Legalectric

I’d filed these on Monday… “Power on Minnesota” filed theirs too (scroll down for theirs).

Time flies when you’re having fun…

Why? Well, look at this, supporting “the Commission’s informal process” which DOES NOT EXIST!!

Unlikely to be contested issues of fact, informal process would allow them and the public to more fully and effectively participate? What are they smoking? Whose brilliant idea was it to put such bizarre thoughts in writing? Hmmmm, maybe look at their funding and see how much they were paid to quash public participation in a non-existent “informal process.”

But wait, MISO said the same thing (no surprise, this decades long transmission build-out is “MISO’s” idea, their members, and they’re the entity out front promoting it):

“For the reasons stated…” ??? What reasons. All that’s in the comments is what MISO has done, MISO this, MISO that, and MISO IS NOT THE REGULATOR! There’s zero about contested issues — but of course — how would they know if there are contested issues when this is the INITIAL comment period!

And then there’s Commerce saying the same thing. Good grief, I recognize that Commerce is the name of the agency, that Commerce does not represent ratepayers or the public, but…

It’s time to haul out that comment grinder again:

“Power on Minnesota” had a more realistic approach, though dismissing issues I’d raised in Comments, acknowledging the possibility of contested case and intervenors:

… the Commission itself may determine that a contested case would be beneficial. To allow for full development of the record—whether under the informal or contested case process— and also avoid potential schedule delays in the future, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission decline to order a contested case proceeding at this time and request that further contested case requests be submitted with a petition to intervene and before the close of the scoping comment period in this matter to allow the Commission to resolve such requests when it considers the scope of the Environmental Report.

Reply Comment, p. 2, Power on Midwest (emphasis added), see Comment, below..

Yup, that’s the plan, that’s how the rules say it’s done, request Contested Case before the end of the comment period! And as we know, in these proceedings, we’ve got to bring up everything early and often.

Here’s the Reply Comment of the Applicants: