Xcel’s response to NoCapX’s LaCrosse filings

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on February 24, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

Here we go. Tomorrow is the PUC meeting, where the completeness, public advisor and Citizen Task Forces will be addressed.  You can watch online by CLICKING HERE and then click the small navy blue “Watch Webcast” button.

There are three questions on the agenda tomorrow:

  • Should the Commission accept the route permit application as complete?
  • If complete and accepted, should the Commission allow EFP to name a public advisor?
  • Should the Commission authorize EFP to develop a charge and convene an advisory task force?

As you know, MOES staff filed these comments:

MOES Staff Briefing Papers – CapX LaX

HA-RUMPH!!  sO Yesterday we fired off a few shots across the bow:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Comment on Completeness

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Petition for Intervention

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Petition for Order for Joint Environmental Review

And today, Xcel fired off this Reply, stating we’ve got our collective heads implanted regarding the statutory requirement of two distinct routes, and that the state’s MOES and federal RUS should work together on a joint Environmental Impact Statement.  And on the other hand, they have no issue with multiple Task Forces and our Intervention:

Xcel’s Response to NoCapX 2020 Motion

A couple of hours before that, Paula Maccabee sent this in as an individual, not in the course of representing anyone on this LaCrosse part of CapX:

Maccabee Letter to PUC – LaCrosse Routing Feb 24 2010

And it’s my understanding that several have asked for Citizen Task Forces along different parts of the route.  We’ll see.   Maybe you will too!  Again, to watch online, CLICK HERE and then click the small navy blue “Watch Webcast” button.

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



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace