Assoc of Freeborn County Landowners – Intervention Granted
September 12th, 2017
The Minnesota part of the Freeborn County wind project is the site in red, above.
The Association of Freeborn County Landowners has been granted intervention, we’re a party!!!
And a footnote for those wonks interested in Minnesota Rules and OAH and Public Utilities Commission procedure:
For more information about this docket, the application and the filings thus far, go HERE and search for Public Utilities Commission docket 17-410.
Reply Comments on Minn. R. Ch. 7849 & 7850
June 1st, 2017
At long last, the final round of Comments on the 5+ year long rulemaking have been filed. A five year long process to enact the changes consistent with legislation passed in 2005, 12 years ago. WHAT!?!?! Yes, that’s how long it’s taken. These are rules based on the Minnesota statutes for Certificate of Need (Minn. Stat. 216B.243) and the “Power Plant Siting Act” (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E), which is transmission routing and power plant siting.
Here are the Reply Comments, and note there are very few:
Public Intervenors – No CapX 2020, U-CAN, North Route Group & Goodhue Wind Truth – FINAL_May 31 2017
McNamasra GWT Reply_20175-132415-01
Commerce EERA Reply_20175-132345-01
ITC Midwest_Reply_20175-132421-02
Next step — on the agenda at a future Public Utilities Commission meeting, where they’ll discuss changes, hopefully we’ll have oral argument of the parties and comments from the public, and then the rules are formally released to the public for public comment, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and then back to the Commission for approval. Probably it will be August… given the public comment period and hearing, this will be at least a SIX YEAR PROCESS!
Rulemaking Initial Comments – Minn. R. Ch. 7849 and 7850
May 12th, 2017
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849, Certificate of Need, and 7850, Routing and Siting, is slowly moving forward. Here are the final drafts up for review before they go to the Commission for a rubber stamp and release for general comment:
Final initial comments on drafts were due on Monday and here they are, in alphabetical order:
20175-131687-01_Goodhue Wind Truth – Marie McNamara
20175-131650-01-1_Great River Energy
20175-131683_ITC Comments and Attachments
20175-131686-01_NoCapX – U-CAN – NRG & GWT
Reply comments are due by 4:30 p.m. on May 31, 2017. eFiling is preferred! If you need to register to eFile, GO HERE! It’s easy, quick, and makes filing a breeze. Get to work — there’s a lot here to comment on!
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!!!
Settlement? PUC says “show your work!”
August 29th, 2016
Xcel Energy’s rate case just received another interesting twist — a request of the PUC that the parties to the “settlement agreement” show their work! I love it when that happens.
PUC staff wants detailed information about how they reached the numbers they did, how the settlement relates to each of the parties initial positions and testimony, etc., to “show your work!” The PUC staff is requesting this information so that the Commission can determine whether to accept, modify, or reject the partial settlement agreement. And note that the parties are mostly those e21Participants who signed off on Xcel’s Exe21_Initiative scam.
GOOD! Take a close look, PUC!
To review the filings in this docket, go to this PUC SEARCH DOCUMENTS PAGE and search for docket “15-826.”