Legalectric

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:

Sandpiper_Landowner Comments_Xmsn

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:

20141-95340-02 Notice of Comment Period

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!!!

WHAT!?!?!  Yes… Really… after the delightful decision from the Appellate Court requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, telling the Public Utilities Commission that an EIS must be completed before a Certificate of Need can be issue, the Applicants dropped  Petition.  Read this whale-eye inducing filing from North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC (a/k/a Enbridge) hot off the press:

North Dakota Pipeline Company _ Petition for Rejoinder and Comment Period 20159-114150-03

Here’s the short version:

Once more with feeling, here’s the Appellate Court’s decision:

OPa150016-091415

And the bottom line:

So from this order of the Appellate Court “to complete an EIS” the Applicant now asks for the “need” docket and “routing” docket to be brought back together and to use the “Comparative Environmental Analysis” that the Appellate Court says isn’t sufficient.  Yes, that what they’re saying:

What planet is North Dakota Pipeline Company living on?  Earth to Mars!!!!!  A “CEA” is not sufficient.  MEPA requires an EIS.  The court told the Public Utilities Commission to complete an EIS.  The Court did NOT say to go ahead with a “CEA.”

Not too long ago, Lisa Agrimonti sent around notice that she had moved over to Fredrickson & Byron.  $50 says that she’ll be filing Notice of Appearance for this docket!