2016 PPSA Annual Hearing

December 23rd, 2016

20161220_1017471

Tuesday was the Annual Hearing for the Power Plant Siting Act.  I’ve been fighting off this sickness that Alan’s had for a week now, and not quite feeling right, more like life inside a pillow, everything’s rather dampened.  But I slogged out into the world, and raised a few of the recurring points, issues with the Power Plant Siting Act, particularly public participation issues common not just to the Power Plant Siting Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E ), but also to wind siting dockets under Minn. St. Ch. 216F, and pipeline routing dockets under Minn. St. Ch. 216G.

Here’s how to submit comments, deadline January 20, 2017:

comments

Until this year, the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing has included a review, rundown, listing, of all the projects approved by the Commission, including wind and pipelines, and this was anticipated at this hearing per the notice:

iiid2

The full Notice:

16-0433 Notice of the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing

HOWEVER… that report, “Projects Reviewed” section D, “Electric Facilities Not Subject to Power Plant Siting Act, did not occur.  I’d guess in large part it was due to the many issues raised by those intervening and participating, or attempting to participate, in wind siting dockets who have appeared at PPSA Annual Hearings over the years.  And I’m sure they did not want input from those participating and intervening in pipeline dockets, we’ve seen how Enbridge cancelled their “public informational meetings” up north after having to face the public and their legitimate issues the day before in Bemidji.  Alan Mitchell, formerly EQB PPSA staff, and now working for Enbridge, was there, so this was on Enbridge’s radar, but of course, that Alan didn’t have any comments for the record (I do wish I remembered more about the pipeline rules rewrite that he worked on during his time at the EQB, I think somewhere around 2002-2004?).

The ALJ is to write a summary of the Comments, both at the meeting, and those filed afterwards, and then?  What happens?  Experience says “not much.”  PUC staff responded to the “What happens” question saying that things that don’t require statutory changes or rulemaking, that those are things they want to impliment, to change, to improve, and to the extend that we can, we implement.  So he said.  When the report comes from the ALJ, they review it, they’ll have the transcript from this meeting, and will go over it.

There was a pretty crowded room, better attendance than for the last couple of years, with two new members of the public speaking up.  John Munter, who has been very active in opposition to the Sandpiper and now the Line 3 “replacement” pipeline issues, spoke about the difficulties of participating in the dockets, the difficult to untangle web of “need” and “route” dockets, and of the many pipeline projects ongoing.  Tina Carey spoke of the issues she and her neighborhood encountered during construction of the massive “largest in Minnesota” solar project that went up across the street, and that the complaint process was insufficient and ineffective, and the neighborhood’s complaints were disregarded.  Cynthia Warzecha, of the DNR, gave a solid synopsis of DNR activities in PPSA dockets, and I’ll note that the DNR and DOT have really gotten into the groove of reviewing projects and providing material and substantive comments for consideration, in the EIS and in the route or siting docket (and also in environmental review in Certificate of Need dockets).  Kristen Eide-Tollefson spoke as an individual with a 20 year history as a participant in routing and siting dockets, and noted for the record this legislative prelude to the transfer of environmental review from the EQB to the Dept. of Commerce:

2005 Session — Chapter 97, Article 3, lays out the purpose for transfer from EQB to PUC and DOC, of responsibilities for Siting, Routing and Environmental Review.
Environmental Review. Sec. 17. To ensure greater public participation in energy infrastructure approval proceedings and to better integrate and align state energy and environmental policy goals with economic decisions involving large energy infrastructure, all responsibilities, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 1, held by the Environmental Quality Board relating to power plant siting and routing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 116C.51 to 116C.69; wind energy conversion systems under Minnesota Statutes, sections 116C.691 to 116C.697; pipelines under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116I; and rules associated with those sections are transferred to the Public Utilities Commission under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, except that the responsibilities of the Environmental Quality Board under Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.83, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Rules, parts 4400.1700, 4400.2750, and 4410.7010 to 4410.7070, are transferred to the commissioner of the Department of Commerce. The power plant siting staff of the Environmental Quality Board are transferred to the Department of Commerce. The department’s budget shall be adjusted to reflect the transfer.
(emphasis added by moi).  I went on about my laundry list of issues, see e.g., Comment-February 1, 2013 for 2012 PPSA Annual Hearing.  I specifically noted that we’ve been doing this over and over and over, that some changes would require legislative action, but that for those legislative changes that have occurred, and WE’VE NOT YET COMPLETED A RULEMAKING SINCE THE 2005 CHANGES, yes, I’m YELLING, and noted that we’re trying to address some of these issues in a rulemaking begun officially in 2012 and which has not yet come before the commission, and there’s a Minn. R. Ch. 7854 wind rulemaking and Minn. R. Ch. 7030 MPCA noise rulemaking that need to get moving… as if… it’s bogged down and that’s not acceptable.   Alan Muller spoke of his experience and observations of many dockets, and had a specific request — that the ALJ’s report ought to contain the report of the previous year and address what was done with that report, changes instituted, etc., and that this year’s report recommend changes and actions to the Commission.
FYI, here are past summaries and reports:

2000 Summary of Proceedings

2000 Report EQB

2001 Summary of Proceedings

2001 Report EQB

2002 Summary of Proceedings

2002 Report to EQB

2003 Summary of Proceedings

2003 Report to EQB

2004 Summary of Proceedings

2004 Report to EQB

2005 Report to PUC

2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733

2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579

2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426

2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351

2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222

2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324

2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360

2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965

2014 Summary Comments– Docket 14-887

2015 Summary Report – Docket 15-785

The most important point to get across?  These siting and routing projects are all connected, and the problems with public participation, and Public Utilities Commission and Dept. of Commerce, and Office of Administrative Hearings efforts to limit it, and yes, it is that direct, are universal across these projects, not found only in PPSA 216E dockets.  We’ve been trying so hard to deal with these issues by “working within the system,” but the system is broken, has been for so long, and the rulemaking (note this 2011 Overland Petition for Rulemaking – February 2011) begun in 2012 (See Rules – Notice for Comnent on Power Plants Transmission) (search PUC dockets for 12-1246) has been stalled out now for way too long.  We’re essentially into 2017.  It’s pretty tough to have any confidence in “the system” with this malingering.
mullertestifies

utopia_map

Kinder Morgan, a private company, not a utility, sued to take land for its “Utopia” pipeline project.  A judge in Wood County Ohio just said NO, they cannot take land, that eminent domain is only for public use, and Kinder Morgan’s pipeline is not a public use.  This is a very hard hitting decision, and I sure hope they appeal it so we can get some precedent here.

The decision:

Kinder Morgan v PDB Farms_2016cv0220

You’ve got to read this decision — very well done!

withdraw

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:

topics

And when I asked:

cao2puc

Here’s the response:

puc2cao

Oh my… what do I do with that?  Guess I write a post about it!!!

withdraw

 

 

 

Sandpiper_Map_19MAR2015

According to their Petition for Withdrawal, “[p]ursuant to Minn. R. 7829.0430, persons opposing the Petition have 14 calendar days from the date of service to file objections.   Pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6600, parties may respond to the motion to suspend the contested case and certify the issues within 10 working days of this motion by filing a written response with the judge and serving copies on all parties.”  And they’re correct about that.

Served September 1, so deadlines are September 11 (12th because it’s a Sunday) for objections under Minn. R. 1400.6600 (for “parties”) and September 15 for objections/comments under Minn. R. 7829.0430.

Address comments to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary                                                    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

AND to eFile them by registering at the PUC site HERE and eFiling them in dockets 13-473 and 13-474.  It EASY!!!  Then not only will the Commission and the Judges of the two dockets be aware of your comments, but the world can see them too!  Small effort, larger impact!

And you can mail the Comment to him, but I’d strongly advise you eFile it at the PUC (which will also go to ALJ Oxley)

And again, here’s their Withdrawal Request:

20169-124579-01_Petition Withdrawal

The 10 day rule, Minn. R. 1400.6600 does say “parties” may respond:

1400.6600 MOTIONS.

Any application to the judge for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. Motions provided for in parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400 shall be served on all parties, the agency, if it is not a party, and the judge. The written motion shall advise other parties that should they wish to contest the motion they must file a written response with the judge and serve copies on all parties, within ten working days after it is received. No memorandum of law submitted in connection with a motion may exceed 25 pages, except with the permission of the judge. If any party desires a hearing on the motion, they shall make a request for a hearing at the time of the submission of their motion or response. A response shall set forth the nonmoving party’s objections. A hearing on a motion will be ordered by the judge only if it is determined that a hearing is necessary to the development of a full and complete record on which a proper decision can be made. Motions may be heard by telephone. All orders on such motions, other than those made during the course of the hearing, shall be in writing and shall be served upon all parties of record and the agency if it is not a party. In ruling on motions where parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400 are silent, the judge shall apply the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Court for Minnesota to the extent that it is determined appropriate in order to promote a fair and expeditious proceeding.

