OLA Report on PUC
July 27th, 2020
Hot off the press from the Office of the Legislative Auditor, its report:
In short:
And it’s in the STrib:
Minnesota’s state watchdog agency dings utilities commission on dealings with public
PUC’s Line 3 EIS INADEQUATE!
June 3rd, 2019
Inadequate — and REMANDED! Here’s the Appellate Court decision, just out:
Bottom line:
However, the commission acted in a manner unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious when it determined the FEIS adequate despite its failure to address the issue—raised during scoping and in public comments on the DEIS—of how an oil spill from Enbridge’s Line 3 project would impact Lake Superior and its watershed. Accordingly, we reverse the commission’s adequacy decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Love it when that happens…
Petitions for Reconsideration of Line 3 PUC decision
September 26th, 2018
Today the Motions for Reconsideration for Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline were due, and here they are:
Friends of the Headwaters_20189-146618-01
Whew, that’s a lot to read, but it’s instructive!!
PROCEDURE ALERT: PUC going off in the weeds with “modifications”
June 28th, 2018
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.
Webcast of Line 3 deliberations at PUC
June 27th, 2018
LISTEN HERE: http://minnesotapuc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?event_id=1856
It’s pretty disturbing. Today started out with the Commission asking Intervenors to pick their least awful route option. WHAT?!?! That is NOT how a line is chosen. I think they’re using that to build a “record” (NOT!) for whatever decision they may make.
As the Commission was reminded, the Commission is to choose a route, only AFTER a Certificate of Need is granted, based on the criteria in the statutes and rules. Commissioner Sieben turned to a pretty manipulative attempt at burden of proof shift, looking for a statement to get them off the hook. NO!
NO? That’s correct. This is the Commission’s job, and if there’s no need, deny the application. If there’s no acceptable route, deny the application. The ALJ made a Recommendation, and the Commission has to deal with that.
Then there’s the push about System Alternative SA-04. That route would go right through my Association of Freeborn County Landowners’ community, and AFCL filed an Exception regarding that SA-04 route:
Line 3 – Exceptions to ALJ’s Report
Sieben keeps saying it’s a “difficult decision.” Yeah, it is.
Lipschultz keeps asking which alternative is least objectionable. NO. JUST STOP THAT!