Legalectric

Today was the deadline for filing Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendation for Line 3 Certificate of Need and Route.  Here’s the ALJ’s Recommendation:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation

I quick filed an Exception on behalf of Association of Freeborn County Landowners, objecting to inclusion and objecting to any consideration of “System Alternative 04” or SA-04, because no notice was given to landowners in Freeborn County, and well, to any of the landowners along SA-04.

Association of Freeborn County Landowners_ Exceptions to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of ALJ

Friends of the Headwaters proposed SA-04, the only “System Alternative” proposed in the Certificate of Need proceeding.  … sigh…. foisting it elsewhere is not a good strategy.  Search their Exceptions for more info on their rationale – do a search for “SA-04” of this filing:

20185-142900-04_Exceptions – Friends Of The Headwaters

Are there others advocating for AS-04?  Looking… it’ll take a bit.

System Alternative SA-04 is noted 139 times in the ALJ’s Recommendation, and is first mentioned on p. 24:

And the Public Utilities Commission accepted it for further evaluation, but no notice was provided:

But no meetings in the area — and still no notice:

… sigh… on it goes…

And regarding the DNR’s take on SA-04 (will find DNR comment):

Here are all the other references to SA-04 in order — the ALJ does reject it, saying it is not a viable alternative:

And then the ALJ considers comments:

The DNR comments are troubling:

Here’s the actual DNR Comment:

201711-137640-01_DNR’s  Comment (SA-04)

The DNR said about SA-04:

And back to the ALJ’s mentions of SA-04:

Fair use – from Enbridge’s Line 3 website

Looks like a lot of folks are angry with Judge O’Reilly’s Enbridge Line 3 decision.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation

Oh well… she had to make some decision and I think she did an excellent job of weighing all the factors, getting into the details in a very difficult case, and come up with a Recommendation that pisses everyone off!  That’s something that takes a LOT of work and is very hard to do!

Here’s a post on it with an insightful/inciteful framing of the decision and what it means:

Pipeline “poison approvals”: a new trend?

In the press, people are getting wound up.  From MPR:

Dayton: No ‘viable way’ to build new Line 3 pipeline on current route

From the MPR piece: The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe has denounced the judge’s recommendation, calling it “a clear attack on sovereignty and Tribal communities.”

My take is that O’Reilly laid out the Leech Lake Band’s sovereignty and power and the lay of the land as it exists now — the easements are there now, allowing Enbridge to use the land until 2029.  This recommendation sets the stage for the easement renegotiation in 2029, where the Band has power to say “NO!” and Enbridge is very afraid of that, facing either outright refusal or greatly increased easement payment as the obvious outcome.  This Recommendation, and use of the existing easement gives Leech Lake greater leverage going forward, and might even move those easement negotiations up in time.  If that renegotation is a decade in the future, Enbridge will also by then be operating in a very different world than exists right now, with decreased oil use and demand.  O’Reilly also noted that if a new corridor were used with this, given state non-proliferation, Enbridge would logically seek to use that corridor for all its pipelines going forward.

Along this line (but note that LaDuke, Honor the Earth, is the one quoted, and there are no quotes from Leech Lake or Fond du Lac tribal officials, who should be the ones weighing in here):

Minnesota Pipeline Ruling Could strengthen Tribes’ Legal Case Against Enbridge Line 3

And more, this with quotes from tribal officials:

Major pushback against Line 3 recommendation

In a statement Tuesday, April 24, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe described the recommendation as “anti-sovereignty” and said that it “puts undue burden on the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe to hold the risk of the pipeline replacement and to revoke the permit.”

“The judge has made this horrific recommendation without even holding a single ALJ hearing on the Leech Lake Reservation and gave a recommendation on a route that has not had the same level of environmental review,” wrote Ben Benoit, the band’s environmental director.

Once more with feeling — If you have comments, objections, there’s been a notice issued regarding submission of “Exceptions” which are due May 9, 2018:

20184-142282-01_Exceptions Notice

According to their Petition for Withdrawal, “[p]ursuant to Minn. R. 7829.0430, persons opposing the Petition have 14 calendar days from the date of service to file objections.   Pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6600, parties may respond to the motion to suspend the contested case and certify the issues within 10 working days of this motion by filing a written response with the judge and serving copies on all parties.”  And they’re correct about that.

Served September 1, so deadlines are September 11 (12th because it’s a Sunday) for objections under Minn. R. 1400.6600 (for “parties”) and September 15 for objections/comments under Minn. R. 7829.0430.

Address comments to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary                                                    Minnesota Public Utilities Commission                                                           121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350                                                                    Saint Paul, MN  55101-2147

Ann O’Reilly and James La Fave, Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Hearings
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

AND to eFile them by registering at the PUC site HERE and eFiling them in dockets 13-473 and 13-474.  It EASY!!!  Then not only will the Commission and the Judges of the two dockets be aware of your comments, but the world can see them too!  Small effort, larger impact!

And you can mail the Comment to him, but I’d strongly advise you eFile it at the PUC (which will also go to ALJ Oxley)

And again, here’s their Withdrawal Request:

20169-124579-01_Petition Withdrawal

The 10 day rule, Minn. R. 1400.6600 does say “parties” may respond:

The 14 day rule is broader, Minn. R. 7829.0430 in the Utility Practice and Procedure rules:

Minn. R. 7829.0430

Subpart 1. Uncontested withdrawal.

The commission delegates to the executive secretary authority to approve the withdrawal of a filing. Approval will be granted by the executive secretary if the following conditions are met:

A. the party that submitted the filing has requested that the filing be withdrawn and has served notice on the persons listed on the official service list;

B. no person has expressed opposition to withdrawal of the filing within 14 days of service of the notice; and

C. no commissioner or commission staff person has identified a reason that the matter should not be withdrawn.

Subp. 2. Contested withdrawal.

If any person opposes a withdrawal request within 14 days of service of the notice, the commission will allow a filing to be withdrawn at the request of the filing party if the commission determines that the proposed withdrawal:

A.does not contravene the public interest;

B. does not prejudice any party; and

C. does not concern a filing that raises issues requiring commission action.

If the commission determines that withdrawal would contravene the public interest or would prejudice a party, the commission may permit withdrawal only subject to conditions that mitigate the harm identified.

And here’s a prior Legalectric post: