2016 PPSA Annual Hearing
December 23rd, 2016
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:
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:
The full Notice:
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.
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
In Ohio — Eminent domain only for public use
October 13th, 2016
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:
You’ve got to read this decision — very well done!
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!!!
Comment on Enbridge’s withdrawal of Sandpiper NOW!
September 6th, 2016
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:
The 10 day rule, Minn. R. 1400.6600 does say “parties” may respond:
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:
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:
Enbridge files to withdraw Sandpiper applications!
September 1st, 2016
Sandpiper Scoping Meetings Scheduled
April 13th, 2016
An old Enbridge map of proposed Sandpiper route
The Minnesota Department of Commerce has released Notice of Scoping Meetings for the Sandpiper pipeline:
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 |