Appellate court affirms PUC in pipeline appeal

Filed under:Laws & Rules — posted by admin on June 11, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

The MinnCan pipeline case came down yesterday:

A07-1318 – In the Matter of the Application of a Minnesota Pipeline…

It’s one of those with a really long name:

In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Pipe Line Company for a Certificate of Need for a Crude Oil Pipeline and In the Matter of the Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a Pipeline Routing Permit for a Crude Oil Pipeline and Associated Aboveground Facilities.

Looks to me like this is a case that’s a foreshadowing of CapX, and then there’s Mesaba, Chisago, Big Stone II, Nashwauk. Here are a few choice quotes… sigh…

  • However, due-process requirements do not assure an opportunity to intervene as a party, only the opportunity to be heard.
  • Relators have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the rule directing notice in CON proceedings because the PUC ordered, and MPL provided, the same notice to landowners in these proceedings as that provided to HVTL landowners pursuant to Minn. R. 7829.2550. Relators’ equal-protection claim is without merit.
  • Given the findings by the ALJ regarding the greater economic, environmental, and safety impacts, and given the extent of our deference to the PUC within its area of expertise, the PUC’s decision not to forward the existing pipeline route as a formal alternative for contested-case proceedings was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
  • Because the construction of an alternative pipeline was not presented to the PUC, relators’ argument that it failed to consider such an alternative is without merit.
  • Relators fail to identify how any additional proof could be presented on the issue of cumulative effects other than MPL’s testimony that it has no plans for future pipeline addition. The PUC’s findings on cumulative effects were therefore not lacking.

Do you sense a circular pattern here? And now what is CapX if not cumulative impacts on top of this pipeline?

one comment so far »

  1. […] Appellate court affirms PUC in pipeline appeal […]

    Pingback by Legalectric » Blog Archive » Why is Keystone XL pipeline special? — August 30, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace