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.
Line 3 – Exceptions to ALJ’s Report
May 12th, 2018
Today was the deadline for filing Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendation for Line 3 Certificate of Need and Route. Here’s the ALJ’s Recommendation:
I quick filed an Exception on behalf of Association of Freeborn County Landowners, objecting to inclusion and objecting to any consideration of “System Alternative 04” or SA-04, because no notice was given to landowners in Freeborn County, and well, to any of the landowners along SA-04.
Friends of the Headwaters proposed SA-04, the only “System Alternative” proposed in the Certificate of Need proceeding. … sigh…. foisting it elsewhere is not a good strategy. Search their Exceptions for more info on their rationale – do a search for “SA-04” of this filing:
20185-142900-04_Exceptions – Friends Of The Headwaters
Are there others advocating for AS-04? Looking… it’ll take a bit.
System Alternative SA-04 is noted 139 times in the ALJ’s Recommendation, and is first mentioned on p. 24:
And the Public Utilities Commission accepted it for further evaluation, but no notice was provided:
But no meetings in the area — and still no notice:
… sigh… on it goes…
And regarding the DNR’s take on SA-04 (will find DNR comment):
Here are all the other references to SA-04 in order — the ALJ does reject it, saying it is not a viable alternative:
And then the ALJ considers comments:
The DNR comments are troubling:
Here’s the actual DNR Comment:
The DNR said about SA-04:
And back to the ALJ’s mentions of SA-04:
Due TODAY — Comments on HERC
September 11th, 2017
Get to it, folks. Comments are due TODAY! Here’s mine, and Alan’s, just filed:
in eDockets, go here to register, it’s quick, it’s easy, and you can post on Public Utilities Commission’s eDockets system.
On what? Xcel Energy’s latest plan (part of) to terminate and/or amend outrageously high priced Power Purchase Agreements on incinerators across Minnesota.
Comment period on HERC PPA Amendment
Just filed — hot off the press:
And check what Commerce DER is at long last admitting, that there’s a generation surplus and transmission is for export:
Not only is there no need, BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MINNESOTANS TO PAY FOR MORE TRANSMISSION! But that’s an argument for another day, another docket…
Here’s another snippet:
And check this conclusion reached by MN’s Dept of Commerce – DER in its first round of comments — that Xcel is double dipping:
Here are the DER Comments:
And Comments of Hennepin County:
From Hennepin County:
Comments on Red Wing Ash “Mining” Project
April 15th, 2017
The Tyler Hills Neighbors have filed comments on the MPCA’s Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order for Negative Declaration on Need for an Environmental Impact Statement:
Here’s the MPCA’s Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order for Negative Declaration on Need for an Environmental Impact Statement:
Why file anything? Well, there are three major problems:
- The MPCA states that French Island ash isn’t in the landfill, isn’t being dumped there!
- Their delineation of the Water Tank Mounds is way off.
- The project proposer changed the plan because there was a leachate issue, but now that they’re collecting the leachate it needs to be dumped back into the landfill to utilize the landfill leachate system.
This isn’t rocket science folks — how can you be so off on these things?
Lab USA Ash Mining – PCA says “No EIS needed”
April 7th, 2017
No surprise. BUT, many issues not addressed, and many comments not registering, much less considered, it seems. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency “reviewed” the Lab USA Environmental Assessment and Comments and determined that:
And the bottom line:
Here’s the full document, check it out:
Note they do not address the Water Tank Mound, which comprises much of the Red Wing lay down yard site, and there is no acknowledgement, much less characterization or use in modeling, of the La Crosse incinerator ash that’s trucked in, and something like 50% of that is old railroad ties full of creosote. Pretty toxic stuff, that creosote.
Something odd — if not for a little birdie, I’d not have known that this was issued, no service, no notice, nada. ??? Thank you, little birdie!!!