Comment Filed – Power Plant Siting Act
February 9th, 2018
Yes, it’s that time of year again, and today’s the deadline for Comments for the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing:
And there ya have it. Until next year…
Notice? For utility infrastructure projects? DOH!
September 6th, 2015
NOTICE!!! Landowners need notice if their land is affected! Local governments and residents need notice if their communities are affected! Yes, posting something can have an impact!
Notice is something that’s been an issue in utility dockets, and transmission proceedings particularly, for a long, long time. It’s something we’re trying to address in the Minn. R. Ch. 7850 in our rulemaking advisory committee meetings over the last TWO PLUS YEARS!
Here are the latest Comments:
Why does notice matter? Well, there’s this thing called “Due Process.” Notice is a fundamental Constitutional Right. It matters because “NOTICE” often doesn’t happen. And it ties in with eminent domain, where land may Constitutionally be taken for public purpose projects with just compensation (and what is a “public” project? What is “just” compensation?) If you aren’t properly informed, have no notice, what does that do to your ability to participate?
In Minnesota, it’s a matter of law, clear, simply stated law:
Looking over posts and filings where this has happened, situations I’ve been aware of where landowners have been surprised at the last minute, too late to meaningfully participate in the proceedings, have filed Motions for Reconsideration, and have been to the Appellate Court on their behalf, it is SO frustrating. Looking at the many times I’ve tried to intervene, to have intervention deadlines extended in case landowners want to stand up, There’s no excuse. People should not be surprised at the last minute with a utility attempt to run transmission over their land.
It happened recently in the Great Northern Transmission Line routing docket:
ALJ Order filed, no RRANT intervention
It happened in CapX Brookings route and on CapX Hampton- La Crosse route:
- Cannon Falls (CapX Hampton- LaX route) example to go around county park and DOT prohibited intersection area:
Cannon Falls Beacon – CapX in the news!
Dakota County resolution about CapX 2020
CAPX APPEAL — DECISION RELEASED (includes Cannon Falls)
UPDATED Updated Minnesota Appeal Update
Initial Brief – St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners
Reply Brief – Cannon Falls Landowners and St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church
- Oronoco(CapX Hampton – La X route) enters “new route” proposal without notice to its own landowners:
Oronoco Twp’s Exhibit 89
- USDA’s Rural Utilites Service (CapX Hampton – La X) example:
RUS Reopens Comments on Hampton-LaCrosse
- Myrick Route (CapX Brookings) example:
Myrick route withdrawn
Myrick Route & How to find things on PUC site
- In particular this “Notice” which went out after all the hearings were over with no way to participate at all: Dec 30 Notice – Myrick Route
PUC chooses Belle Plaine crossing
- This is important to understand the set-up, and now this notice was snuck in at the last minute due to Applicant and Commerce disregard for objections of DOT, DNR and USFWS.
That’s enough examples to get an idea of the problem… but there are more that I can trot out if necessary. The notice provisions in Minnesota law and rule must be corrected.
Thursday – Annual Power Plant Siting Act Hearing
December 27th, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.
PUC – 3rd Floor Large Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place East
St. Paul, MN
Got that? Now QUICK! QUICK – put together your comments and let the PUC know just what you think of the Power Plant Siting Act.
Here’s what they suggested for last year, because this year, no suggestions, so let’s recycle and reuse:
l. In Chapter 216E, the Legislature directs the Commission to locate large electric power facilities so that any siting is orderly, efficient and compatible with environmental preservation. How well do the Commission’s procedures and practices meet these mandates?
2. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 7850 meet the mandates of Chapter 2l6E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
3. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 1405 meet the mandates of Chapter 216E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
Comments are invited through presentation of oral or written statements.
Written comments are due 4:30 p.m. on February 1, 2012 – REFERENCE DOCKET E999-/M-11-324 and send to:
Eric L. Lipman Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 64620 St.Paul, MN 55164-0620 Eric.Lipman@state.mn.usAnd here are comments from past years – for guidance, check these out:
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 Lipman Report to PUC – Comments Summary – Docket 10-222
For Hearing Exhibits, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, search docket 10-222
Now’s the time!
Annual Hearing – Power Plant Siting Act
December 23rd, 2010
Mark 10:00 a.m. on December 28, 2010 on your calendar!
Notice – Additional Information – 2010 Annual Power Plant Annual Siting Act Hearing
10:00 a.m. Tuesday, December 28, 2010
PUC Large Hearing Room – 3rd Floor
121 – 7th Place E.
St. Paul, MN 55101
It happens once a year, the Annual Power Plant Siting Act Hearing, which is our opportunity to tell them a thing or two, specifically what works and does not work about the Power Plant Siting Act. If you’re affected by CapX 2020 transmission or other utility infrastructure, you sure know what DOESN’T work!!! This is the time to let them know in technicolor, and to put together your legislative agenda for the coming session.
What’s new here is that they’re holding it before Eric Lipman, Administrative Law Judge, and are soliciting comments on specific questions:
l. In Chapter 216E, the Legislature directs the Commission to locate large electric power
facilities so that any siting is orderly, efficient and compatible with environmental
preservation. How well do the Commission’s procedures and practices meet these
mandates?2. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 7850 meet the mandates of
Chapter 2l6E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
3. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 1405 meet the mandates of
Chapter 216E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
Comments are invited through presentation of oral or written statements.
Written statements may also be submitted to Judge Lipman by the close of business on February 1,2011 . I’ll post the email address they’re using for this after the hearing or if I get it sooner.
We’ve been doing this for a while, here are the notes and reports to EQB/PUC — where there are no “Summary” notes, there were none online. I’ve also noticed that the exhibits that the Reports say are attached are not, and yet if I go back to the docket, they are attached there (see 2007, taken from PUC eDockets, not Commerce site, which is missing the exhibits). To look at the full PUC eDocket for a particular year, look below for docket numbers, and then go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click “Search eDockets” and plug in the docket number.
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
Here’s the law that’s the basis for it:
216E.07 ANNUAL HEARING.
The commission shall hold an annual public hearing at a time and place prescribed by rule in order to afford interested persons an opportunity to be heard regarding any matters relating to the siting of large electric generating power plants and routing of high-voltage transmission lines. At the meeting, the commission shall advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year. The commission shall provide at least ten days but no more than 45 days’ notice of the annual meeting by mailing or serving electronically, as provided in section 216.17, a notice to those persons who have requested notice and by publication in the EQB Monitor and the commission’s weekly calendar.
History: 1973 c 591 s 8; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1977 c 439 s 11; 1980 c 615 s 60; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1984 c 640 s 32; 2001 c 212 art 7 s 17; 2005 c 97 art 3 s 9; 2007 c 10 s 12