Sandpiper Withdrawal? Comments filed today!
September 12th, 2016
Today was Deadline #1 for Comments on NDPC’s Petition for Withdrawal of the Sandpiper pipeline Certificate of Need and Route applications. Here’s what was filed:
Yup, that’s it. My Sandpiper transmission clients weighed in. I’ve been watching the docket, watching the inbox for service…. NO other comments, nothing, nada…
Just get to it. Quick – take a few minutes and send a missive to the Public Utilities Commission encouraging them to allow Enbridge to withdraw their application for the Sandpiper pipeline WITH PREJUDICE so that they can’t refile it again. Send to:
Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary (dan.wolf@state.mn.us) Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2147
Ann O’Reilly and James La Fave, Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Hearings
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN 55164-0620
But it doesn’t end there, with zip comments… it gets weirder. I’d saw there was no notice from the PUC about a comment period, nothing. Here’s what they did with Hollydale, Notice, and there was a comment period and reply comments! In that docket, Xcel Energy filed to withdraw its Hollydale applications on December 10, 2013, and this notice was issued on January 10, 2014:
Here’s what we got:
And when I asked:
Here’s the response:
Oh my… what do I do with that? Guess I write a post about it!!!
Appellate Court says PUC was in error!
November 1st, 2011
YES! The Appellate Court agreed with us in the AWA Goodhue (T. Boone Pickens) appeal! The appeals have been dismissed as premature, that we can/should file AFTER the Public Utilities Commission decides on the several pending Motions for Reconsideration. We have been invited to file again, with no additional filing fees. GOOD. That’s a reasonable decision and we’re not out the filing fees (I’d asked the Court for costs, out of the PUC’s hide, but this is sufficient).
Reconsideration Motions will be heard on November 10, 2011, not before 10:00 a.m. at the Public Utilities Commission, 121 – 7th Place East (3rd Floor Large Hearing Room), St. Paul, MN 55101.
This Appellate Court Order is a good outcome, the court agreeing that the PUC’s position that we had to appeal by September 22, 2011 or lose our opportunity to appeal was not grounded in law.
Here’s the choice nugget:
The general provisions of chapter 14 do not supersede more specific provisions governing appeals from the public utilities commission. In re Complaint Against N. States Power Co., 447 N.W.2d 614, 615 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The more specific provision controls. Id.
DUH!!! SNORT!!!! And the entire Order, hot off the press:
It all stemmed from this MemoranDUMB issued by the PUC that was something I’ve never seen the likes of:
Guess they won’t be doing that again, will they!!!
Bent Tree comment deadline TOMORROW!
July 13th, 2009
Katie Troe, Safe Wind in Freeborn County
Tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. is the deadline for Comments on the Bent Tree Wind Farm Certificate of Need and Siting docket. This is the 200-400MW wind project that Wisconsin Power & Light wants to build in MINNESOTA for credit towards the Wisconsin Renewable Electricity Standard.
QUICK, send your comments to:
Steve.Mihalchick [at] state.mn.us
For the PUC’s sites, go to www.puc.state.mn.us
Then click on the blue “eDocket” button…
… and search for dockets
08-573 for Siting Docket
07-1425 for Certificate of Need
And there’s also Commerce’s Siting page:
Remember, this is the one that, together with one in Clay County, triggered this White Paper:
Here’s another story in the Albert Lea Tribune with a great “I think they need professional help” quote from Katie Troe:
Safe Wind lobbies state over turbines
By Jason Schoonover | Albert Lea Tribune