withdraw

Today was Deadline #1 for Comments on NDPC’s Petition for Withdrawal of the Sandpiper pipeline Certificate of Need and Route applications.  Here’s what was filed:

Sandpiper_Landowner Comments_Xmsn

Yup, that’s it.  My Sandpiper transmission clients weighed in.  I’ve been watching the docket, watching the inbox for service…. NO other comments, nothing, nada…

Just get to it.  Quick – take a few minutes and send a missive to the Public Utilities Commission encouraging them to allow Enbridge to withdraw their application for the Sandpiper pipeline WITH PREJUDICE so that they can’t refile it again.  Send to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary  (dan.wolf@state.mn.us)                        Minnesota Public Utilities Commission                                                           121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350                                                                    Saint Paul, MN  55101-2147

Ann O’Reilly and James La Fave, Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Hearings
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

But it doesn’t end there, with zip comments… it gets weirder.  I’d saw there was no notice from the PUC about a comment period, nothing.  Here’s what they did with Hollydale, Notice, and there was a comment period and reply comments!  In that docket, Xcel Energy filed to withdraw its Hollydale applications on December 10, 2013, and this notice was issued on January 10, 2014:

20141-95340-02 Notice of Comment Period

Here’s what we got:

topics

And when I asked:

cao2puc

Here’s the response:

puc2cao

Oh my… what do I do with that?  Guess I write a post about it!!!

withdraw

 

 

 

sandpiper_pipeline-courtesy_winona_laduke

Enbridge has asked the PUC to withdraw its Certificate of Need and Route applications for the Sandpiper pipeline.  Quick – take a few minutes and send a missive to the Public Utilities Commission encouraging them to allow Enbridge to withdraw their application for the Sandpiper pipeline WITH PREJUDICE so that they can’t refile it again.  Send to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary  (dan.wolf@state.mn.us)                        Minnesota Public Utilities Commission                                                           121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350                                                                    Saint Paul, MN  55101-2147

Ann O’Reilly and James La Fave, Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Hearings
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

Where’s the Sandpiper withdrawal on the PUC’s “Speak Up!” page?

 

Prior Legalectric posts:

Comment on Enbridge’s withdrawal of Sandpiper NOW!

and

Enbridge files to withdraw Sandpiper applications!

mayo-clinic

At long last, I’ve gotten this month’s prescriptions.  I’m on drugs, what can I say, it’s not even so much the joys of “old age” but it IS the joys of having access to health care after 30 years without.  What a concept, and it’s still taking some getting used to.  It’s very helpful in losing weight, and preventative care, and eye exam, and limited dental care… well, that’s not so great, in fact it’s torture, but it’s got to be done, and a podiatrist consult learning that in addition to plantar fascitis that’s resolved pretty much, I’ve got shin splints, who knew!?!?!

But Mayo’s Rx Refill procedure is screwed up, and their policy is not acceptable.  I’ve got a prescription refill that needs to be done every 30 days, they know that, and my Dr. did “renew” it per the online Rx Refill page on 8/31, but they didn’t get it to the pharmacy until today.

Trying to get it (DOH!  A 30 day supply lasts 30 days, not more!), I went round and round with Walgreens and Mayo, finally nailing down on Tuesday that Mayo had not sent it!  It was renewed 8/31, a work day, and 9/1 and 9/2 were work days, and it wasn’t mailed!  When I learned that on Tuesday, 9/6, they said they would mail it.  They would not allow me to pick it up, nor would they take it to the pharmacy, they would only mail it, with no guarantee it would get there the following day.  There was no “what can we do to fix this.”  I was told verbally and in writing that the Mayo “policy” was 7-10 days for prescription refills!  WHAT?  For something that has to be renewed every 30 days?  That it’s OK to wait 7-10 days after that?  And given this, their response is that if it’s not OK then it’s my problem, or I’m the problem?  Ummmmm, NO!

When it had not arrived on Wednesday, I called again, and was again told that their policy was 7-10 days, verbally and in writing, inferring that there was no basis for a complaint.  WHAT?!?!  Not acceptable, no way, no how.  The policy is inadequate and needs to be fixed, procedures should be in place to assure that routing refills grind out of the system on time, with regularity of an anticipated need.  Oh, but then I was told that “You’re not the only one with prescriptions,” and so I noted that’s Mayo’s business to handle Rx refills, that their policy and procedures needed revision and correction, and asked what they are going to do about this, and I was told that “If you want to receive your health care elsewhere…” and CLICK!  Dial tone…

Really…

Mayo, what I expected was an attempt to fix the problem, a “oh, then we’ll send a courier to Walgreens” and/or “Oh, we’re sorry this happened, would you like to pick up the Rx?”  Or even, “come in and we’ll give you a few days supply until the Rx gets there.”  Nope.  And not even a “You think our system is broken, OK, how could we do it differently?”  Nope.  Over and over I had to contact the pharmacy and Mayo by phone, and send messages and replies to Mayo’s Messaging system (which I have printed and pdf’d for the record).  Ultimately, Mayo’s Internal Medicine’s nurse’s response after a week of failure to grind out a routine refill, and to statements that their system is broken and needs to be fixed, is “If you want to receive your health care elsewhere…” and CLICK!

Mayo knows that it’s the only game in town, other than Red Wing’s Care Clinic which operates only on Tuesdays.

