Legalectric

Scene from the Public Hearing held in Menagha on October 19, 2015.  The Public Utilities Commission, in its Order of Ordered an “Informal Process” for the Certificate of Need and Route Permit dockets, wrote:

At this time there are no contested material facts, future factual disputes appear unlikely, and there are no other factors pointing to a need for contested case proceedings. The Commission will therefore authorize staff to develop the record and prepare this case for Commission action without contested case proceedings under Minn. Stat. §§14.57 et seq., unless those proceedings are later determined to be necessary. Accordingly, the Commission will direct the use of the informal review process under Minn. R. 7829.1200 to develop the record for the certificate of need.

Order_Informal Review Process_20153-108363-02-1

And then more:

Under the alternative permitting process the Commission still asks the Office of Administrative Hearings to hold at least one public hearing, scheduled in conjunction with Commission staff. The Commission will request that the Administrative Law Judge in this case prepare a summary report of the comments received during the public hearing comment period.

… and…

2. The Commission requests that the Administrative Law Judge file a summary report of the comments received regarding the route permit application.

Yet in the “Summary Report,” it appears that comments are made “just because” and “off the cuff” because none of the Exhibits are referenced in the Summary!  For example, I wanted to get at the capacity of the line, because the project is overdesigned, much bigger than what is “needed” by any stretch of the imagination, so a quick review of the specs of the line:

Oh, but is was.  At the hearing, the GRE engineer stated that, “196 MVA would equate to an ampacity grater than 702 amps.  Tr. p. 21, l. 16-17.

Transcript- Public Hearing_10-19-2015

And during the Comment period, GRE stated that:

Comments_GRE-MP_201511-115396-01

Meanwhile, my client wanted to introduce a close up map of her property, and the ALJ would not accept it!

So Donna Andersen’s map was not entered, but the map in the docket doesn’t show TWO transmission lines affecting her property? And the ALJ is only aware of one of the two that she testified about. Funny how that works.

This docket has been a mess…