stealth

So it turns out the Public Utilities Commission has had a rulemaking going on Minn. Rules Chapter 7829, which is the PUC’s “Utility Proceeding, Practice, and Procedure” and runs alongside the Office of Administrative Hearings rules in 1400 and 1405.  I discovered this by accident when looking for the PUC’s Web Archive.

The 7829 Rules are something that I’ve been fuming about, that and the 1400 and 1405, for YEARS, like 17 years or so, and they start up a rulemaking docket and don’t give me notice?  Feels real personal, particularly after all the trouble I had with the Post Office and my P.O. Box, trying to change the address, and making sure the PUC had the right address on things, getting phone calls from the keeper of the list that mail was being returned.  But here they use an old address?

roaringtiger

Plus the Comment period ended in April.  I am NOT happy…

Here are the rules:

7829 Utility Proceeding, Practice, Procedure

Here’s the notice and proposed changes:

Request for Comments_20132-83863-02

Proposed Rules

… and check the service list — proof they had the wrong address for me and yes, I didn’t get notice.  And I”m not on any of the other lists.

HELLO!  EARTH TO MARS!

Where did they get this service list?  They had a list called the PPSA list, that I was on, but wrong address, and several Telecom list and an “SPL_SL_ETCList-DOC-PUC” list and rulemaking lists, and somehow I’m not on any of them?  How can that be?  Shouldn’t they at least have noticed this when mail was returned?

roaringtiger

And look at the notice, the email for comments is “christopher-moseng@state.mn.us,” but that bounces, his email is “christopher.moseng@state.mn.us” — shouldn’t that be corrected?

So, for any of you who did not get notice on this, it’s time to file some comments, file on eDockets, file 13-24. It’s important, because the only ones filing are a couple of state agencies and utility toadies.

And as Suzanne noted, use their proposed procedure to assure they are not excluded as “late” — can’t have that now, can we:

Leave a Reply