Legalectric

Interesting filings today in PUC Docket R-26-172 — how can anyone oppose rulemaking, and how can anyone think it’s reasonable to route transmission and site generation without rules? The Public Utilities Commission is tasked with regulating utilities, and how does one regulate without regulations?

Here’s what has come in today — the deadline is 4:30 but I’ll have to hit the road soon — if others come in I’ll post later. This first one is choice:

The next two, not so much — how convoluted can they get?

And here’s what I had to say, on my behalf, and also clients North Route Group and NO765MN (CN-25-117 and CN-25-121) and the Andersens (CN-25-109), after seeing some of the comments:

Take a good look at what the legislature did to the rules. And those that say “renumbered,” click on those and you’ll see they were moved and repealed as well!

CHAPTER 7850, SITE OR ROUTE PERMIT; POWER PLANT OR LINE

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Part	Title
7850.0100	[Renumbered 4410.7000]
7850.0200	[Renumbered 4410.7100]
7850.0300	[Renumbered 4410.7200]
7850.0400	[Renumbered 4410.7300]
7850.0500	[Renumbered 4410.7400]
7850.0600	[Renumbered 4410.7500]
7850.0700	[Renumbered 4410.7600]
7850.0800	[Renumbered 4410.7700]
7850.0900	[Renumbered 4410.7800]
7850.1000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.1900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.2900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.3900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4000	STANDARDS AND CRITERIA.
7850.4100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4300	PROHIBITED ROUTES.
7850.4400	PROHIBITED SITES.
7850.4500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4700	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4800	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.4900	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5000	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5100	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5200	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5300	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5400	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5500	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]
7850.5600	[Repealed, L 2024 c 126 art 7 s 15; L 2024 c 127 art 43 s 15]

PowerOn Midwest

PUC Docket CN-25-117 (western part of 765kV) — the meetings are wrapping up:

TONIGHT – ZUMBROTA VFW

5 pm – Open House

6 pm – Info & Scoping Meeting

Comments due May 20th:

So many meetings this month, all over Minnesota for FOUR transmission projects “PowerOn Midwest,” and May will start out the same, it’s “Open House” season for “Gopher to Badger” May 4-7th… Both have meetings in Zumbrota — there’s some overlap, and of course, these are connected, it’s all one project.

Zumbrota – tonight Wednesday, April 29 at 5 or 6 pm, and Tuesday, May 5, from 4-6 pm

… and written comments are due May 20 by 4:30 pm. They’re looking for comments on:

We’ve got about three weeks to get comments in.

Yesterday was Albert Lea and then Austin. This evening, Zumbrota (yes, I’ll be missing Kasson, which starts about now).

The map on display shows the overlap between PowerOn Midwest and Gopher to Badger. What do those numbers in grey represent?

These are Public Utilities Commission’s meetings, “information and scoping,” and not hearings like they used to be. Here’s the full notice:

On to Zumbrota! 5 or 6 pm, be there or be square!

Another full house!

There are more meetings next week,Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, more opportunities to show up and let them know what you think. Keep in mind this is NEED and not ROUTING, so get up to speed on need, demand, cost, cost/benefit, that sort of thing.

Here’s the meeting notice to get an idea what it’s about:

And here’s the Order for the bigger picture:

The important points, in addition to the more technical questions:

Here’s Minn. Stat. 216I.05, subd. 11(e):

And the “Next Gen Highway Act.” Minn. Stat. 161.45 (it’s long, so here’s a link):

Next Gen Highway Act

Cost came up at this meeting, and it’s important to recognize that this particular project may not appear to cost much,but we’re also paying a percentage of all the others too. So I’m parking MISO Schedule 26A again, because we need to know ho’s paying what for this, and need to keep it handy for reference:

Schedule 26A Indicative Annual Charges106365_posted 9-30-2025 Download

Here’s the application, if you really want to get in the weeds, and at least the application — pick out the parts that interest you, there’s bound to be something:

• Application_20262-227787-02 Download
• App A_Checklist_20262-227787-03 Download
• App B_Order Notice & Exemptions_20262-227787-04 Download
• App C_Technical Diagrams_182380-CO-01_20262-227787-05 Download
• App D_Revenue Requirements_20262-22787-06 Download
• App E_Planning Analysis-Public_ 20262-227787-08 Download
• App F1_GRE Forecast_Redacted_20262-227787-10 Download
• App F2_Xcel Forecast-Redacted_20262-227787-12 Download
• App G_ DSM & Conservation_20262-227787-13 Download
• App H_Outreach Materials_20262-227787-14 Download

Time to get to work!!

It was a LONG day at the Public Utilities Commission last Thursday, and here it is, almost Thursday again! The “Gopher to Badger” transmission line, PUC Docket CN-25-121, was #6 on the agenda.

Technically, what was at issue was “completeness,” whether the application was complete, but more important was a decision on what process to use. There seemed to be a concerted effort to push this project through using an “informal process.” Ummm, nope, over my dead polar bear!

North Route Group and NO765MN had a few things to say about completeness, process, and raising contested material issues of fact:

We’re not the only ones — about 150 comments came in. Listen up, PUC! That’s a lot of comments.

To look at the docket, go HERE and search for docket 25-121:

And an even more important longer term issue, that the Dept. of Commerce DER recognized, put in writing, that there’s more info that they want, in technicolor:

Staff briefing papers laid out, sort of, the issues, comments of parties, and staff recommendations.

Bottom line decision options:

Last minute additional decision options:

This last minute one is to assure our Petition to Intervene isn’t lost, trashed, or forgotten:

Most of these were not hills to die on, but ideally, 1, 6, 9, 11, 13 & 14, and add last minute 16 so we’re still in the mix. The most important was to avoid this absurd notion of an “informal review,” an idea that seemed orchestrated:

In what world is an “informal process” reasonable for a 100+ mile long (~145 in MN?) 765kV transmission line Certificate of Need proceeding? Guess again.

Commissioner Tuma made the motion for 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 (with 60 days after written Order), 11a, and 16. Passed unanimously.

Little, but important, win – avoided “informal process” of #4, but maybe it’ll come up again, though #3 was clear on Thursday. CN-25-117 did move forward to contested case, and this is likely too, so it was said. Littler win — #3 Certificate of Need review is on hold until the route application is filed in the fall, and then we address process again (would have rather had the application referred for a contested case NOW, but oh well…) Another positive development is #11, that applicants will have to provide the info that Commerce DER wants within 60 days of the Commission’s written order. That’ll give us something to chew on.

During last of discussion, Commissioner Sullivan stressed the need to look at highway right-of-way, as provided by the 2024 legislative changes, Tuma too. Sullivan was also VERY clear that “this is all the same project,” that CN-25-117 PowerOn Midwest is directly linked to this CN-25-121 Gopher to Badger. Well, DOH!

But he was the only one adamant about it and not adamant enough. Historical, institutional, knowledge is missing, this is just like CapX 2020, a/k/a Grid North Partners. There’s no curiosity, and assumptions are made that it would be “confusing” to put the Certificate of Need dockets together. HUH? We’ve done it before, just look at the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need (CN-06-1115), not at all confusing. They’ve already consolidated into 117 is 118, 119, and 120, and consolidated into 121 is 122, so there are 6 MISO projects here, MISO 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. What’s one more consolidation to pull it all together?

Note: Need arguments in these applications are the same, see below, look up Application Section 1.4 and Chapter 6 on need. Really, COMPARE:

Also check out Chapter 5!

We’ll have another whack at this apple.

Here’s the link to the meeting (eeeeuw, do I really need to look at this to get the link?) — we’re #6 on the agenda:

Details 2025-267 ** ET3,E002/CN-25-121 Dairyland Power Cooperative; Northern States Power Co. d/b/a Xcel Energy In the Matter of the Application for a Certificate of Need for the Gopher to Badger Link 765 kV High Voltage Transmission

So there I was, having a meeting at my local Caribou “office,” and got back to an email that THREE of my projects are up at the Public Utilities Commission at the April 9, 2026 Agenda Meeting. THREE!

