This is about public participation, something that is ostensibly encouraged by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. My take on this is that OAH’s modus operandi is the previous, yet unacted upon, Draft Rules for Minn. Rules Ch. 1400 & 1405, in which public participation was proposed to be severely limited:

OAH Rulemaking Request for Comments

OAH Rulemaking Draft Changes

I’d filed a Rulemaking Petition ages ago, circa 2011, after raising issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearings:

Overland – Petition for Rulemaking – OAH

The OAH page regarding this 2012 rulemaking Notice, the Draft, and the several Comments received has been disappeared.  Hmmmmmmm…

Anyway, as noted before, OAH has been limiting interventions for a while now.  See Rate cases, rate design, and intervention for the privileged few…

Here’s a few posts of my current experience with No CapX 2020 intervention in Xcel’s rate case docket:

More Denial of Intervention in Xcel Rate Case  May 3rd, 2016

2nd Petition for Intervention in Xcel Rate Case January 25th, 2016

Rate Case – Response filed to Xcel’s Objection to Intervention January 6th, 2016

And now it’s also happened to both CUB Minnesota and AARP in the Minnesota Power rate case docket!



When I saw those denials, I quick whipped off a comment and filed it the Xcel Energy Rate Case (15-826) and Alternative Rate Design (15-662) and Minnesota Power Rate Case (16-664) dockets.

Overland Comment – Intervention and Public Participation

To review these dockets, GO HERE and look up the docket numbers.

And now AARP has filed for Reconsideration.  GOOD!

AARP Motion for Reconsideration_20174-130901-01

Very well put, AARP!  For example:


How could these parties interests be deemed identical?  That’s as absurd as ALJ Mihalchik’s claim that the interests of those I represented in the Big Stone II docket were “adequately represented” by the “Clean Energy Intervenors.”

But here’s an important point:

In another docket, the Xcel Energy rate case, there was a “Settlement Agreement” by many parties, and in that rate case docket (15-826) it was those who had participated in the e21_Initiative who “agreed,” and AARP did NOT agree.

How much is this prior objection to the Xcel Energy rate case agreement related to the current denial of intervention?  Methinks quite a bit…

Do take the time to read this entire AARP Motion for Reconsideration.

Leave a Reply