Monthly Archives: September 2014

PUC Order on “Workgroup” f/k/a Task Force

JUST IN:
WORKGROUP
11:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
September 30, 2014
Timberlake Lodge
114 S.E. 17th
Grand Rapids, MN
Untitled
Here’s the written order for the PUC’s decision last Thursday on the Workgroup formerly known as Advisory Task Force:
When will the workgroup meetings be held?  End of September, beginning of October?
Contact Bill Storm, Commerce:
bill.storm@state.mn.us
651-539-1844 or 1-800-657-3794

Leave a Comment

Filed under Routing Docket

Direct Testimony Filed!

oath

Here we go — it’s testimony time.  Yesterday the “Large Utility Intervenors” and Commerce DER filed their Direct Testimony.

Commerce:

Shah_Direct_20149-103162-04

Rakow_Direct_20149-103162-02

Large Utility Intervenors:

Kollen_Direct_20149-103178-02

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need

PUC CoN & Siting/Routing FINAL Rulemaking meeting

DraftIt’s final… that is, the FINAL meeting notice was just issued, one more go round on these draft rules for Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Power Plant Siting Act (siting and routing of utility infrastructure) (Minn. R. Ch. 7850).

We’ve been at this for about a year and a half, maybe more, and to some extent we’re going round and round and round.

Here are the September 2014 drafts, hot off the press:

September Draft 7849

September Draft 7850

Send your comments, meaning SPECIFIC comments, not “THIS SUCKS” but comments on the order of “because of _______, proposed language for 7950.xxxx should be amended to say_______.”  It’s a bit of work, but it’s important, for instance, the Advisory Task Force parts are important because we were just before the PUC on this last week, trying to reinforce that Task Force’s are necessary, despite Commerce efforts to eliminate and/or neuter them.  That despite ALJ orders otherwise, the Final EIS should be in the record BEFORE the Public Hearings and Evidentiary Hearings (just lost a Motion to require this last month).

How can you comment?  The best way is to fire off an email to the Commission’s staff person leading this group:

kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

If you’re up to it, sign up on the PUC’s eDockets, and file your Comment in Docket 12-1246.  If you’d like your comment filed there, and can’t figure it out, please send it to me and I’ll file it for you.  It’s important that these comments be made in a way that the Commission will SEE, in a way that they cannot ignore, when this comes up before them.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Certificate of Need, Environmental Review, PUC Filings, PUC Rulemaking Ch. 7849

Today PUC approves “work group” but…

20140911_103358_resized

Today at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Item 5 on the agenda, before the Sandpiper Pipeline (busy day), was the Dept. of Commerce request for reconsideration of the Commission’s order authorizing 3 Advisory Task Forces for the scoping and routing of the Great Northern Transmission Project.

Again, here’s the background:

Original PUC Task Force Authorizaiton_20147-101165-01

Commerce Request to Reconsider Task Forces

Notice of Comment Period

Comments_CATF_20148-102578-01

Overland_CATF Comments (filed as individual, RRANT has intervened in only the Certificate of Need docket)

PUC Staff Briefing Papers_Citizens Advisory Task Force_20149-102831-01

Commerce CATF Comments_20149-102886-01

At today’s meeting, Bill Storm, Commerce (he was the one on the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project siting docket) spoke and explained his proposal, how he would organize a workgroup as proposed by Mike Kaluzniak, PUC staff:

  • 2 meetings!  He claimed no time for more because he has three weeks of hearings on the GNTL CoN 12-1053 — not true, there are 4 meetings, T & W, for two weeks, that’s 4 days, two weeks, not three weeks by any stretch, well, maybe if he rode up there on a horse, otherwise, nope.  See Public Hearings for GNTL in October
  • 1st meeting — 30 of September or 1st of October.  Draft Scoping out 9/30.
  • 2nd meeting — digest everything and address further issues and additional alternatives
  • 10/31 — Amend/Append the Scoping Summary
  • 11/20 — Scoping Record goes to Public Utilities Commission for review/approval.

I was given some time, and noted that I was making comments as an individual, and not in the course of representing any party, that RRANT had intervened only in the GNTL Certificate of Need docket (12-1053), and that Advisory Task Forces was a fundamental issue of mine, and that Minn. Stat. 216E.08 noted that public participation was the fundamental premise of the Power Plant Siting Act and that it was not to be limited to hearings and Advisory Task Forces.  In this case, when soliciting Task Force members, the public wasn’t even notified, because there were no published requests for applications, and letters went out only to local governments, and one NGO (local Izaak Walton League chapter) and the Minnesota Forest Resources Council.  That’s it.  Here are the results of those mailings and follow up calls:

Solicitations_TaskForce_20148-102144-01

So many were not reached, and how was it determined who to call?  Worse, look at how it was presented who could participate:

ATF_Qualifications

Sure, the 4th one makes sense, but the first one?  “The person cannot be a(sic) unaffiliated member of the public appointed by the LGU to serve on the task force.”  Says who?  NOT OK.  In my comments I stressed that Commerce has long been a problem when it comes to Task Forces, objection to Petitions for Task Forces, and when they’re authorized, Commerce and its “facilitator” try to focus on “Land Use” and in limiting issues and concerns rather than using it as a brainstorming session to assure all relevant issues are raised.  See I’m asking you to leave…

And I’d asked that the public be allowed a comment period at the end.  Storm objected, saying he didn’t want to delay the process and didn’t want to have to integrate the public into the workgroup.  Hello — a comment period at the end is not “integrating into the workgroup,” but then again, the public SHOULD be integrated into the workgroup.

I’d also noted that this is 2014, and that if all the local governments are being emailed a questionnaire regarding local issues, features, alternate routes, that it’d be very simple to provide notice that a meeting IS occurring on X date and to show up if you’re interested.  Nope, apparently that’s too much to ask.  So I guess I’ll have to do the advocate’s thing and spread the word about that upcoming meeting, which IS a public meeting.

So, these were the decision options for the Commission today:

9-11-2014 Decision Options

There were suggestions for 3c — change “once” to “before” and “proposed” with “possible” and those were accepted.  I asked that 3a be amended to add “and opportunity for public comment at meetings.”  Some agreement that that would be good, but it was dropped along the side of the road.

Motion by Comm. Wergin for A1, and 3 A-C with “possible” and “before” and limited to those local governmental units that had shown an interest.

But here’s the weird part.  At the end, Comm. Wergin made a rather long statement about her (but speaking in royal “we” language) confidence in Storm and his ability and willingness to be open to input, that if he’s in charge, all is well and good.

It’s unfortunate that the Advisory Task Force meetings for the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project weren’t recorded, particularly that last one where the Task Force was railroaded to a most unfortunate position.

Yup, need to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Public Hearings for GNTL in October

High-Voltage-Warning-Sign-S-2217The notice was just issued for the public hearings for the Great Northern Transmission Line.  Be there or be square!

NOTICE+OF+PUBLIC+HEARING+12-1163

And here are the details:

PublicHearing_GNTL

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Hearings

Information Requests Responses

 

There have been MANY information request responses filed by Minnesota Power. Below are responses to IRs from the “Large Power Intervenors” and the Commerce DER.  Note that many are “Public Versions” meaning it’s essentially blank.  There’s a “Non-Disclosure Agreement” to be signed to get this info.  I thought I’d signed it, but I can’t find the “Top Secret” versions, and even if I had, well, couldn’t post them here.

question_marksThese are Responses to the Information Requests of the “Large Power Intervenors” received thus far:

LPI_IR_001 – FINAL

LPI_IR_002 – FINAL

LPI_IR_002.1 – Attachment Public

LPI_IR_002.2 – Attachment

LPI_IR_003 – FINAL

LPI_IR_004 – FINAL

LPI IR 003 & 004 Supplemental – FINAL

LPI IR 005 – FINAL

LPI IR 006 – FINAL

LPI IR 006.1 Attachment

LPI IR 006.2 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 006.3 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 006.4 Attachment

LPI IR 006.5 Attachment

LPI IR 007 – FINAL

LPI IR 007.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 008 Public Version – FINAL

LPI IR 008.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 008.2 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 008.3 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 008.4 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 008.5 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 008.6 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 009 – FINAL

LPI IR 010 – FINAL

LPI IR 010.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 011 – FINAL

LPI IR 011.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 012 – FINAL

LPI IR 012.1 Attachment

LPI IR 013 – FINAL

LPI IR 014 – FINAL

LPI IR 014.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 015 – FINAL

LPI IR 015.1 Attachment

LPI IR 016 – FINAL

LPI IR 017 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 017.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 018 – FINAL

LPI IR 019 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 019.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 020 – FINAL

LPI IR 021 – FINAL

LPI IR 029.1 Attachment

LPI IR 022 – FINAL

LPI IR 023 – FINAL

LPI IR 024 – FINAL

LPI IR 024.1 Attachment Public Version

LPI IR 025 – FINAL

LPI IR 025.1 Attachment

LPI IR 026 – FINAL

LPI IR 028 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 029 – FINAL

LPI IR 030 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 031 – FINAL – Public Version

