Legalectric

First the state court, though there’s that matter of a HUGE bond, and now federal court.

Here’s the Order:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvomrqomvd/rulingLine.pdf

Bottom line:

Given the balance of harms implicated by the parties and the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, a narrowly tailored motion for preliminary injunction will be granted with respect to land on or near
federal jurisdictional waters until issuance of this court’s decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which will be fully briefed within a day of the issuance of this order.

From REUTERS (!):

Judge delays construction on parts of $500 mln U.S. power line

NEXT WEEK, LIVE AT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, starts 9:30 a.m., they’ll update link just before then:

http://apps.psc.wi.gov/vs2017/eventscalendar/broadcast/livebroadcast.aspx

Comments are due Sunday, April 14, 2019 (11:59!):

Here’s the DEIS in full:

Note the “need” section beginning on p. 49. It’s dependent on MISO — yes, that MISO, the one that blessed the so dramatically overstated “need” for the CapX 2020 build-out… the MISO that claims “need” when its LMP Coutour map is nearly always a bright or dark blue! The MISO that is all about “market” which has nothing to do with “need.” This section takes it back to “Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative” (hard to tell their mission, eh? But we know it was all about coal). If they’re going to go back to the history of this big transmission build-out, methinks that, particularly in Wisconsin, they should go back to the Wisconsin Reliability Assessment Organization (WRAO) Report that laid out the wish list of the transmission build-out.

Now, head to p. 80, Section 3.9, entitled “Applicants’ Alternatives to the Proposed Project.” This section presents ONLY the APPLICANTS’ alternatives, they get to determine what is or is not an alternatives, the parameters. Show me where it says in the WI statutes or rules that it only the APPLICANTS’ choice of alternatives to be considered?

Folks, we’ve got a lot of work to do…

At long last, the final round of Comments on the 5+ year long rulemaking have been filed.  A five year long process to enact the changes consistent with legislation passed in 2005, 12 years ago.  WHAT!?!?!  Yes, that’s how long it’s taken.  These are rules based on the Minnesota statutes for Certificate of Need (Minn. Stat. 216B.243) and the “Power Plant Siting Act” (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E), which is transmission routing and power plant siting.

Here are the Reply Comments, and note there are very few:

Public Intervenors – No CapX 2020, U-CAN, North Route Group & Goodhue Wind Truth – FINAL_May 31 2017

McNamasra GWT Reply_20175-132415-01

Commerce EERA Reply_20175-132345-01

ITC Midwest_Reply_20175-132421-02

OtterTail Power_Reply_20175-132275-01

Xcel Energy_Reply_20175-132417-01

Next step — on the agenda at a future Public Utilities Commission meeting, where they’ll discuss changes, hopefully we’ll have oral argument of the parties and comments from the public, and then the rules are formally released to the public for public comment, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and then back to the Commission for approval.  Probably it will be August… given the public comment period and hearing, this will be at least a SIX YEAR PROCESS!

It’s final… that is, the FINAL meeting notice was just issued, one more go round on these draft rules for Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Power Plant Siting Act (siting and routing of utility infrastructure) (Minn. R. Ch. 7850).

We’ve been at this for about a year and a half, maybe more, and to some extent we’re going round and round and round.

Here are the September 2014 drafts, hot off the press:

September Draft 7849

September Draft 7850

Send your comments, meaning SPECIFIC comments, not “THIS SUCKS” but comments on the order of “because of _______, proposed language for 7950.xxxx should be amended to say_______.”  It’s a bit of work, but it’s important, for instance, the Advisory Task Force parts are important because we were just before the PUC on this last week, trying to reinforce that Task Force’s are necessary, despite Commerce efforts to eliminate and/or neuter them.  That despite ALJ orders otherwise, the Final EIS should be in the record BEFORE the Public Hearings and Evidentiary Hearings (just lost a Motion to require this last month).

How can you comment?  The best way is to fire off an email to the Commission’s staff person leading this group:

kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

If you’re up to it, sign up on the PUC’s eDockets, and file your Comment in Docket 12-1246.  If you’d like your comment filed there, and can’t figure it out, please send it to me and I’ll file it for you.  It’s important that these comments be made in a way that the Commission will SEE, in a way that they cannot ignore, when this comes up before them.