Big Oaks Eastern Segment. The BSSA segment gets a new 345 kV transmission line and connects the existing Big Stone South Substation in South Dakota to Alexandria. It will be 95-105 miles in length. The lines will be double circuit capable with a steel monopole that is self-supporting with a concrete foundation. They are 150-feet in height and four to six structures will be placed per mile on average.

Ottertail Power will begin applying for permits in early September. Once the certificate is filed, there will be a meeting and hearing for the public to attend. According to the timeline, in late 2026 easement acquisition will begin with hopeful construction in 2028. The planned service target date is in 2030. 

“Outreach began in April to landowners, state agencies, federal agencies, county and township officials, municipality officials, city officials, tribes and other stakeholders. When we consider the routing of the line, we value stakeholder input,” stated Langston. “There are other factors such as opportunities, constraints, engineering and constructions to consider. Ultimately the route is set by MN statutes and guidelines.”

Cannabis concerns discussed

The board also discussed the legalization of cannabis statewide. The concerns with public use in areas that are not covered by the Minnesota Indoor Clean Air Act that regulates smoking, such as parks, are hot topics in several areas. Local governments are given the authority to decide where to regulate cannabis use. “We can’t regulate someone’s home or yard,” stated Kersten Kappmeyer, County Administrator. “The current law says that it cannot be consumed in places where there are minors present.”

The board discussed a few options including a moratorium that puts an emergency interim ordinance in place to prohibit the establishment of new uses or the expansion of existing uses related to sales, testing, manufacturing and distribution of cannabis products. Another option discussed was to consider use of cannabis as a nuisance. An example of this would be if you used cannabis products in your yard and your neighbor didn’t like the odor a fine would be enforced.