My rulemaking petition has been given a docket number and now a Comment Period has been announced — Initial Comments due April 30, and Reply Comments due May 7!
What does the Commission deem “Topic for Comment?” and background?
Note the “background,” for some reason it doesn’t mention that nearly all the rules were REPEALED!!
Why does this matter? Who cares? I would hope the Public Utilities Commission cares (though I won’t hold my breath). The legislature had something to say about rulemaking when they repealed almost all the rules:
Note the use of “may,” which is way too much wiggle room: “The commission, in order to give effect to the purposes of this chapter, may adopt rules consistent with this chapter…” Knowing how they avoided rulemaking and tossed the years of work in docket R-12-1246, “may” is just not adequate. I can’t find that any rulemaking has begun, and I’d nosed around about it and no return call… no surprise. It seems to be a “Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!” attitude. Think that’s wise when we’re looking at Need and Routing for the biggest transmission lines in Minnesota history? As Shawn would say, “Goes to show you don’t think!!!!!”
OK, fine… if you, the regulators, won’t get on it, no problem. Here’s a rulemaking petition:
Now, let’s file comments, and get you all on record about it, and better yet, let’s get moving on rules. I mean really, look at what all was repealed — there are virtually NO RULES for siting and routing of utility infrastructure!
CHAPTER 7850, SITE OR ROUTE PERMIT; POWER PLANT OR LINE
[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
What rules were there before? Check it out — which of these would have no use or purpose in routing and siting utility infrastructure? Which of these are crucial, necessary for reasonable process, necessary to consider important factors and factoids? Rules are how the Commission enacts the statutes!
Did you know that thanks to the 2024 Energy Omnibus (Ominous) Bill, there are virtually NO rules for routing and siting of utility infrastructure? The good news is that the “Prime Farmland Exclusion” was preserved, but where’d everything else go???? Yeah, it’s really bad, so I filed this Petition for Rulemaking, on eDockets, via email, and as above, tomorrow, U.S. Mail:
Really, take a look for yourself and see how little is left after the 2024 legislative purge. Really, take a look for yourself and see how little is left after the 2024 legislative purge — all that remains of Minn. R. ch. 7850 is “Standards and Criteria” which says nothing, and Prohibited Routes and Prohibited Sites:
I’ve filed a few of these, and have been on 2, maybe 3, rulemaking advisory committees, the most important was R-12-1246, where we worked for almost a decade, and the PUC tossed it! That was SO frustrating and infuriating.
Adding to hearing about it, just yesterday, I was told, emphatically, several times, that “our” State Senator Steve Drazkowski is saying that the 2024 Energy Omnibus Bill took authority away from local governments. Nope, nope, nope, that didn’t happen!
DID YOU REALLY SAY THAT, STEVE?
IT’S NOT TRUE!!!!
If anyone tries to tell you that the 2024 Energy Omnibus (Ominous) Bill took away local control over energy projects, be sure to correct them — it’s a problem having false information flying around!
I was also told that Drazkowski had authored a bill to “return” jurisdiction to local governments, but I cannot find it, will continue looking.
So… once more with feeling… SINCE 1973 – PUC jurisdiction over energy project is NOT new:
No wonder the top Generals are being fired. They’re objecting to illegal orders of the incompetents in charge.
I know next to nothing about international law, so off to wiki for a start:
The ICC reserves the right of states to prosecute war crimes, and the ICC can only proceed with prosecution of crimes when states do not have willingness or effective and reliable processes to investigate for themselves.
