Toronto Power Plant Developers Seek New Site Outside Deuel County After Zoning Vote
Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - The developers behind the proposed 145-megawatt Toronto Power Plant in Deuel County are asking state regulators for permission to withdraw their current energy facility permit application and refile in a different county after Deuel County voters rejected a rezoning ordinance for the project site earlier this year.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is scheduled to consider both the developers’ Motion to Withdraw Application and a contested public records request seeking access to the project’s confidential cultural resources survey under Docket EL25-028 during its regular meeting at 9:30 a.m. CST Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2026, in Room 413 of the State Capitol Building in Pierre.
Project Background and Motion to Relocate Outside Deuel County
On Aug. 7, 2025, Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (WMMPA) and Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) filed an application with the PUC for a facility permit to construct the Toronto Power Plant and associated transmission infrastructure in Scandinavia Township in Deuel County.
As proposed in Docket EL25-028, the project consists of a 145-megawatt dual-fuel power plant featuring four combustion turbine-generator sets, a turbine hall building, diesel fuel truck unloading facilities, natural gas piping of less than 450 feet along the southwest side of the plant site, and an approximately 4.3-mile, 345-kilovolt generation-tie electric transmission line connecting the plant to the existing Astoria 345-kilovolt substation.
Following local zoning and moratorium actions in Deuel County—including a county moratorium that took effect March 23, 2026, and a June 2, 2026, referendum election in which Deuel County voters defeated an ordinance rezoning the proposed property from agricultural use—the applicants requested and received a six-month extension from the PUC on July 15, 2026, moving the commission’s decision deadline to Feb. 8, 2027, so they could evaluate siting options.
In a Motion to Withdraw Application filed Oct. 26, 2026, Sioux Falls attorney James E. Moore, on behalf of the applicants, WMMPA and MRES, announced they had selected a new site outside Deuel County. The filing does not name the new county.
"Based on their further investigation, the Applicants have found a new site in a different county that satisfies the criteria for siting the plant and allows them to continue their current position in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator generation interconnection process,” Moore wrote in the Oct. 26 motion. “The Applicants will file a new application for an energy facility permit specific to the new site. They therefore seek leave under ARSD 20:10:01:02.04 to withdraw their application in this docket.”
The applicants noted that while much of the technical information submitted in Docket EL25-028 will remain relevant, opening a new docket is necessary because the environmental and cultural survey data will differ at the new site, the new host county will need an opportunity to participate as a party, the new site will require a short natural gas distribution line, and nearby landowners must receive statutory notice of a public-input meeting and the chance to apply for party status. Both the applicants and PUC staff waived notice requirements so the withdrawal motion can be heard on Nov. 4.
Dispute Over Confidential Level III Cultural Survey (Appendix G)
Before taking up the withdrawal motion on Nov. 4, the PUC is scheduled under Agenda Item 1 to address a dispute over whether the public can view non-location portions of the project’s cultural resource study, listed in the application as Appendix G (Level III Cultural Survey).
On Oct. 7, 2026, Suzie Pratt of Brookings, an organizer with South Dakota for Data Center Transparency (SDDCT), appeared on her own behalf and formally filed a Request for Access to Confidential Information under ARSD 20:10:01:43.
In her initial filing and an Oct. 24 reply brief, Pratt stated that she is not seeking the location, coordinates, mapping, character, or ownership of any archaeological site or unmarked burial protected by state law. Instead, Pratt asked the commission to either order a redacted public version of Appendix G with site-specific location details removed, or require the applicants to provide a public statement answering seven general questions on the record:
· The survey methods and professional standards applied, including transect spacing.
· The general area surveyed in acres and transmission corridor route miles.
· Whether the cultural survey covers an April 7, 2026, transmission route adjustment along 481st Avenue and 193rd Street toward the Astoria Substation.
· The firm or professional who conducted the survey and the dates of fieldwork.
· Which tribes, tribal historic preservation officers, and state or federal agencies were contacted and when.
· The total count of sites identified and recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, stated without locations.
· The report’s general conclusions and recommendations regarding avoidance, monitoring, or further work.
“Because no petitions to intervene were filed, there is no party in this docket outside the Applicants and Commission Staff to test the cultural resources record,” Pratt wrote in her request. “... Through all of it the public has been able to see nothing of the cultural resources record, because the appendix is withheld in its entirety rather than redacted.”
In her Oct. 24 reply, Pratt further argued that the applicants never filed a formal request for confidential treatment that met the requirements of ARSD 20:10:01:41, and contended that ARSD 20:10:01:42 requires the commission to determine confidentiality once it receives a request for access.
Applicants and State Archaeologist Urge Denial
Both the project applicants and the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) filed formal responses urging the PUC to deny Pratt’s request.
In an Oct. 19 response, Moore argued on behalf of WMMPA and MRES that because Pratt did not apply for party status before the Oct. 6, 2025, intervention deadline, the PUC lacks personal jurisdiction over her and would have no legal authority to enforce a protective order against a non-party under ARSD 20:10:01:43.
“Because the Commission has only the authority granted by statute and no statute gives a non-party the right to file a request under ARSD 20:10:01:43, the Commission lacks the authority to consider Pratt’s request,” Moore wrote.
Moore also argued that the Level III Cultural Survey is confidential by statute under SDCL 1-20-21.2—which protects records pertaining to the location of archaeological sites—and is exempt from South Dakota’s open-records laws under SDCL 1-27-1.5(13) to protect known archaeological, historical, or paleontological sites from theft, vandalism, or trespass.
On Oct. 27, 2026, Special Assistant Attorney General Amanda LaCroix of the South Dakota Department of Education entered a limited notice of appearance and filed a response on behalf of the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office and the State Archaeologist, also asking the commission to deny Pratt’s request.
“The document Ms. Pratt has requested, Appendix G - Level III Cultural Survey, was submitted for the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review as part of its proposed project under SDCL 1-19A-11.1,” LaCroix wrote. "The study contains information about the location of archaeological sites that are protected by SDCL 1-20-21.2. Ms. Pratt has made no assertion that she is a landowner of an archaeological site nor a qualified researcher to permit the state archaeologist to disclose such confidential information.”
LaCroix added that under SDCL 1-20-26, all state agencies and commissions must fully cooperate with the state archaeologist to preserve and protect archaeological sites.
How to Listen or Participate in the Nov. 4 PUC Meeting
By an amended order signed Oct. 19, 2026, by PUC Chairman Chris Nelson and Commissioners Kristie Fiegen and Gary Hanson, the hearing on the confidentiality request—originally noticed for Nov. 6—was rescheduled to the commission’s regular meeting at 9:30 a.m. CST Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2026, in Room 413 of the Capitol Building, 500 E. Capitol Ave., in Pierre. The order noted that the commission may consider the matter alongside similar requests filed in Dockets EL26-026 and EL26-028.
Docket participants who wish to join the Nov. 4 meeting by conference call must contact the PUC at 605-773-3201 by 5 p.m. CST Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026, to reserve a phone line. Members of the public who wish to listen to the proceedings without speaking may tune in via the live webcast at puc.sd.gov by clicking the "LIVE" link on the home page.
