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:

1400.6600 MOTIONS.

Any application to the judge for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. Motions provided for in parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400 shall be served on all parties, the agency, if it is not a party, and the judge. The written motion shall advise other parties that should they wish to contest the motion they must file a written response with the judge and serve copies on all parties, within ten working days after it is received. No memorandum of law submitted in connection with a motion may exceed 25 pages, except with the permission of the judge. If any party desires a hearing on the motion, they shall make a request for a hearing at the time of the submission of their motion or response. A response shall set forth the nonmoving party’s objections. A hearing on a motion will be ordered by the judge only if it is determined that a hearing is necessary to the development of a full and complete record on which a proper decision can be made. Motions may be heard by telephone. All orders on such motions, other than those made during the course of the hearing, shall be in writing and shall be served upon all parties of record and the agency if it is not a party. In ruling on motions where parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400 are silent, the judge shall apply the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Court for Minnesota to the extent that it is determined appropriate in order to promote a fair and expeditious proceeding.

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:


Word is out, confirming scuttlebutt, that Enbridge will pull the plug on the Sandpiper pipeline.  It’s not official yet, nothing has happened beyond an announcement, but if Enbridge is saying it, IN WRITING, then that means it’s highly likely, eh?

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and Enbridge Inc. Announce Agreement to Acquire Equity Interest in the Bakken Pipeline System Establishing New Path to the U.S. Gulf Coast

Here’s the important part:

Upon successful closing of the transaction, EEP and Marathon Petroleum plan to terminate their transportation services and joint venture agreements for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project. EEP continues to believe the Bakken region is a highly productive and attractive basin, which has significant crude oil supply growth potential that will require additional pipeline capacity in the future. The scope and timing of the Sandpiper Pipeline Project will be evaluated during the quarter to ensure that it is positioned to meet the growing need for pipeline capacity while offering customers competitive tolls and strong netbacks. Additionally, in conjunction with a termination of the Sandpiper joint venture agreements with Marathon Petroleum, EEP will retain 100 percent ownership in our legacy North Dakota system, which is one of the most competitive outlets available to producers in the State.

(what’s a “netback?”).

Reuters has it right with the “OVERBUILD” characterization:

Enbridge’s Sandpiper looks to be latest victim of pipeline overbuild

For this to be “official,” Enbridge will need to file a request to withdraw their application with the Public Utilities Commission, there will be a comment period, then the Commission will decide whether to approve the request to withdraw.

Suffice it to say, this will/would also mean that the transmission for the Sandpiper tank farm NW of Clearbrook is not necessary because the tank farm will not be built there (or in an alternate site)!  And that’s good news for my clients next to that tank farm.

As happened with Hollydale, because the Sandpiper part is before OAH, Enbridge has to request a Withdrawal, which will be certified to the Commission for its blessing.  Here’s the Hollydale request:

Xcel/GRE Hollydale Withdrawal Petition

And for Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission for Sandpiper’s Clearbrook tank farm, it’s time for Minnkota to withdraw their application!

So I fired off this missive to the PUC:

PUC Correspondence_Enbridge Press Release

Iit’s time to make sure the PUC knows of this Enbridge plan and the impact of this pullout on the need for transmission support!

sandpiper_pipeline-courtesy_winona_ladukeAn old Enbridge map of proposed Sandpiper route

The Minnesota Department of Commerce has released Notice of Scoping Meetings for the Sandpiper pipeline:

Meeting ScheduleHere’s the full Notice:

Scoping & Meeting Notice_20164-119967-01

There’s also a lot of new information posted to go along with this, routes and alternatives and modifications are posted.

To look at the entire docket, go to the PUC’s Seach eDockets page, and search for dockets 13-473 (Certificate of Need) or 13-474 (Routing Docket).

Check out this weeks filings regarding environmental review filed by Commerce:

20164-119946-04 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX C – ACCESS ROADS TABLE 04/11/2016
20164-119944-09 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 70-82 04/11/2016
20164-119945-05 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 37-49 04/11/2016
20164-119944-01 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 1-24 04/11/2016
20164-119946-02 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX B – TAX PARCEL LIST 04/11/2016
20164-119946-08 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX E – WETLAND CROSSING TABLE 04/11/2016
20164-119944-15 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 109-121 04/11/2016
20164-119944-07 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 54-69 04/11/2016
20164-119945-01 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 1-21 04/11/2016
20164-119944-13 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 95-108 04/11/2016
20164-119945-11 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 77-88 04/11/2016
20164-119944-11 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 SURVEY MAPS 83-94 04/11/2016
20164-119945-09 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 64-76 04/11/2016
20164-119944-17 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 122-125 04/11/2016
20164-119946-12 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX G – LOG FOR WELL 653274 04/11/2016
20164-119944-05 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 41-53 04/11/2016
20164-119943-07 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 19-29 04/11/2016
20164-119943-09 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 30-43 04/11/2016
20164-119943-13 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 58-61 04/11/2016
20164-119943-03 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–EAW PART 2 04/11/2016
20164-119943-01 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–EAW PART 1 04/11/2016
20164-119945-13 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 89-101 04/11/2016
20164-119944-03 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 25-40 04/11/2016
20164-119943-05 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 1-18 04/11/2016
20164-119945-15 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 102-114 04/11/2016
20164-119945-07 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS – 50-63 04/11/2016
20164-119945-17 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 115-125 04/11/2016
20164-119943-11 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 44-57 04/11/2016
20164-119945-03 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 22-36 04/11/2016
20164-119947-02 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT 04/11/2016
20164-119946-06 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX D – WATERBODY CROSSING TABLE 04/11/2016

As if that 106 MPH Amtrak wreck wasn’t bad enough, look how close it was to those black tankers!  Maybe 15 feet?  What’s in those black tanker cars?  Bakken BOOM! crude?  We know lots of it goes through Philly, some from there to the Delaware City refinery.  Seven killed, hundreds injured.  All this next to a rail yard with tankers.

When is rail safety going to be taken seriously?

Amtrak Crash