At long last, EIS is required for Certificate of Need
September 14th, 2015
Putting MinnCan pipeline through the Nietes field
Today the Minnesota Court of Appeals finally determined that under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, a full Environmental Impact Statement, not the abbreviated “Environmental Report,” is required. I’ve been before the Appellate Court, the Public Utilities Commission, the Administrative Law Judge, in Comments to the Dept. of Commerce, and at the Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Minn. R. ch. 7849 how many times on this?!?!? … sigh… OK, whatever…
Sent this to the PUC’s rulemaking staff because we’ve got to make sure the Certificate of Need rules are in line with this decision:
So back to today’s Appellate decision — I’m glad they’re finally acknowledging this problem. Very, very glad to see this order to remand to the Public Utilities Commission for a full Environmental Impact Statement, as required by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act.
Here is the decision:
Here’s the meat of it — it’s so simple — why did it take so long?
Notice? For utility infrastructure projects? DOH!
September 6th, 2015
NOTICE!!! Landowners need notice if their land is affected! Local governments and residents need notice if their communities are affected! Yes, posting something can have an impact!
Notice is something that’s been an issue in utility dockets, and transmission proceedings particularly, for a long, long time. It’s something we’re trying to address in the Minn. R. Ch. 7850 in our rulemaking advisory committee meetings over the last TWO PLUS YEARS!
Here are the latest Comments:
Why does notice matter? Well, there’s this thing called “Due Process.” Notice is a fundamental Constitutional Right. It matters because “NOTICE” often doesn’t happen. And it ties in with eminent domain, where land may Constitutionally be taken for public purpose projects with just compensation (and what is a “public” project? What is “just” compensation?) If you aren’t properly informed, have no notice, what does that do to your ability to participate?
In Minnesota, it’s a matter of law, clear, simply stated law:
Looking over posts and filings where this has happened, situations I’ve been aware of where landowners have been surprised at the last minute, too late to meaningfully participate in the proceedings, have filed Motions for Reconsideration, and have been to the Appellate Court on their behalf, it is SO frustrating. Looking at the many times I’ve tried to intervene, to have intervention deadlines extended in case landowners want to stand up, There’s no excuse. People should not be surprised at the last minute with a utility attempt to run transmission over their land.
It happened recently in the Great Northern Transmission Line routing docket:
ALJ Order filed, no RRANT intervention
It happened in CapX Brookings route and on CapX Hampton- La Crosse route:
- Cannon Falls (CapX Hampton- LaX route) example to go around county park and DOT prohibited intersection area:
Cannon Falls Beacon – CapX in the news!
Dakota County resolution about CapX 2020
CAPX APPEAL — DECISION RELEASED (includes Cannon Falls)
UPDATED Updated Minnesota Appeal Update
Initial Brief – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners
Reply Brief – Cannon Falls Landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church
- Oronoco(CapX Hampton – La X route) enters “new route” proposal without notice to its own landowners:
Oronoco Twp’s Exhibit 89
- USDA’s Rural Utilites Service (CapX Hampton – La X) example:
RUS Reopens Comments on Hampton-LaCrosse
- Myrick Route (CapX Brookings) example:
Myrick route withdrawn
Myrick Route & How to find things on PUC site
- In particular this “Notice” which went out after all the hearings were over with no way to participate at all: Dec 30 Notice – Myrick Route
PUC chooses Belle Plaine crossing
- This is important to understand the set-up, and now this notice was snuck in at the last minute due to Applicant and Commerce disregard for objections of DOT, DNR and USFWS.
That’s enough examples to get an idea of the problem… but there are more that I can trot out if necessary. The notice provisions in Minnesota law and rule must be corrected.
Muller: Time to think about…
August 23rd, 2015
Commentary by Alan Muller, Green Delaware, in today’s Delaware State News:
Commentary: Time to think about Delaware’s Peterson, Coastal Zone Act
So what about this Coastal Zone Act? What makes it special and worth preserving.
Alan Muller is Executive Director of Green Delaware.
Onward with PUC Certificate of Need and Routing Rulemaking
August 19th, 2015
We’ve been working on the rules for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s chapters covering Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing of electric utility infrastructure, ranging from transmission to power plants. WHEW! It takes forever, and thus far it’s been over two and a half years, just for the “pre-Commission-sends-it-out-for-comments” rulemaking advisory group part.
Who cares about rules? Well I do, as to many others who have been dealing with Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting issues over the years. It’s important because so many things are wrong with the process, from awkward to just plain wrong/unfair, even in light of the enabling statutes for these rules (rules need to operate within some pretty restrictive statutory framing).
This is, again, still informal, and PUC is open to any and all comments, ones on point, that is, and so comment on specific language, and suggest specific language! Here’s the latest (and I’ve filed them on the PUC site):
To see the versions and comments thus far, go to the PUC’s SEARCH PAGE HERE, and search for PUC Docket 12-1246.
To file comments, go HERE and file. If you’re not registered to file, go HERE and register and file! It’s that easy, almost instantaneous!
NEW route options for Plains and Eastern Clean Line?
August 11th, 2015
Yesterday, I received a missive about the Plains & Eastern Clean Line that was disconcerting to say the least. After all the Comment periods have closed, both DEIS and Section 1222, the DOE now says that based on comments received, there have been changes, and we get this:
Route Variations and Modified Converter Station Siting Areas
Route Variations Project Overview
Route Variations by Regions
Route Variation Sheet Maps
Modified Arkansas Converter Station Alternative Siting Area
Modified Tennessee Converter Station Siting Area
Here’s an example that makes no sense to me — look at the site for the so-called Arkansas Converter Station — it’s surrounded. Does DOE think it can ram through Wildlife Management Areas?
Given all this new information, where’s the announcement of opportunity to review and file DEIS Comments on this?
Given the alterations of routes, are new landowners affected? If so, where’s the announcement of opportunity to review the whole mess and file Section 1222 Comments?