Legalectric

I filed this just now:

Why? Well, we’d filed these Comments and Requests last week, and based on their Response, yesterday’s filing, it’s a hoot:

HERE’S THEIR RESPONSE:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• Consolidate? Wonder where that idea came from? See CN-25-117, where CN-25-118, 118, and 120 were CONSOLIDATED INTO THAT ONE DOCKET!! That was announced by the Applicants with their filing of November 10, 2026, 202511-224811-01, in CN-25-117, CN-25-118, CN-25-119 and CN-25-120. Oh, and DOH, on the other end, Xcel and Dairyland CONSOLIDATED their dockets into one, CN-25-122 has now been consolidated into CN-25-121!

• A stay? Wonder where that idea came from? See CN-25-121, where Applicants ask for a stay until the route application is filed. Reply Comment, p. 2 (“With respect to the process by which the Application should be considered, as discussed in Section I below, the Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.” And “With respect to the process by which the Application should be considered, as discussed in Section I below, the Applicants request that the Commission stay the Certificate of Need Application and process it jointly with the Route Permit Application, which Applicants intend to submit this fall.” And “[a]s discussed previously, because this proceeding will be stayed until the Applicants submit a Route Permit Application in Fall 2026, the Applicants request that the Commission defer a decision on the procedural treatment of the Certificate of Need until that time.” And “Based on the Applicants’ agreement to stay the Certificate of Need Application until Fall 2026, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission defer a decision on the process for considering the Certificate of Need Application until after the Route Permit Application is filed to ensure consistent proceedings and reduce public confusion.” See Gopher to Badger Reply Comment, 20263-228942-01, March 3, 2026.

Oh, OK…

• Request a Contested Case and file a Petition for Intervention, where would that idea come from? Check Power on Minnesota Applicant’s (CN-25-117) MP-GRE-OTP_Reply Comments: “Based on the Applicants’ agreement to stay the Certificate of Need Application until Fall 2026, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission defer a decision on the process for considering the Certificate of Need Application until after the Route Permit Application is filed to ensure consistent proceedings and reduce public confusion.” DONE, that was done at your prompt!

They also questioning whether North Route Group and NO765MN have standing. Well, I’d guess that’s no different than the “Joint Intervenors” and “LIUNA” and MISO and whoever else might request intervention. And don’t forget the Commission’s public participation mandate in Minn. Stat. 216I.16.

• And then, about Discovery, where would that idea come from? See the Cover to the Application for the Certificate of Need in docket CN-25-109, page 2 — great idea:

Here’s a noteworthy point — both stress the “legislative intent” — these are quotes:

• Delaying the Gopher to Badger Link applications to wait for the PowerOn route proceedings is also directly contrary to the Legislature’s recent direction that sought to reduce the amount of time between MISO’s approval of projects and certificate of need applications. (fn. Specifically, in 2024, the Legislature reduce the time to file an application after giving notice of intent under Minn. Stat. 216B.246, subd. 3, from 18 months to 12 months. This new 12-month timeframe applies to the project.) See Gopher to Badger Response, p. 4, 20263-229454-01(emphasis added).
• Doing so would also be contrary to the intent of the Legislature which has sought to reduce the amount of time between MISO’s approval of projects and certificate of need applications. Specifically, in 2024, the Legislature reduce the time to file an application after giving notice of intent under Minn. Stat. 216B.246, subd. 3, from 18 months to 12 months. This new 12-month timeframe applies to the project. See PowerOn Midwest Response, p. 5, fn. 9 20263-229455-01 (emphasis added).

Legislative intent? Well, for sure that was the Commission’s legislative agenda, to carry their water, speed things up for the applicants, and the applicants got what they wanted.