So now, not only does their system for routing refills need to be fixed, but someone needs to be fired.

okla-quake_wide-df42df8a84055fe96e5682321e4b5cc937030c06-s1500-c85BIG earthquake in Oklahoma today, and are we surprised?   Naaaaah…  Here’s the info, including location, economic impacts, etc., from USGS:

CLICK HERE: USGS Pawnee, OK Earthquake Page

In the news, and they’re making the link between gas wells and earthquakes:

Earthquake Rattles Oklahoma; One Of Strongest Recorded In State

Earthquake Shakes Swath of Country Where Wells Have Drawn Scrutiny

Earthquake rattles Oklahoma, six neighboring states

VIDEO: Dogs react to Oklahoma earthquake

IMPORTANT: The Oklahoma Corporation Commission takes action!

Oklahoma Corporation Commission orders disposal wells shut down near quake epicenter

Consider why fracking and injection of frac waste is allowed…  Why is a pipeline route through earthquake prone area considered?  The impacts of fracking and waste injection is one thing they do NOT want to acknowledge.  From KOTV in June 2014 — USGS should know better:

OklahomaEarthquakes_June2014_KOTV

And when searching, look at this — can you believe:

OGS: Earthquake risk low for proposed disposal wells in Yukon

When the topic of earthquakes and other seismic activity comes up, I always recommend the “bible” of injection into the earth, because this is not a new phenomenon and we’re making this happen, putting people and our water supply at risk:

Gas Migration: Events Preceding Earthquakes, by Khilyuk

When I got this book, it was an older edition, though pricey, but with patience, it could be had for $20.  For about a decade now I’ve been recommending this book, and look at the price now.  Out of bounds for most of us… funny how that works.  I’d guess a library could find a copy, and here it is on google books, “only” $224.00 (GRRRRRRRRRR):

Gas migration: events preceding earthquakes

Elisa Young, a cohort in Ohio, has lived in the epicenter of frack injection triggered earthquakes around Youngstown.  There, after so many earthquakes, the causal connection was acknowledged, but it took too long.  Here’s a Legalectric post from four years ago:

Ohio Earthquakes & Fracking

And now for a complicated sidebar.  Elisa Young asked today how to get the state and federal agencies to communicate about this problem and take action.  How?  Damned if I know — impacts of injecting gas and liquids into the earth are well known.  Yet federal and state agencies are in serious state of denial.  And it’s very difficult at times to get the agencies to show up, to do their job.  It’s even difficult to get their analysis, their own reports, into project permit dockets.  I get really tired of this…

How to get them to weigh in?  In Public Utilities Commission dockets in Minnesota, I’ve had a hard time with state agencies, initially.  For example, in Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project docket, there was a claim that coal gasification was “clean” yet the Minnesota Pollution Agency had not, and would not, weigh in on the emissions projected for this coal gasification power plant.  WHAT?  We pushed and pushed, threatened to subpoena, raised this at a PUC meeting, and finally, the PUC issued an Order and wrote a letter to the PCA Commissioner requesting the MPCA lend its expertise to the Commission and show up!

3114835_PUC Letter to MPCA

And a Legalectric post about later subpoena requests on the Mesaba Project:

FOIAs to feds, subpoena requests to state agencies

And subpoena and Data Practices Act requests in that same docket for financial information:

Subpoena Request IRR September 7, 2006

IRRB Data Practices Act Request

Letter to IRRRB June 19, 2006

Letter to IRRRB July 26, 2006

I’ve had similar issues in transmission dockets, where the DOT and DNR would file Comments on environmental scoping, and/or the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but those Comments would only be sent to the Dept. of Commerce, and were not posted in the PUC docket, so parties and the public had no idea the concerns the agencies may have.  NOT OK.  During the first CapX 2020 routing docket, Brookings 08-1474, it was so egregious, I asked the DOT General Counsel who was present to make comments at the public hearing, and to submit a copy for the routing docket record (the route ultimately turned on DOT easements and that DOT would not allow the transmission line to be built over those easements).   The matter was remanded by the Commission for rehearing based on their routing quandry.  Shortly after, on behalf of No CapX 2020, I subpoenaed testimony and Comments.

Subpoena requests sent! (DOT & DNR)

Subpoena plot thickens (Agreement to testify)

Subpoena request for US Fish & Wildlife

Subpoena Denied(tried to get USFWS, didn’t work.  USFWS Comments had been hidden in EIS Comments)

Notes from Friday

In the Goodhue Wind docket (permit granted, and then much later revoked!):

Goodhue Wind Truth – Subpoena Requests for Bjorklund and Bull

ALJ Sheehy’s Letter to Overland – Denial of Subpoena Requests

Goodhue Wind Docket … REFILE!

When this was attempted in the Sandpiper Pipeline docket, the ALJ denied the Subpoena request.  WHAT?

And an interesting back and forth with a hearing officer about getting information into the record and whether it would take a subpoena to get it, where ultimately, the ALJ agreed that the primary documents would be entered in the record:

NRG in hiding at DNREC hearing

And here’s an aside, use of subpoena regarding Xcel’s plans for coal, served by NY’s A.G.:

New York A.G. serves Xcel with subpoena

 

crowd_cheering_med

YES!  It took them a month from their announcement, but finally, Enbridge has filed to withdraw the Sandpiper pipeline Certificate of Need and Route applications, and has asked to suspend the contested case and EIS process in the meantime.

20169-124579-01_Petition Withdrawal

There is a 14 day window to “object” to this Certificate of Need withdrawal, and a 10 day window to address the Motion to suspend contested case.

response

Now’s the time to say “WITHDRAW, WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE!”  Now’s the time to say “WITHDRAW ALL RELATED APPLICATIONS” because there are so many applications for transmission lines for pumping stations, i.e., the Clearbrook Transmission Line!

And then sometime after the Comment period ends, PUC staff will issue “Briefing Papers” and then the Commission will schedule a meeting to address this, with at least 10 days notice.  Expect, then, at least a month before the PUC acts.

Now, about that Line 3 replacement project…