The 14 day rule is broader, Minn. R. 7829.0430 in the Utility Practice and Procedure rules:

Minn. R. 7829.0430

Subpart 1. Uncontested withdrawal.

The commission delegates to the executive secretary authority to approve the withdrawal of a filing. Approval will be granted by the executive secretary if the following conditions are met:

A. the party that submitted the filing has requested that the filing be withdrawn and has served notice on the persons listed on the official service list;

B. no person has expressed opposition to withdrawal of the filing within 14 days of service of the notice; and

C. no commissioner or commission staff person has identified a reason that the matter should not be withdrawn.

Subp. 2. Contested withdrawal.

If any person opposes a withdrawal request within 14 days of service of the notice, the commission will allow a filing to be withdrawn at the request of the filing party if the commission determines that the proposed withdrawal:

A.does not contravene the public interest;

B. does not prejudice any party; and

C. does not concern a filing that raises issues requiring commission action.

If the commission determines that withdrawal would contravene the public interest or would prejudice a party, the commission may permit withdrawal only subject to conditions that mitigate the harm identified.

And here’s a prior Legalectric post:

sandpiper_pipeline-courtesy_winona_ladukeAn old Enbridge map of proposed Sandpiper route

The Minnesota Department of Commerce has released Notice of Scoping Meetings for the Sandpiper pipeline:

Meeting ScheduleHere’s the full Notice:

Scoping & Meeting Notice_20164-119967-01

There’s also a lot of new information posted to go along with this, routes and alternatives and modifications are posted.

To look at the entire docket, go to the PUC’s Seach eDockets page, and search for dockets 13-473 (Certificate of Need) or 13-474 (Routing Docket).

Check out this weeks filings regarding environmental review filed by Commerce:

20164-119946-04 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX C – ACCESS ROADS TABLE 04/11/2016
20164-119944-09 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 70-82 04/11/2016
20164-119945-05 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 37-49 04/11/2016
20164-119944-01 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 1-24 04/11/2016
20164-119946-02 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX B – TAX PARCEL LIST 04/11/2016
20164-119946-08 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX E – WETLAND CROSSING TABLE 04/11/2016
20164-119944-15 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 109-121 04/11/2016
20164-119944-07 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 54-69 04/11/2016
20164-119946-16 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX I – ROAD AND RAILROAD CROSSING TABLE 04/11/2016
20164-119945-01 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 1-21 04/11/2016
20164-119944-13 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 95-108 04/11/2016
20164-119945-11 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 77-88 04/11/2016
20164-119944-11 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 SURVEY MAPS 83-94 04/11/2016
20164-119946-10 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX F – WATERBODIES IN MN WITHIN 1 MILE DOWNSTREAM OF CROSSINGS 04/11/2016
20164-119945-09 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 64-76 04/11/2016
20164-119944-17 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 122-125 04/11/2016
20164-119946-12 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX G – LOG FOR WELL 653274 04/11/2016
20164-119944-05 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 41-53 04/11/2016
20164-119943-07 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 19-29 04/11/2016
20164-119943-09 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 30-43 04/11/2016
20164-119943-13 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 58-61 04/11/2016
20164-119943-03 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–EAW PART 2 04/11/2016
20164-119943-01 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–EAW PART 1 04/11/2016
20164-119945-13 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 89-101 04/11/2016
20164-119944-03 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A2 – SURVEY MAPS 25-40 04/11/2016
20164-119943-05 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 1-18 04/11/2016
20164-119945-15 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 102-114 04/11/2016
20164-119945-07 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS – 50-63 04/11/2016
20164-119945-17 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 115-125 04/11/2016
20164-119943-11 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A – DETAILED ROUTE MAPS 44-57 04/11/2016
20164-119945-03 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX A3 – SOIL MAPS 22-36 04/11/2016
20164-119947-02 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT 04/11/2016
20164-119946-06 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX D – WATERBODY CROSSING TABLE 04/11/2016
20164-119946-14 13-473 DOC EERA OTHER–APPENDIX H – SENSITIVE NOISE RECEPTORS 04/11/2016