Minnesota Public Utilities Commission process for Certificate of Need and Routing? Good luck with that.

Ja, it’s a little fuzzy, and that’s how PUC process is! I’m drawing up a flowchart for my peeps all over Minnesota in these transmission dockets, and gotta love the internet — this turned up:

What do they have to say about “informal process” for Certificate of Need? Well, from our friends at Taft, the Modern Law Firm, nothing new, but here’s what they’re telling their clients (says “Attorney-Client Privilege” but here it is in the interwebs):

MEMORANDUM 2025-Permitting-Book, p. 20-21. And here’s what Xcel Energy has to say:

And we know all about that pesky Minn. R. 7829.1200 — that is THE rule about “informal process,” with its three points to determine whether it’s appropriate — there is no other:

And Minn. R. 7829.2500 — The Commission must make a decision to utilize the informal process, the informal process governed by Minn. R. 7829.2500, mindful that it must meet the criteria in that rule.

On to the Public Utilities Commission — what does the PUC have to say about “informal process?” MOST?!?! STREAMLINES?!?!? For the first long string of 765kV transmission from South Dakota into the middle of Wisconsin… INFORMAL PROCESS? In what world is this reasonable? Over my dead polar bear…

And Contested Case?

So either way it takes a year. Sounds to me like they don’t want to do the work of a contested case, and/or don’t want the “more rigorous and detailed examination.”

Here’s the “Gopher to Badger” notion of process:

Here’s the utility version of process from the Maple River-Cuyuna transmission project, PUC Docket CN-25-109 (filed yesterday: Supplemental Comments – Maple River to Cuyuna 345kV)

Notice how it goes from “Commission reviews application for completeness” to “Commission issues Certificate of Need decision” in that flowchart and nothing in between? Hmmmm… what’s missing?

THE PUBLIC!!!

For example, missing are these opportunities for the public to weigh in – insert these points in their perception of process:

• Public Comments on Notice Plan
• Public Comments on Completeness
• Public Hearing and Comments on Project
• Intervention
• Evidentiary Hearing
• Briefing
• ALJ Recommendation
• Exceptions to ALJ Recommendaiton
• Staff Briefing Papers
• Commission Agenda Mtg
• Oral Argument if requested and granted
• Commission Decision and written Order after Agenda Mtg
• Motion for Reconsideration
• Agenda Mtg on Reconsideration (usually denied)
• Appeal direct to Minnesota Court of Appeals
• Briefing, maybe Oral Argument
• Decision – usually dismissed/denied/tossed out

The Power on Midwest is a little better — they even mention “INTERVENTION!”

But I’m still looking for that PUC flowchart.

“Informal process” for these big transmission projects? I don’t think so. Particularly when you’ve got toadies lining up pushing for “informal process.” Again, if it’s the same length of time, no “delay,” why? It’s got to be that they don’t want that “more rigorous and detailed examination.” Ja, so?!?!?!

Right… once more with feeling… REMEMBER THE PUC’S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MANDATE:

MINN. STAT. 216I.16

THE PUBLIC!!!

… AAAAARGH… they’ll have to pry my computer out of my cold dead hands!