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO WATCH ONLINE ARE HERE ON PAGE 2:

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

#4 on the agenda:

Big Bend Wind, PUC Docket WS-19-619. Good thing it was Brad Hutchison (NOT HutchiNson!) I was meeting with, eh? Suddenly representing him at the Public Utilities Commission on April 9th!

Big Bend Wind is in Cottonwood County – the permit was granted ages ago, was amended, and amended again, and it’s this 2nd permit amendment that is at issue:

The permit was granted, then the first permit amendment was granted, and now it’s the second permit amendment that’s been granted, and it’s Reconsideration of that Commission amendment decision that’s at issue on the 9th – Briefing Papers aren’t out yet. For the filings in the docket over the YEARS, go HERE TO eDockets and search for 19-619.

• Hutchison Reconsideration: 20262-228769-01
• Big Bend Response to Reconsideration: 20263-229230-01

Typically the Commission says “PFFFBFFFFFFFFTP!” and tosses it in the circular file. GRRRRRRRRRRR!

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

#5 on the agenda:

Maple River to Cuyuna, or “MR-C Transmission Project – A Minnesota Power Project,” a 345kV line in northern Minnesota:

For the filings in the docket, go HERE TO eDockets and search for 25-109. For some history, Menagha transmission, search for 14-787 and 14-797.

What’s at issue before the Commission now and later as this moves forward?

My clients are the Andersens, whose property is in Hubbard County, at the intersection of Wadena and Becker Counties, and a decade ago, they were faced with the prospect of the Menagha transmission line mowing down their forest:

Menahga Hearing — Exhibits? Naaaah, who needs ’em!

What a mess that was, BUT, they did route the line on the other side of Hubbard County Line Road.

Now, it’s transmission redux, and this Maple River to Cuyuna, or “MR-C Transmission Project – A Minnesota Power Project,” it’s a 345kV line in northern Minnesota, and has a corridor right over the Andersen property. It’s a pinch point in the map, just south of Park Rapids, west of Hwy 71, with transmission directly to the north, the dotted white line at the south end of a WMA; a transmission to the south just across the dirt road, Hubbard County Line Road, the red dotted line… and where it goes north on the right, that’s parallel to a pipeline!

Here it is crossing the road (see red line below crossing road before Abolone Drive), and then you can see it’s running right at the edge of the road right-of-way across from Andersens’ forest:

Where the greyish corridor on the left, where it says “County,” well that’s their house and big garage, the line is right over the garage and just to the north of the house. All that green covering the property is their forest, planted and maintained under a DNR Woodland Stewardship Plan.

Questions for the Commission? What they view as questions:

This is one of those transmission projects where “informal process” was promoted, the idea to use just comments and reply for a 345kV transmission line!! WHAT?!?! Whose brilliant idea was that, and what are they getting for it??

• System alternatives need to be seriously considered. Underbuild the 115kV on the 345kV? Underground in sensitive locations, like through the Lowe State WMA? Direct Current possible where the only substations are at either end, Maple River and Cuyuna?

• We know demand is DOWN, demand is FLAT, and Xcel’s demand for 2025 was 377MW down from 2024, and 1,000MW down from the all time peak in 2006. MISO’s graph forecasting demand looks like a trek up Mount Everest!

• Needed for the “energy transition?” This line starts, for Minnesota, at Maple River, at the North Dakota Border. Coal Creek was to shut down, but instead, it was SOLD, and is still running. Shut down the coal and there’s plenty of transmission capacity, right? Build wind and solar where there’s that capacity! Oh, but do tell, how many coal plants have shut down in North Dakota?

• What does this cost? To the east, this projects connects at Cuyuna, a “series compensation” station for the Northland Reliability Project (CN-25-416 and TL-25-415). That project is the one where costs have come out 43% over the original MISO estimate, and a MISO Variance Analysis is in process. If costs are up that much for What does this cost? To the east, this projects connects at Cuyuna, a “series compensation” station for the Northland Reliability Project (CN-25-416 and TL-25-415). That project is the one where costs have come out 43% over the original MISO estimate, and a MISO Variance Analysis is in process. If costs are up that much for Northland Reliability Project, how much for this one? It’s a MISO Tranche 2.1 project, from the MTEP2024, and for the MTEP 2024, it’s 2023 data! How much cost increase for this one? It’s a MISO Tranche 2.1 project, from the MTEP2024, and for the MTEP 2024, it’s 2023 data!

