NoCapX 2020 Response to “Recession” Order

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Wisconsin — posted by admin on January 12, 2012 @ 9:56 am

gavel

Remember Judge Newmark’s  “Notice of Possible Recession of Order and Granting Party Stats and Order to Respond” that came out on Monday?

05-CE-136 Notice of Possible Recession of Order and Order to Respond

Here’s the NoCapX 2020 Response:

NoCapX 2020 Response to Notice of Possible Recession of Order Granting Party Status and Order to Respond

I’m not surprised there’s an effort to toss out NoCapX 2020, given our history of participation in the CapX 2020 dockets and breadth of knowledge about CapX 2020.   The Order that NoCapX was required to respond to stated:

The discrepancies between the NoCapX 2020 statements cited above call into question the basis for granting NoCapX 2020 intervention. NoCapX 2020 must adequately substantiate its claim to representational party status or face revocation of its intervention by right. NoCapX 2020 must also provide adequate explanation of the discrepancies cited above, or lose any claim to permissive party status because of a lack of the necessary credibility required to promote the disposition of the issues.

Oh my!

From the NoCapX 2020 response:

Does No CapX lack the “necessary credibility required to promote the disposition of the issues?” Hardly. No CapX 2020 is the party leading the pack in relevant and substantive Data Requests. See attached Exhibit C, Data Requests to Xcel Energy; Exhibit D, Data Requests to ATC; Exhibit E, Data Requests to Dairyland Power Cooperative; Exhibit F, Data Requests to MISO. No CapX 2020 was the only non-agency party to submit Comments on the DEIS.[1] See attached Exhibit G, No CapX 2020 DEIS Comments. No CapX 2020 was also the only Intervenor to respond to the Conway Motion, noting Ms. Conway’s efforts and that the broad issues list was inclusive of Ms. Conway’s issue regarding authority of Dairyland Power Cooperative to participate in this project – a perspective reflected in the January 6, 2012 Order.

In its active participation, No CapX 2020 has demonstrated its “necessary credibility required to promote the disposition of the issues” and its superior ability to inform the record due to its years’ long history of prior interventions. Further, in no way has No CapX 2020 caused any delay in the schedule set by the Commission – unlike Clean Wisconsin and MISO, No CapX 2020 has been timely in its submissions, and NoCapX2020 has been ahead of the other intervening parties in the timing and substantive content contained in its Data Requests.


[1] Clean Wisconsin, the intervenor interested in “environmental” issues did not submit any comments on the DEIS, nor did Citizens Utility Board. CETF Board members submitted comments as individuals, but no comments were filed in CETF’s name.

zero comments so far »

Please leave a comment below!

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace