Dear PSC: Thank you for taking time to consider my suggestions and personal input about the draft environmental, economic and cultural impacts document (DEIS) the Cardinal Hickory Creek (CHC) proposal with high voltage transmission, low voltage transmission, non-transmission and no action alternatives, Docket 05-CE-146. I am a resident of _ City_, _ State_ where I have resided for __ x_ years. My experience as a (occupation, interests, community affiliations) informs the input I am providing. Consider or Delete: Describe concerns you have about a particular residence or place of business that would lose value if the proposed transmission line were to be added. Describe the disturbances and detractions that you feel would lower property value. Consider or Delete: Describe listed properties for sell that have not been sold because of the prospect of the CHC transmission line. Consider or Delete: List potential businesses that have been considered for development that have stalled because of the prospect of the CHC transmission line. Consider or Delete: List all of the businesses in the area where you live that would suffer if tourists and motorists selected other, more beautiful routes because of the presence of the CHC transmission line. Consider or Delete: Describe concerns you have about a particular, natural location and the assets that the proposed transmission line would disturb. If possible, describe particular plant and animal species that you feel would be threatened if the transmission line was added. Consider or Delete: Describe the progress of energy improvements you have made to your home, apartment or business. Consider or Delete: Describe future energy improvements you would like to make that would be aided by higher rebates for energy efficient appliances, special equipment, building improvements, solar, battery storage. Is an electric car or truck charged by on site solar part of your energy planning? STATEMENT OF MY ENERGY SPENDING PRIORITIES Should additional electric customer spending be deemed necessary in the process of reviewing the Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission proposal, on the basis of my personal priorities, I oppose the high voltage transmission spending option and support Non-Transmission Alternatives incorporating enhancements such as energy efficiency, load management and development of local, renewable power. REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC EIS INCLUSIONS WITH SUGGESTIONS 1. Include a new section in the EIS with discussion about the property value impacts of a 345 kV high voltage transmission line incorporating updated findings from recent studies. Discussion: Fair compensation for property value loss is a fundamental economic impact factor of proposed expansion transmission lines. Past FEIS’s assume that state-specified Environmental Impact payments made only to affected municipalities and counties sufficiently compensate all impacted property owners. Under these terms, only directly impacted landowners have been receiving small easement payments roughly comparable to the going price per acre. Compensation for impacts on adjacent and other properties within the view shed have been wholly ignored. A number of recently conducted, peer-reviewed studies contradict the transmission builders’ position that the addition a high profile, 345 kV transmission line does not affect the value of the primary property or that of adjacent and proximate parcels. Suggestion: Consult scoping input for observations and location specific examples.To update the property value loss and fair compensation discussion in the DEIS, depreciation formulas from newer property value impact studies could be used to estimate total property value losses within 2-3 affected municipal units and these totals compared to totals of the environmental impact payments the municipalities would receive. 2. Include a new section in the EIS discussion the negative impacts on 2-3 local economies resulting from reduced tourism, re-routed motoring and arrested residential and business development outlined by the area where the 150-170’ high towers can be seen. Suggestions: Consult scoping input for observations and location specific examples. Combine this with County level business revenue data, County housing and business development data from Census updates, Department of Tourism and Transportation studies and the, “General Economic & Community Overview,” from Michael Power’s “Economic Benefits and Costs of Frac-Sand Mining in West Central Wisconsin,” (Commissioned by Wisconsin Towns Association). Use these resources to estimate a percentage of lost business and tax base revenue for 2-3 local economies. Multiply these losses over 40 years and compare to this total to the small share of benefits these communities would receive from the transmission builder’s economic benefits calculations. 3. Include a new section in the EIS discussing the negative impacts on songbird, raptor and water fowl populations from adding nine, high tension lines across the 1.6 mile span of the Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Include in the assessment description of current pressures on these species with estimated populations. 4. Include a new section in the EIS taking instruction from WEPA §1.11(2)(e) to include an assessment of practical implementation of the applicants’ Non-Transmission Alternative (NTA) and “recommend courses of action” as feasible response to reducing harmful impacts of green house gas emissions associated with electricity generation. As in §1.11(2)(c)6, insure the assessments of the NTA also “contain details of the beneficial aspects” including customer realized energy and demand savings from reduced use, avoided new, fossil fuel generation (as applicants have assumed) and avoided distribution/transmission infrastructure over 40 years. 5. Include a new section in the EIS discussing the expanded economic, environmental and cultural impacts that could occur over coming decades if, as applicants describe, a large amount of utility scale wind and solar generation is developed in the Montfort/Cobb area as the result of CHC establishing a 345/138 kV substation there. Include in this assessment, discussion of the likelihood of these installations collectively or, independently, encouraging additional, high profile transmission lines connecting at Hill Valley and additional 345 kV substations in Southwest Wisconsin. Discussion: On (pdf) p. 46 of the CHC Planning Analysis, applicants list four existing requests for 600 MW of interconnection at the 138 kV Eden substation: MISO Project # J712 – 200 MW Wind, (Iowa County) MISO Project # J855 – 100 MW Wind, (Grant County) MISO Project # J870 – 200 MW Solar, (Grant County) MISO Project # J871 – 100 MW Solar; (Grant County) The applicants write“...the Applicants are not seeking approval to build the necessary facilities to resolve these potential constraints at this time and are not including the costs of doing so as part of the CPCN application, the remainder of this document will only include the Energy Cost Saving benefits of solely the Project without the Eden Outlet issue resolved. For various reasons, however, including the possible need to resolve this constraint in the future, the Applicants are recommending to construct the Project east of Eden as 345/138 kV double-circuit capable along the preferred route.”