WI CapX docket – Clean Wisconsin tries to intervene out of time

Filed under:Wisconsin — posted by admin on September 28, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

wake-up
Clean Wisconsin has woken up, but why?  What got their attention sufficient to push a “Request to Intervene Out of Time” recently?

Clean Wisconsin Request to Intervene Out of Time

Their vacuous Request sure didn’t say anything, so I fired off an Objection, because I want to know what the “new information and issues have arisen” are that they’re claiming.

Objection to Request of Clean Wisconsin

So they filed this, which is as vacuous:

Response to NoCapX 2020 Objection

And so then I asked again for something of substance:

Reply to Response to No CapX 2020’s Objection to Clean Wisconsin’s Intervention Out of Time

We shall see…

And yes, we are seeing, the emails back and forth, to and fro, are interesting, and what’s missing is even more interesting… there has yet to be a simple disclosure of the “new information and issues” that “have arisen” spurring the intervention and identification of “good cause” why the intervention is late, two, nearly three months late!  Why is this so difficult?

chimp_scratching_head

Here’s what the PSC considers when there’s a late request to intervene:

PSC 2.21  Intervention.

(1)  Intervention by right. A person whose substantial interests may be affected by the commission’s action or inaction in a proceeding shall be admitted as an intervenor.

(2) Permissive intervention. A person not satisfying the criteria of sub. (1) may nevertheless intervene in a proceeding or docket if the person’s participation likely will promote the proper disposition of the issues to be determined in the proceeding or docket and if the person’s participation will not impede the timely completion of the proceeding or docket.

(3) Procedure. A person requesting intervention in a proceeding shall file a request no later than 60 days after the issuance of the notice of proceeding, or within a different time set by the administrative law judge at the final prehearing conference. A person requesting intervention in a docket shall file a request no later than 60 days after the opening of the docket, or within a different time set by the commission at the time it opens the docket.

(4) Intervention out of time.
(a) If a person fails to request intervention within the time prescribed in sub. (3), the person must request to intervene out of time. In acting on such a request, the commission or administrative law judge may consider all of the following:
1. Whether the requestor had good cause for failing to file the request within the prescribed time.
2. Whether any disruption of the proceeding or docket may result from permitting intervention.
3. If any prejudice to, or additional burdens upon, the existing parties may result from permitting the intervention.

And apparently they don’t like the “cartoons.”  Oh… OK… whatever…

rats-ass

Fargo- Xcel’s minor route changes & PUC rejects late Reconsideration

Filed under:Fargo-St Cloud — posted by admin on @ 2:45 pm

There’s also been some things happening on the Fargo route.  The decision came down some time ago, June 23, 2011, with some additional time for Reconsideration because the state was shut down.  Route changes first.  Xcel filed a HUGE packet of minor route changes, minor in the cosmic realm of things, but awfully important to those affected:

Xcel Route Adjustments:

Cover Letter Requesting Amendment 20119-66518-01

2 – 3 20119-66518-02

4- 5 20119-66518-03

6 8 9W 20119-66518-04

9C 20119-66518-05

11-13 20119-66518-06

15 20119-66518-07 (at issue in Undersander filings below)

And here are the Motions for Amendment of Permit, PUC’s Rejection as untimely, and Undersander’s Response:

Undersander 20119-66344-01

Eikmeier 20119-66344-02

Undersander2 20119-66344-03

Weisbrich 20119-66344-04

Richert O’Neil 20119-66344-05

PUC Haar’s Letter- rejecting as untimely:

PUC Letter to Undersander, et al 20119-66560-01

And then the plot thickens:

Undersannder Reply to PUC’s Haar 20119-66620-01

Will keep you posted with any additional filings!  I want to see what that “AG investigation” means!

Briefs in on Hampton-LaCrosse in MN

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on @ 1:08 pm

Whew, been too long since I’ve posted someting.  Had a computer crash and two briefs due, and trying to get the house done before fall, eeeeeeuw, snorting way too many woodwork stripper fumes these days!!!

finished-office-1 finished-office-2

One down, and the next room is almost done.

Briefs are in on the Hampton-LaCrosse line in Minnesota, and Reply Briefs are due soon:

NRG – Initial Brief

Oronoco – Initial Brief

Xcel – Initial Brief

Agency f/k/a MOES – Initial non-Brief



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace