Legalectric

Here we go for another round — a Motion for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission:

Minn. R. 1400.7600 CERTIFICATION OF MOTIONS TO AGENCY.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/… Any party may request that a pending motion or a motion decided adversely to that party by the judge before or during the course of the hearing, other than rulings on the admissibility of evidence or interpretations of parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400, be certified by the judge to the agency…

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/

We’re asking that the Public Utilities Commission take up the matter of World Organization for Landowner Freedom’s Intervention:

Included after the Motion, but here separately:

It’s just so offensive. This matter matters (!), and W.O.L.F. is the only one in there objecting and requesting Intervention. Why this Motion? Why ask for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission to consider and decide? Well, in a nutshell:

Why?? Because of the ALJ’s denial of W.O.L.F.’s intervention based on a false statement regarding W.O.L.F.’s “only” contribution, and conflation of two different conditions in the original Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Line Exemption Order, that of the noise condition and the necessity of noise reduction measures to comply with Minnesota’s noise standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) with an 800 MVA transformer limitation of capacity to assure the line isn’t for bulk power transfer! I have an urge to do a Data Practices Act Request and have the EQB’s Arrowhead Transmission Project record sent to his office!

This same Administrative Law Judge threatened the “Union Intervenors” with unauthorized practice of law… veiled threat? No, it’s overt. He had to take the action of looking beyond the OAH Rules to find Minn. Stat. § 481.02 and Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 3(5) (2022), and to say:

In short, while the Judge does not intend to manage the practice of law in this matter, parties should be aware that potential issues could arise for non-lawyers who are not statutorily exempted from the general prohibition of non-lawyer practice of law in Minn. Stat. § 481.02. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board may be a resource for more information on this topic.

Really, that’s a quote — and no, it’s not a “helpful cautionary warning” — check this footnote:

OH. MY. DOG! That’s just too bizarre.

• Looking up a name on MARS attorney registration site takes a matter of seconds — “does not know” when it’s that easy to find out? Give me a break…
• But that’s not an issue. Runke and Kolodzieski have not held themselves out as attorneys, to my knowledge.
• But more importantly, non-attorneys are welcome to practice in hearings before Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). See the Power Plant Siting Act rules, Minn. R. 1405.0600, and also Minn. R. 1400.5800. This is something a Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings frequently presiding over utility dockets should know. There’s no excuse for threats like that, bandying about “unauthorized practice law.” This is not “court” and the OAH rules expressly provide for non-attorney representation.

I’ve run short of printable words, though I did quick hammer out this objection, and copied the Chief Judge:

This is all so contrary to the Public Utilities Commission’s charge to encourage public participation:

216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

Subd. 2. Other public participation.

The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.

Here’s the ALJ’s denial of World Organization for Landowner Freedom’s Petition for Intervention:

And just filed is W.O.L.F.’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of World Organization for Landowner Freedom Intervention – can’t let this slide by:

Got a pissive from American Transmission Company (ATC) — apparently it objects to World Organization for Landowner Freedom’s (WOLF)_Petition-for-Intervention in the Minnesota Power “HVDC Modernization” docket (Public Utilities Commission dockets E015/CN-22-607 and E015/TL-22-611).

Here’s ATC‘s Objection:

And here’s World Organization of Landowner Freedom’s response, filed this afternoon:

Take that, American Transmission Company! I clearly remember how nasty they were during the Arrowhead-Weston projects, years of hearing their arguments that were so twisted. I wish I still had the 12 or more boxes from that project, Minnesota and Wisconsin dockets, stretching from 1999 to 2005.

In Minnesota, the issue was whether the project should be exempt from the Power Plant Siting Act. W.O.L.F. was the only intervenor to take it to the MN Court of Appeals, and we lost, went down in flames.

The Wisconsin hearing (05-CE-113) starting in January 2000, or was it 2001… anyway, learning the technical aspects of transmission was intense, so much so that my brain hurt.

But back to ATC’s Objection to W.O.L.F.’s Intervention… Later this afternoon, Minnesota Power filed stating it had no objection to W.O.L.F.’s Intervention, and no objection to LIUNA’s (union group) late-filed Petition for Intervention, noting they’d been participating all along:

Well, that’s good! Now, onward! Any time now, the Administrative Law Judge Mortenson can decide on Intervention.

Here’s the schedule from the Prehearing Order:

Time to get some Information Requests ready to file!

Here we go, World Organization for Landowner Freedom is BAAAACK!

Here we go!

Minnesota Power’s Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Project was probably the longest and most torturous transmission project in Minnesota and Wisconsin, at least, if not worse, than CapX 2020 Hampton to La Crosse. Arrowhead_Weston ran over a less than 15 mile distance in Minnesota, crossing over the St. Louis River near Duluth, and the over into Wisconsin where it headed down to the Weston coal plant.

World Organization for Landowner Freedom (W.O.L.F.) intervened and showed up for years in the various proceedings for this transmission project. There was a two week hearing in Duluth (MEQB Docket: MP-HVTL-EA-1-99), I’d started that in a tent in a friend’s back yard, and we were officing in the garage… then off to Madison for a two month hearing (PSC Docket 05-CE-113), which after initial CPCN approval went on through 3 iterations due to cost increases and routing through Douglas County, Wisconsin. FYI,weird, the A-W EIS is HERE in the Library of Congress files, along with other Wisconsin utility EISs:

Anyway, throughout most of this fiasco, other than the very end, World Organization for Landowner Freedom intervened and participated with gusto. In Minnesota, we raised the issue of noise, which as found in the ALJ’s Findngs of Fact, would be too high (lots on noise search the pdf for more) and lack of need for this project, that the applicants were misstating need, claiming we’d all freeze in the dark in an incubator/on a respirator without a job. Over and over, the Applicants’ attorneys asked, “And where were you on June 25, 1998?”

As to noise:

And in the ultimate EQB Order regarding noise:

Regarding the initial Arrowhead-Weston applicants claim, circa 1999, that Arrowhead-Weston transmission was needed, was our finding in the “repository” the proof positive that the June 25, 1998 outage was self-inflicted, that the trip of the line and the resulting wave of outages across the Midwest, was due to the operators failing to ramp down those bulk power transfers that were far over the operating limits for the King-Eau Claire-Arpin line! Here’s that report from the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, the “MISO” of that day:

And another report entered into the record, another issue of “high exports” that triggered disaster when system couldn’t handle an outage when all that power was being exported:

For these reasons, bulk power transfer was a concern due to utilities’ practice of overloading the system for their marketing gain. Soooooo… the other thing accomplished, other than noise, was a limitation of 800 MVA at the Arrowhead substation, which means that the line cannot be used for extreme bulk power transfer. From the EQB’s Findings of Fact and Order::

… and…

Recently, Minnesota Power has applied for permit from the Public Utilities Commission to “modernize” its AC to DC system, as the converters are ? way, way older than their expected 30 year lifetime. MP’s need statement for the project is based on the age of the DC to AC conversion equipment, that those converters are no longer made, and that parts are difficult to find. Hence, time for replacements to keep that line going.

The Commission did agree to a joint permitting process for “need” and “routing” (a very short line from the old substation to the new one. See PUC Dockets E015/CN-22-607 and E015/TL-22-611:

The purpose of this project is to facilitate use of the Center, ND to Arrowhead substation going forward. That’s a line that Minnesota Power bought a few years back, “for wind,” though I’m not really convinced. That line was built eons ago. Here’s the plan in short, from the application:

There were scoping meetings held for the Environmental “Assessment,” months ago, with comments due September 13, 2023.

Then, the comment period was extended by DOC-EERA for “residents that are farther than 1/4 mile outside of the project boundary.” R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-S

Bit in swoops American Transmission Company, with a late filed comment with an “alternative” proposal!

READ THIS!

To which Minnesota Power had a well crafted and detailed reply, here’s the gist, but it’s SO well-written, worth a careful dissection:

Then ATC had this to say:

And based on the late ATC filing, Commerce-EERA recommended:

Then issued its Scoping Decision filed December 1, 2023:

BUT, the Commission has a meeting on November 29, 2023, and discussed this EIS Scoping and the ATC Alternative and sent it over to OAH for a contested case.

And then, AFTER the Commission’s Order and Commerce-EERA Scoping Decision is released, long after the Comment period over, ATC submits a CHANGE!

So Commerce-EERA files a REVISED scoping decision, including this new change! REALLY!

I’m recalling that offering system alternatives and routes that did not “meet the need” of the project proponent were rejected out of hand.. but this is OK?!?!?!?!

What ATC is proposing is as Minnesota Power states, a plan to circumvent the Arrowhead-Weston substation limitation of 800MVA by physically, electrically, going around the transformers in the substation!! AND it gets worse, ATC is openly wanting, planning, on EXPANSION! WHAT?!?!

ATC has intervened in these two dockets:

To further this goal, they’ve recruited FIVE (5) big buck Minnesota and Wisconsin attorneys:

And World Organization of Landowner Freedom?

W.O.L.F. is on alert!