LPI IR 032 – FINAL

Commerce:

DoC IR 1

DOC_IR_002 – FINAL

20121102 Northern Area Study Presentation

20121105 MH Wind Synergy Study TRG Presentation_Updated

DOC IR 003.1 Attachment

DOC_IR_003 – FINAL

DOC IR 010 Supplemental – FINAL

DOC IR 009 Supplemental – FINAL

DOC IR 009.1 Attachment

DOC IR 010.1 Attachment

DOC IR 013 – FINAL

DOC IR 014 – FINAL

DOC IR 021 – FINAL

DOC IR 022 – FINAL

DOC IR 023 – FINAL

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Certificate of Need, Information Requests

Thursday – PUC addresses Task Forces

Thursday, September 11, 2014, the Public Utilities Commission will take up the request from Commerce for reconsideration of its authorization of Advisory Task Forces. Here’s the Agenda-9-11-2014.  It will not be heard before 10:30 a.m., and will be webcast.

To watch online:  Live Webcast

Thursday’s meeting is located at:

Public Utilities Commission
121 – 7th Place East, 3rd Floor Large Hearing Room
St. Paul, MN

PUC staff is encouraging a hybrid workgroup to address both the lack of enough participants and the need for public input:

PUC Staff Briefing Papers_Citizens Advisory Task Force_20149-102831-01

And Commerce had some Comments (why do they get to file and we don’t have opportunity to respond?), and is also looking at a hybrid, by telephone:

CATF Comments_20149-102886-01

What bothers me about this is that Commerce is taking a very narrow view of who should participate, and has not made a public broad solicitation.  “The Public” is absent.  Their letter to local governments said only local government officials or local government employees were invited, and it couldn’t be appointed non-employees!  Why?  Where did they find that restriction?  And then the second thing, is it sufficient to be calling and accepting a “Not Interested” statement from whoever answers?

Going back, here are the public comments that were received:

Comments_CATF_20148-102578-01

Overland_CATF Comments (I filed as individual, RRANT has intervened in only the Certificate of Need docket, not routing.)

And Commerce’s initial request:

Commerce Request to Reconsider Task Forces

Thursday — not to be heard before 10:30!  Be there or be square — and remember, its webcast!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

PUC Rulemaking — Send Comments on Drafts

pilesofiles

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is winding up its rulemaking on the Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Siting/Routing (Minn. R. Ch. 7850) chapters.  My clients Goodhue Wind Truth and North Route Group have been participating all along, and their experience with the Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting process has helped inform this record and we sure hope leads to more sensible and workable rules, AND increased public participation.

Now is the time to download and make your comments on what should be included, what’s included that’s important and needs to go forward, and what needs to be reworded.

August 13 Draft 7849

7850 July 8 draft

August 13 Ch. 7850 comparison

Send Comments to:

  • kate.kahlert@state.mn.us
  • and/or post to the Rulemaking Docket.  To do that go HERE to the eDocket Filing Page, register if you’re not registered (it’s easy and almost instant), and post to Docket 12-1246.

It’s highly likely that the LAST meeting of the PUC’s Rulemaking Advisory Committee will be September 24, 2014 (9:30 a.m. at the PUC, in the basement).

A few things that need work:

  • Ch. 7849 & 7850: Need language mirroring statutory language regarding testimony by members of the public UNDER OATH (ALJs have refused to offer people opportunity to testify under oath, and PUC has stated that it makes a difference, “but were those statements made under oath” and if not, less weight.
  • Ch. 7849: Advisory Task Forces need language of statute, and membership not limited to “local units of government.”
  • Ch. 7849 & 7850: Transcripts available online — need to address this in rules and reporter contracts.
  • Ch. 7849: Scoping and Alternatives — compare with Ch. 7850.  Similar process?
  • Ch. 7849.1450: When is it Commerce EER & DER
  • Ch. 7849 & 7850 – timing should be similar for completeness review, etc.
  • Ch. 7850: Public Meeting separate from Scoping Meeting (Public Meeting is to disseminate information, Scoping Meeting is for intake).
  • Ch. 7850: Power Plant Siting Act includes “Buy the Farm.”  Need rules regarding Buy the Farm.

Now is the time to review the drafts, above, and send in Comments.  There may be, I hope there are, revisions released prior to the next meeting, but usually it happens just before, and there’s no time.  So here’s where we are now, and Comments would be helpful.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 7850, Buy the Farm, Certificate of Need