• And an important factoid, as they’re always saying that the MISO queue is so piled up, it takes forever to get interconnection approved and there are just SO MANY PROJECTS LINED UP! But wait… there’s this:

Approximately 130 GW of projects — nearly half of the queue — have been withdrawn, in part due to changes to tax credits under One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

2026 RELIABILITY IMPERATIVE REPORT, p. 11.

So we need these projects through Minnesota why??? Demand flat, MISO admits that half of the MISO interconnection queue has been withdrawn? Please explain!!

Keep in mind that this meeting is NOT about substantive issues, it’s about process to review the application, which is why we’re asking for real process, not the “informal process” lite.

The MR-C Transmission Project, like every MISO Tranche 2.1 project, needs to demonstrate it is needed, and not a one can demonstrate a Minnesota need. Each project is dependent on MISO‘s plan, cutting and pasting from MTEP 24, using MISO’s cost estimate, and most importantly, relying on MISO’s OUTDATED cost/benefit analysis where MISO claims the benefits outweigh the costs. Per the MISO Tranche 2.1 project list, the estimated cost is $908 million, they say in 2024 dollars, but the MTEP 2024 used 2023 numbers. $908 million in 2023 dollars is $973,805,940 in 2026 dollars.

On the flip side, not only are the “benefits” ranging from sketchy to absurd, but with material cost increases, do they pan out as having any net benefit?

That’s the main reason we need a contested case — to get at the numbers.

We also need a contested case to address system alternatives, in this case, whether a 345kV with a 115kV underbuild through a potato field is workable. Methinks it is, and it needs to be explored.

Thursday, April 9th, we’ll be there when the Commission addresses the process for the MR-C Transmission Project.

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

#6 on the agenda:

Gopher to Badger Link, PUC docket CN25-121. This is a 765kV line that’s the eastern half of the 765kV steamroller across southern Minnesota, it’s the green map on the right, “North Rochester” (north of Pine Island!) down to Marion, MN, then back down to Pleasant Valley (see lower R of the blue map) and east through the Driftless Region, across the Mississippi River, and all the way to the Columbia substation by Portage, WI. The blue map on the left is “PowerOn Midwest,” now docket CN-25-117, which was at the Commission last Thursday (so comments below are mindful of what went down then).

To catch up on the filings in the docket, go HERE TO eDockets and search for 25-121. For your edification, grab a bowl of popcorn and also search for 25-117!! You’ll see how it’s all connected.

The blue map on the left is “PowerOn Midwest.” Electricity flows from west to east across southern Minnesota. PowerOn Midwest is now PUC Docket CN-25-117, and CN-25-118, CN-25-119, and CN-25-120 have been consolidated into that one docket. The green map on the right is Gopher to Badger Link, now PUC Docket CN-25-121, and CN-25-122 has been consolidated into that one CN-25-121 docket. Six dockets established and then consolidated into two.

This stretch across southern Minnesota, with a frolic and detour to “North Rochester” substation located north of Pine Island, and back again, is a compilation of MISO‘s Tranche 2.1 projects 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. MISO 22, 23, 24, and 25 are in the CN-25-117 consolidated dockets, and MISO 26 is in the consolidated CN-25-121 docket. MISO 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are $6,175 BILLION dollars — the dollar amount alone should trigger extensive review:

Once more with feeling: $6.175 BILLION dollars. $6.175 BILLION in 2023 is $7,201,659,571 today.

These are THE proposed 765kV transmission lines, the first 765kV in Minnesota, the first 765kV in the Midwest, at least 300 miles from the west up to North Rochester, back down and to the Mississippi. This is a Certificate of Need docket where they must prove up need. The magnitude of this project requires serious review, not an “informal process.” Good grief, this is HUGE, no excuse for review lite.

These two dockets, CN-25-117 and CN-25-121, need to be combined. At the very least, the Certificate of Need dockets should be reviewed jointly. That would make it a lot less complicated, and from the Commission’s perspective, consolidating the Certificate of Need proceedings would be a lot less work, no duplication (as the applications are THE SAME), and save resources of doing the same thing in two dockets.

