MPSC Approves Construction for Two Electric Transmission Lines in Southern Michigan

The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) has approved the application for construction of two electric transmission lines in southern Michigan, granting Michigan Electric Transmission Co. (METC) the certificates of public convenience and necessity for the projects meant to strengthen Michigan’s power grid, reduce grid congestion and allow for more integration of renewable energy into the grid (Case No. U-21471).

METC required approval of two certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for new electric transmission lines in the central and southern Lower Peninsula. While one is the Nelson Road to Oneida project, a 39-mile, 345 kV double circuit line between substations in Gratiot and Eaton counties, the other is the Helix to Hiple project, a 55-mile, 345 kV double circuit line between substations in Calhoun and Branch counties.

METC also needed approval for the construction of a new Helix Substation as part of the project. The projects were proposed as part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s (MISO) Long-Range Transmission Planning initiative, with the MISO Board of Directors approving the portfolio of projects including these projects in July 2022.

Under Public Act 30 of 1995, the MPSC has authority for siting of transmission lines in Michigan that are more than 5 miles long and that transfer 345 kV or more electricity. In Act 30 cases, which are contested, the Commission is required to issue an order within a year of an application.

METC submitted one proposed route and one alternate route for each line, as required by statute. The MPSC has approved the Nelson to Oneida line to be built on METC’s alternate route and the Helix to Hiple line to be built on METC’s proposed route.

The Commission found that the alternate route was preferable as compared to the proposed route for the Nelson to Oneida line, noting it has fewer heavy angles and road crossings, impacts fewer wetlands and hydric soils, and uses an existing utility right of way, displaying sounder routing principles.

For the Helix to Hiple line, the Commission found the proposed route reasonable, stating that the alternate route could avoid impact to the R&R Ranch Airport and result in more impacts on archeological sites, increase the number of residences within 500 feet of the line’s right of way, and expand the number of parcels crossed by the line.

The Commission found that both lines are required to ensure increased energy reliability, capacity, and renewable energy integration, and that the project will not present an unreasonable threat to public health and safety. The Commission found that, while the projects will include some environmental impairment, approval is permissible under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, because there is no feasible and prudent alternative.

The Commission conditioned approval of certificate on a number of actions METC must take:

• METC must consider landowners’ specific requests for minor modifications to the major transmission line routes approved in this order. The Commission directed METC to file a memorandum in the case detailing how impacted landowners may submit minor route modification requests to the company and to file a monthly report documenting any minor modification requests.
• METC must provide landowners along the approved routes and adjacent landowners with contact information so that they can communicate concerns to METC about the projects. The Commission required METC to file monthly reports detailing the communications received from these landowners.
• METC must investigate every noise complaint received by landowners to ensure there is not a system issue that needs to be addressed.

The Commission directed MPSC Staff to work with interested organizations and persons to develop voluntary filing guidelines for use by applicants pursuant to Act 30, to promote clarity, efficiency and transparency. It has also opened a separate docket for this purpose, Case No. U-21930, addressing MPSC Staff concerns about Act 30’s lack of clarity on alternate routes, private benefits need to be estimated in advance of a project, and if the law provides for sufficient and clear interaction between an applicant and landowners