{"id":1107,"date":"2016-02-12T17:13:17","date_gmt":"2016-02-12T17:13:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/not-so-great-northern-transmission-line.org\/?p=1107"},"modified":"2016-02-12T22:53:14","modified_gmt":"2016-02-12T22:53:14","slug":"commission-meeting-225-this-is-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/not-so-great-northern-transmission-line.org\/?p=1107","title":{"rendered":"Commission Meeting 2\/25 — this is it!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"High-Voltage-Warning-Sign-S-2217\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hot off the press — the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will deliberate, and most likely decide, on the route for Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line at its February 25, 2016 meeting:<\/p>\n

\n

Notice of Commission Meeting_20162-118248-01<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thursday, February 25, 2016, no earlier than 10:30 a.m.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Public Utilities Commission<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Large Hearing Room, 3rd Floor
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

121 – 7th Place East, St. Paul, MN\u00a0 55101<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

On the other hand, they might put the decision off until early March:<\/p>\n

\"2-25-2016Notice\"<\/a>Notice issues — you may recall the notice issues raised at the public hearing — this is another one of those transmission dockets where additional routes were added and landowners on those new routes were not given notice:<\/p>\n

\n

Last Minute Notice to Landowners \u2014 NOT OK!<\/a><\/h2>\n

LATE NOTICE to Landowners, and Public Hearings Aug 12 & 13<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

From the ALJ’s Recommendation, the issues I’d raised — the lateness of the EIS was not made part of the Findings, the FEIS came out long after the Public Comment period closed, and even after the party briefs were due.\u00a0 How could anyone comment on the adequacy of the FEIS?\u00a0 Here’s the cut and paste from the ALJ’s report:<\/p>\n

\"Overland1\"<\/a>\"Overland2\"
\nThe issues raised should have been stated here, and not dismissed via referral to the Order Denying RRANT’s Motion… The contortions and contradictions of Commerce’s ongoing “explanations” should be a matter of public record, because it started out bizarre at the hearing, and over the next couple of weeks got even stranger:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
20158-113450-01 <\/a><\/td>\nPUBLIC<\/td>\n14-21<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTL<\/td>\nDOC-EERA<\/td>\nLETTER<\/td>\n08\/21\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
20158-113402-01 <\/a><\/td>\nPUBLIC<\/td>\n14-21<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTL<\/td>\nOAH<\/td>\nLETTER–CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. JENSEN<\/td>\n08\/20\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20158-113405-01 <\/a><\/td>\nPUBLIC<\/td>\n14-21<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTL<\/td>\nOAH<\/td>\nOTHER–CORRESPONDENCE<\/td>\n08\/20\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20158-113397-01 <\/a><\/td>\nPUBLIC<\/td>\n14-21<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTL<\/td>\nRESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS AGAINST NOT-SO-GREAT-NORTHERN TRANSMISSION RRANT<\/td>\nREPLY BRIEF–RRANT REPLY LETTER BRIEF TO DOC-EERA<\/td>\n08\/19\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20158-113390-01 <\/a><\/td>\nPUBLIC<\/td>\n14-21<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTL<\/td>\nDOC-EERA<\/td>\nBRIEF<\/td>\n08\/19\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Oh, it’s my job to enter the Work Group report into the record?\u00a0 Methinks that’s the job of Commerce, why didn’t Commerce enter it into the record?\u00a0 Turns out it IS in the record:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
201411-104621-06 <\/a><\/td>\nPUBLIC<\/td>\n14-21<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTL<\/td>\nDOC EERA<\/td>\nOTHER–APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF WORKING GROUP MEETINGS<\/td>\n11\/13\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The ALJ did look into these notice issues, and in the ALJ’s Findings, there was a lot more than “just” the notice issues I raised:<\/p>\n

\"NoticeFindings\"<\/a>\"Notice97\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And the footnotes to the ALJ’s findings about Notice referenced in the above snippets show that the Applicant has not met the statutory notice requirements:<\/p>\n

\"Notice\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"fn2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And generally, a few points of interest:<\/p>\n