The Applicants, and some Commissioners, claim that it would be confusing, but this was done for CapX 2020 for these lines, all in one docket, CN-06-1115. Been there, done that, let’s do it again.

It wasn’t confusing then, wouldn’t be confusing now. As with these two dockets, the Certificate of Need included two lines across southern Minnesota, very similar to this proposal, then joined at Hampton, this time joined at “North Rochester.” As with this 765kV buildout, there was a Big Stone to Brookings in South Dakota, and Minnesota CapX 2020 was Brookings to Hampton, and Hampton to the Mississippi River with frolic and detours to Hampton and “North Rochester” along the way. And speaking of transmission in southern Minnesota, don’t forget the recently permitted Mankato to Mississippi transmission project:

Back to CapX 2020… again, Brookings to Hampton, Hampton through North Rochester to the Mississippi, sound familiar? Look familiar? Yes, LOOK:

In addition to the two lines across southern Minnesota, CapX 2020‘s Certificate of Need included the Fargo to St. Cloud route too! I was there, as was Xcel’s attorney Lisa Agrimonti, and we both would agree that it wasn’t complicated. It was a Certificate of Need umbrella proceeding for three of the dockets. Oh, and MISO was there too, MISO would have to agree with that as well!

Don’t forget, as above: 

Approximately 130 GW of projects — nearly half of the queue — have been withdrawn, in part due to changes to tax credits under One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

2026 RELIABILITY IMPERATIVE REPORT, p. 11.

This is also North Route Group’s second time around. the “North Route” was rejected in CapX 2020, and for the same reasons should be rejected again. Having been there before, we’re READY!

These “two” projects, CN-25-117 and CN-25-121, are geographically and electrically tied, and here’s the kicker:

FOR THEIR NEED CLAIM, APPLICANTS DO CONSOLIDATE THEM ALL. THEY USE MISO PROJECTS 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, ALL OF THEM, TO CLAIM THERE IS A NEED. HOWEVER, THESE ARE NOT “DIFFERENT” LINES, NOT “DIFFERENT” APPLICANTS, AND THERE IS NOT A DIFFERENT “NEED” FOR THESE LINES. IT’S ALL ONE AND THE SAME, ALL 765kV LINES, CONNECTED ELECTRICALLY AND GEOGRAPHICALLY. DON’T BELIEVE IT? LOOK AT THE MAPS ABOVE. QUESTIONS ABOUT “NEED?” READ AND COMPARE THE APPLICATIONS, SECTION 1.4 AND SECTION 6 IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT’S CUT AND PASTE, WITH ONE EXCEPTION — WHEN LISTING MISO 22-26, ONE FOLLOWS NUMERICALLY, THE OTHER STARTS AT 26 AND WORKS DOWN TO 22. IT’S ALL CONNECTED!

What’s up for the Commission to consider? This one is the “same” issues as with the one above:

We’ve asked for a bit more than that! Now is the time to weigh in and get reasonable process for a project of this magnitude, and so we did:

In short, North Route Group and NO765MN request:

• Consolidation of CN-25-117 and CN-25-121, bringing together MISO 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 because they’re connected, interdependent, and one can’t make a need case without the other.
• Referral to Court of Administrative Hearings for a contested case — necessary for a thorough review of the applications and a robust record that can support a Commission decision! At the very least, joint contested case for Certificates of Need – CN-25-117 and CN-25-121. Contested issues are cost, cost increase, cost/benefit analysis (whether the project provides more benefit than cost), and system alternatives.
• Intervention of North Route Group and NO765MN as parties in Certificate of Need dockets (this will likely be referred with the application for contested case at Court of Administrative Hearings.
• Stay of Certificate of Need until Route applications are in, and then joint proceedings as directed by statute. This is not a hill to die on, as for CN-25-117, applications aren’t expected until way into 2027.
• Information Requests beginning NOW! If referred for Contested Case, we’ll set a schedule and abide by that. Idea is to avoid delay and to have a way to get at the necessary information.

Is the Commission paying attention to what these utilities are doing?? Are they paying attention to what we’ve presented? We shall see…