Combine all the CapX PUC dockets!

Filed under:Reports - Documents — posted by admin on February 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm

Looking at the PUC docket for 06-1115, I can see that the other two dockets (06-979 and 06-857) have not been incorporated into this one yet.  I’d sent an email asking if this could be done informally, and it seems that ain’t gonna happen… OK, fine, there’s got to be a way…

Once more with feeling, to look at dockets:

Go to www. puc.state.mn.us

Click on “eDockets”

Click on “Search Documents”

Search for dockets 06-1115 or 06-979 or 06-857

Happy reading…

UCAN’s Motion to Enforce Citizens’ Due Process Rights

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on @ 8:58 pm

sct.jpg

The Reinharts have filed a Motion “TO (1) ENFORCE NOTICE LAWS AND (2) COMBINE THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED AND ROUTE SELECTION PROCESS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ESTOP APPLICANTS’ DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.”

UCAN Motion to Enforce Citizens’ Due Process Rights

I’d do it differently, it’s overstated and amateurish, of course, because they’re not pros, but they usually have a point and should be taken seriously.  Their Motion is raising many of the same complaints I’ve had with the PUC and OAH over the years regarding due process.   Here’s what they’re asking for:

1. Finding that the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the “Department”) failed to comply with legal requirements set forth in Minn. Rule 7849.7050, subp. 1, for failing notice to interested persons regarding the scope of environmental review
at Certificate of Need.

2. Finding that the Department failed to comply with legal requirements set forth in Minn. Rule 7849.7050, subp. 3, for publishing notice “in a newspaper of local circulation” regarding the scope of environmental review at Certificate of Need.

3. Finding that the public meetings conducted by the Department pursuant to legal requirements set forth in Minn. Rule 7849.7050, subp. 3, were held at times and locations inconvenient to the public.

4. Finding that the Department allowed the Applicants to improperly exploit the Rule 7849.7050 public meeting process in an effort to divert citizens’ attention away from the Certificate of Need process and into an unsanctioned, Applicant controlled Route selection process.

5. Finding that the Department’s and the Applicants’ improper actions violated the due process rights of potentially-affected citizens in this proceeding.

6. Finding that Applicants, with the Department’s knowledge and acquiescence, are performing unofficial Route selection proceedings or activities that serve to confuse the public and dampen landowner participation in the pending Certificate
of Need regulatory process.

7. Ordering the Department to comply with legally required notice procedures and to conduct supplemental public meetings to cure the due process violations described herein.

8. Ordering that the Certificate of Need proceedings be stayed until the Applicants submit to a legitimate Routing process, and ordering consolidation of Certificate of Need and Route Permit proceedings.

9. In the alternative to motion point 8 above, estopping Applicants and the Department from performing any unofficial Route selection proceedings or activities during the pendency of this Certificate of Need regulatory proceeding.

The parties have ten WORKING days to respond:

Notice of time to respond to UCAN Motion

So, get to work!



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace