Legalectric

Here we go again. It’s bad enough that CapX 2020 is morphing into CapX 2050/Grid North Partners, but they’re having a “conference” (sign up here) in a couple weeks.

Look at the Chair of this panel, none other than the Chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the description:

… TO MEET OUR COLLECTIVE GOALS?

Remember the toadying for CapX 2020? Remember the toadying for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project coal gasification? Remember the toadying for Prairie Island/NSP/Xcel Energy’s nuclear plants, particularly Prairie Island circa 1994 and 2003?

This sort of thing has been an issue before, and former Chair LeRoy Koppendrayer has been the only one to acknowledge this type of participation as an issue — this was in 2007:

IEDC gets carried away

When this happens, I contact the PUC and register concerns, and have always been assured that they know well the boundaries.

And, well, here’s Commissioner Tuma on DOE Nuclear Waste panel circa 2016:

DOE “Consent-Based” Nuclear Waste Mtg.

This was also an issue with Commissioner Reha when she went off on a coal gasification junket to Belgium and promotion of CapX 2020! See the John Tuma link, above, for this with active links:

When the promotion and bias is so blatant, I’m not about to watch silently. Earth to PUC Commissioners, here are the PUC’s rules:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7845.0400/

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7845.0700/

And when you see something, say something?

Ummmm, right…

ALJ “INVESTIGATIVE REPORT PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 216A.037”

Listen to Commissioner Tuma’s words that were the subject of our complaint at the link above. And the ALJ’s report delivers this warning:

I guess it will be an informal complaint, eh?

We’re in another day of Enbridge Line 3, today no oral argument or comments, it’s deliberation only.  In the intro, Commissioner Sieben introduced a lot of modifications, laid out on a sheet of paper which was passed around to Commissioners, and then Commissioner Tuma did the same with I believe a couple of sheets (he seems to introduce something at every meeting, spring it on people, with no time to review).  Now they seem to be negotiating how they’re going to approve the Certificate of Need.  ??  I have no idea what they’re talking about, there are no copies for the public, and the documents Commissioners Sieben and Tuma have not been eFiled.  ???

Sierra Club and other intervenors have filed a Motion objecting to entry of new information that has not been subject to review, and that the information should be subject to a contested case proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge.

20186-144310-01_New Info_Remand for Contested Case Proceeding

As they’re going now, it’s as if they are negotiating a settlement with Enbridge, but hey, what about the intervenors, who are parties with equal standing in this?

They’re talking about “beneficiary,” but what they’re searching for is “additional insured.”  And they’re talking about unavailability of insurance for this, well, this is right along the lines of Price-Anderson for nuclear, where we subsidize the industry with no-fault coverage with nominal recovery allowed!

I have tried to get copies eFiled of the Sieben and Tuma sheets that have been passed around, struck out.  Ain’t happening.

They’re talking about a “landowner choice” program where landowners have the option of removal of the old Line 3 from their land.  Schuerger is raising issue of need for informed consent.  YES!  So can we hear from intervenors about all this?  Big issue — all of this is proposed to be handled in a Compliance Filing, and there’s no procedural option for anyone to comment on compliance filngs, unless people just jump in and take it upon themselves to file comments — but there’s no suggestion or guarantee that any comments on what Enbridge comes up with, that it will even be considered.

What a mess…  Certificate of Need approved, with directive to adopt the Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent that it is consistent with their decision — that’s backwards, putting the cart before the horse.  Are they making such a mess of this so that on appeal the court will throw it out?

Now on to the route permit.