Legalectric

Inadequate — and REMANDED! Here’s the Appellate Court decision, just out:

Bottom line:
However, the commission acted in a manner unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious when it determined the FEIS adequate despite its failure to address the issue—raised during scoping and in public comments on the DEIS—of how an oil spill from Enbridge’s Line 3 project would impact Lake Superior and its watershed. Accordingly, we reverse the commission’s adequacy decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Love it when that happens…

Here’s the audio and video of the Public Utilities Commission meeting of September 20, 2018, where the Commission decided to deny the Goodhue Wind Truth rulemaking petition and to approve the Freeborn Wind siting permit Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that the permit be denied, AND to approve the transmission line, for which Freeborn Wind does not have all necessary land rights — note the blue triangles — that represents the underlying fee interest of non-participants.

So, Thursday’s meeting?  Goodhue Wind Truth rulemaking petition and Freeborn Wind siting and transmission permit? Here ya go!

Video (can’t figure out how to download video)

Audio Download

Below the video screen is a list of agenda items.  Click #2 for their rejection of the Goodhue Wind Truth Petition for Rulemaking.  Click on #3 for their approval of the Freeborn Wind Site permit, and #4 for their approval of transmission for Freeborn Wind.  Liberally dose yourself with anti-emetic before watching!

It was a full house yesterday at the PUC but the result was a bust.  The PUC tossed the Freeborn Wind ALJ Recommendation right out the window, did a 180 from the ALJ’s Recommendation and granted a siting permit and transmission permit for Freeborn Wind. There was a last minute “compromise” presented by Freeborn Wind and Commerce, last minute, meaning the DAY BEFORE, and the PUC Staff Briefing papers had 23 pages of an inexplicable chart of proposed adoption and rejection of Exceptions.

20189-146406-01_PUC_StaffBriefingPapers

Through what gyrations will they get their “order” to align with the record? Out with it — let’s see!!

In the STrib:

Minnesota utility regulators approve Freeborn County wind farm opposed by neighbors

In the Albert Lea Tribune:

Commission unanimously approves Freeborn Wind Farm permits

From the article:

Commissioner Katie Sieben said she also supported the project, noting she received a letter in July 2017 from a constituent saying the issue was “tearing neighbors apart.”
“I would hope that as the applicant has modified, has moved wind turbines, has lessened that division,” she said.

Sieben says Freeborn “has moved wind turbines?”  WHERE EVER WOULD SHE GET THAT IDEA?  The application wasn’t modified, wind turbines haven’t been moved.  This just proves she hasn’t read the record.  How many times did Dan Litchfield testify that they couldn’t move any turbines?

And on KIMT TV:

Freeborn Wind Farm approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

 

We’re in another day of Enbridge Line 3, today no oral argument or comments, it’s deliberation only.  In the intro, Commissioner Sieben introduced a lot of modifications, laid out on a sheet of paper which was passed around to Commissioners, and then Commissioner Tuma did the same with I believe a couple of sheets (he seems to introduce something at every meeting, spring it on people, with no time to review).  Now they seem to be negotiating how they’re going to approve the Certificate of Need.  ??  I have no idea what they’re talking about, there are no copies for the public, and the documents Commissioners Sieben and Tuma have not been eFiled.  ???

Sierra Club and other intervenors have filed a Motion objecting to entry of new information that has not been subject to review, and that the information should be subject to a contested case proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge.

20186-144310-01_New Info_Remand for Contested Case Proceeding

As they’re going now, it’s as if they are negotiating a settlement with Enbridge, but hey, what about the intervenors, who are parties with equal standing in this?

They’re talking about “beneficiary,” but what they’re searching for is “additional insured.”  And they’re talking about unavailability of insurance for this, well, this is right along the lines of Price-Anderson for nuclear, where we subsidize the industry with no-fault coverage with nominal recovery allowed!

I have tried to get copies eFiled of the Sieben and Tuma sheets that have been passed around, struck out.  Ain’t happening.

They’re talking about a “landowner choice” program where landowners have the option of removal of the old Line 3 from their land.  Schuerger is raising issue of need for informed consent.  YES!  So can we hear from intervenors about all this?  Big issue — all of this is proposed to be handled in a Compliance Filing, and there’s no procedural option for anyone to comment on compliance filngs, unless people just jump in and take it upon themselves to file comments — but there’s no suggestion or guarantee that any comments on what Enbridge comes up with, that it will even be considered.

What a mess…  Certificate of Need approved, with directive to adopt the Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent that it is consistent with their decision — that’s backwards, putting the cart before the horse.  Are they making such a mess of this so that on appeal the court will throw it out?

Now on to the route permit.

Everybody, get out your HERC Hanky and wave it for the home team!!!

Last Thursday was a fairly short, but quite intense, day at the Public Utilities Commission.  First up was Freeborn Wind (go here and search for docket 17-332), and its application for a transmission line for the project plus more.  We did get the “proceeding” process and not a summary report. That’s good, not a huge deal, but enough that it means we get some extra process in the transmission routing docket, meaning an ALJ drafted Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (not just a report), and the opportunity to file Exceptions to the ALJ Recommendation. In those exceptions, we can also ask for public comment and oral argument to the Commission.

Second on the agenda was the HERC Power Purchase Agreement, and Xcel Energy’s HERC PPA Petition to cut the rate (go here and search for docket 17-532).

Bottom line, after much deliberation, and a 10 minute break (what is it they do back there???), here’s the decision option they chose, as framed in the Staff Briefing Papers_201711-137262-01:

Way to go, Mr. Alan Muller!

Seems to me that but for our squwaking, it would have eased on through.  But the question remains, where were all the folks who supposedly had committed to shut down HERC?

Primary documents were posted earlier here:

• HERC at PUC on Thursday
• HERC — from Muller, in the Daily Planet
• NAB Petitions to Intervene in the HERC Docket
• Due TODAY — Comments on HERC
• Comment period on HERC PPA Amendment