Legalectric

Just in (well, it came in a while ago, but I was being tortured at the U of M Dental Clinic):

Minnkota Request for Withdrawal of Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115kV Transmission Line  20169-124828-01

YES!!  Now, a quick Comment for the record, essentially a thank you note, PUC staff Briefing Papers, a Commission meeting, and Clearbrook is DONE!

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:

And when I asked:

Here’s the response:

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

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!

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.

According to their Petition for Withdrawal, “[p]ursuant to Minn. R. 7829.0430, persons opposing the Petition have 14 calendar days from the date of service to file objections.   Pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6600, parties may respond to the motion to suspend the contested case and certify the issues within 10 working days of this motion by filing a written response with the judge and serving copies on all parties.”  And they’re correct about that.

Served September 1, so deadlines are September 11 (12th because it’s a Sunday) for objections under Minn. R. 1400.6600 (for “parties”) and September 15 for objections/comments under Minn. R. 7829.0430.

Address comments to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary                                                    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

AND to eFile them by registering at the PUC site HERE and eFiling them in dockets 13-473 and 13-474.  It EASY!!!  Then not only will the Commission and the Judges of the two dockets be aware of your comments, but the world can see them too!  Small effort, larger impact!

And you can mail the Comment to him, but I’d strongly advise you eFile it at the PUC (which will also go to ALJ Oxley)

And again, here’s their Withdrawal Request:

20169-124579-01_Petition Withdrawal

The 10 day rule, Minn. R. 1400.6600 does say “parties” may respond:

The 14 day rule is broader, Minn. R. 7829.0430 in the Utility Practice and Procedure rules:

Minn. R. 7829.0430

Subpart 1. Uncontested withdrawal.

The commission delegates to the executive secretary authority to approve the withdrawal of a filing. Approval will be granted by the executive secretary if the following conditions are met:

A. the party that submitted the filing has requested that the filing be withdrawn and has served notice on the persons listed on the official service list;

B. no person has expressed opposition to withdrawal of the filing within 14 days of service of the notice; and

C. no commissioner or commission staff person has identified a reason that the matter should not be withdrawn.

Subp. 2. Contested withdrawal.

If any person opposes a withdrawal request within 14 days of service of the notice, the commission will allow a filing to be withdrawn at the request of the filing party if the commission determines that the proposed withdrawal:

A.does not contravene the public interest;

B. does not prejudice any party; and

C. does not concern a filing that raises issues requiring commission action.

If the commission determines that withdrawal would contravene the public interest or would prejudice a party, the commission may permit withdrawal only subject to conditions that mitigate the harm identified.

And here’s a prior Legalectric post: