Notice? For utility infrastructure projects? DOH!
September 6th, 2015
NOTICE!!! Landowners need notice if their land is affected! Local governments and residents need notice if their communities are affected! Yes, posting something can have an impact!
Notice is something that’s been an issue in utility dockets, and transmission proceedings particularly, for a long, long time. It’s something we’re trying to address in the Minn. R. Ch. 7850 in our rulemaking advisory committee meetings over the last TWO PLUS YEARS!
Here are the latest Comments:
Why does notice matter? Well, there’s this thing called “Due Process.” Notice is a fundamental Constitutional Right. It matters because “NOTICE” often doesn’t happen. And it ties in with eminent domain, where land may Constitutionally be taken for public purpose projects with just compensation (and what is a “public” project? What is “just” compensation?) If you aren’t properly informed, have no notice, what does that do to your ability to participate?
In Minnesota, it’s a matter of law, clear, simply stated law:
Looking over posts and filings where this has happened, situations I’ve been aware of where landowners have been surprised at the last minute, too late to meaningfully participate in the proceedings, have filed Motions for Reconsideration, and have been to the Appellate Court on their behalf, it is SO frustrating. Looking at the many times I’ve tried to intervene, to have intervention deadlines extended in case landowners want to stand up, There’s no excuse. People should not be surprised at the last minute with a utility attempt to run transmission over their land.
It happened recently in the Great Northern Transmission Line routing docket:
ALJ Order filed, no RRANT intervention
It happened in CapX Brookings route and on CapX Hampton- La Crosse route:
- Cannon Falls (CapX Hampton- LaX route) example to go around county park and DOT prohibited intersection area:
Cannon Falls Beacon – CapX in the news!
Dakota County resolution about CapX 2020
CAPX APPEAL — DECISION RELEASED (includes Cannon Falls)
UPDATED Updated Minnesota Appeal Update
Initial Brief – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners
Reply Brief – Cannon Falls Landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church
- Oronoco(CapX Hampton – La X route) enters “new route” proposal without notice to its own landowners:
Oronoco Twp’s Exhibit 89
- USDA’s Rural Utilites Service (CapX Hampton – La X) example:
RUS Reopens Comments on Hampton-LaCrosse
- Myrick Route (CapX Brookings) example:
Myrick route withdrawn
Myrick Route & How to find things on PUC site
- In particular this “Notice” which went out after all the hearings were over with no way to participate at all: Dec 30 Notice – Myrick Route
PUC chooses Belle Plaine crossing
- This is important to understand the set-up, and now this notice was snuck in at the last minute due to Applicant and Commerce disregard for objections of DOT, DNR and USFWS.
That’s enough examples to get an idea of the problem… but there are more that I can trot out if necessary. The notice provisions in Minnesota law and rule must be corrected.
Onward with PUC Certificate of Need and Routing Rulemaking
August 19th, 2015
We’ve been working on the rules for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s chapters covering Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing of electric utility infrastructure, ranging from transmission to power plants. WHEW! It takes forever, and thus far it’s been over two and a half years, just for the “pre-Commission-sends-it-out-for-comments” rulemaking advisory group part.
Who cares about rules? Well I do, as to many others who have been dealing with Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting issues over the years. It’s important because so many things are wrong with the process, from awkward to just plain wrong/unfair, even in light of the enabling statutes for these rules (rules need to operate within some pretty restrictive statutory framing).
This is, again, still informal, and PUC is open to any and all comments, ones on point, that is, and so comment on specific language, and suggest specific language! Here’s the latest (and I’ve filed them on the PUC site):
To see the versions and comments thus far, go to the PUC’s SEARCH PAGE HERE, and search for PUC Docket 12-1246.
To file comments, go HERE and file. If you’re not registered to file, go HERE and register and file! It’s that easy, almost instantaneous!
PUC CoN & Siting/Routing FINAL Rulemaking meeting
September 17th, 2014
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:
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.
PUC Rulemaking — send Comments on Drafts!
September 1st, 2014
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is winding up its rulemaking on the Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Siting/Routing (Minn. R. Ch. 7850) chapters. My clients Goodhue Wind Truth and North Route Group have been participating all along, and their experience with the Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting process has helped inform this record and we sure hope leads to more sensible and workable rules, AND increased public participation.
Now is the time to download and make your comments on what should be included, what’s included that’s important and needs to go forward, and what needs to be reworded.
Send Comments to:
- kate.kahlert@state.mn.us
- and/or post to the Rulemaking Docket. To do that go HERE to the eDocket Filing Page, register if you’re not registered (it’s easy and almost instant), and post to Docket 12-1246.
It’s highly likely that the LAST meeting of the PUC’s Rulemaking Advisory Committee will be September 24, 2014 (9:30 a.m. at the PUC, in the basement).
A few things that need work:
- Ch. 7849 & 7850: Need language mirroring statutory language regarding testimony by members of the public UNDER OATH (ALJs have refused to offer people opportunity to testify under oath, and PUC has stated that it makes a difference, “but were those statements made under oath” and if not, less weight.
- Ch. 7849: Advisory Task Forces need language of statute, and membership not limited to “local units of government.”
- Ch. 7849 & 7850: Transcripts available online — need to address this in rules and reporter contracts.
- Ch. 7849: Scoping and Alternatives — compare with Ch. 7850. Similar process?
- Ch. 7849.1450: When is it Commerce EER & DER
- Ch. 7849 & 7850 – timing should be similar for completeness review, etc.
- Ch. 7850: Public Meeting separate from Scoping Meeting (Public Meeting is to disseminate information, Scoping Meeting is for intake).
- Ch. 7850: Power Plant Siting Act includes “Buy the Farm.” Need rules regarding Buy the Farm.
Now is the time to review the drafts, above, and send in Comments. There may be, I hope there are, revisions released prior to the next meeting, but usually it happens just before, and there’s no time. So here’s where we are now, and Comments would be helpful.