Pipeline has supporters, critics

Farmers question tearing up fields; NU PUC

favors pipeline

By KURT NESBITT

Journal Staff Writer

SLEEPY EYE -- The proposal from Hutchinson Utilities to bring 89 miles of natural gas pipe through Brown County met with support and opposition on Thursday.

While representatives of local utility companies supported the plan, a representative of the Minnesota Department of Commerce and some local landowners voiced different opinions during state-mandated hearings.

Thursday's two hearings, which were held in Sleepy Eye, are part of the process Hutchinson Utilities must follow in order to get a decision from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The hearings provided testimony on which Judge Kenneth A. Nickolai will issue his findings in August. The next step will be a series of formal evidentiary hearings in St. Paul, in which representatives of Hutchinson Utilities and Northern Natural Gas and others will testify before a state court in June.

Representatives of the Hutchinson and New Ulm Public Utilities commissions attended the hearings.

Dan Sonnek, engineer and head of New Ulm PUC, gave a sworn statement to Nickolai in support of the proposed project. He said the pipeline would reduce limitations on gas service to New Ulm and could even help reduce rates.

"The trend is that limitations are increasing," Sonnek said. "I think it will be an advantageous venture."

However, some local agricultural landowners had some questions on the effects the pipeline would have on their land.

"We're supposed to let you tear up valuable land and have no direct benefits?" asked Pat Mohr, of Hanska.

Bruce E. Hanson, an attorney representing Hutchinson Utilities, said farmers would have no direct benefit, but they could send their corn to the ethanol plant in Winthrop if they grew corn because that plant supports the pipeline.

Earlier, Hanson said the project meets state requirements because "a reasonable alternative has not been demonstrated", "the consequences of approval are more favorable than denial" and that the design complies with state regulations.

Marc Gross, a representative of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, said the department can't recommend approval because the information that Hutchinson Utilities provided doesn't meet requirements specifying that a project must be consistent with current laws, be cost-efficient and must be needed to serve the demands of Hutchinson in order to receive a recommendation.

Jim Talcott, an attorney representing Northern Natural Gas, of Omaha, Neb., said his company opposes Hutchinson's plan for the same reasons. Northern Natural Gas has supplied New Ulm and Hutchinson with natural gas for several decades. Talcott would not comment on how negotiations with Hutchinson Utilities affected Northern Natural Gas' views, except to say, "We've served them for 40 years and we're ready, able and willing to serve their existing and future needs."

He added later that the two companies have been negotiating and Northern Natural Gas "has made several propositions. We think the propositions we made are superior to a brand-new pipeline."

Nickolai said he encourages anyone with a position on the proposed Hutchinson Utilities project to submit it in writing by June 5. The address is: Kenneth A. Nickolai, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, 55401-2138.