Brookings ALJ Recommendation is out

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket — posted by admin on December 22, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

The CapX 2020 ALJ’s Recommendation was just filed, here it is, haven’t read it yet.

ALJ Recommendation for Brookings CapX Transmission

ALJ Amendments to Findings of Fact

Call it what it is, another NON-DECISION!  “LeSueur, and if not LeSueur, then Belle Plaine.”

Oh, did I screw that up — and now reading it carefully, after skimming before, OH MY DOG!  I misread the Recommendation — that the line use the green “Modified Preferred” route to the “Gibbon crossover” (in pink on the map below — click it for a larger view) and then follow the blue “Alternate” route and cross near Belle Plaine, and continue on the blue “Alternate” route until it meets with the “Modified Preferred” route and continue eastward.  NO!!!  That’s not it.

Instead, it looks to me that he went with LeSueur anyway, even after Applicants backed away.  ???  And says, AGAIN, LeSueur, and if not, then Belle Plaine.”

Here is the clarification from the ALJ Amendments to Findings of Fact to yesterday’s “Recommendation” that the ALJ posted today:

amendmentsnippet

And so now he’s specifying an AERIAL crossing.  As if it couldn’t get any worse…

We now have 15 days to submit “Exceptions” to the Public Utilities Commission, meaning those parts of the Recommendation that we take exception to, and suggest other Findings and Conclusions.  Then the PUC sits on it until … whenever, usually at least a month, expect it to take longer for a decision as controversial as this one.  But then again, we may be surprised.  Particularly if the decisions already decided… we shall see.  There will probably be one day of argument and another for deliberation/decision, but that’s variable too.

Stay tuned!

2 comments »

  1. Actually, I don’t think the ALJ made any sort of recommendation. The report as I read it, basically said that there is no legal reason to exclude either route and that it is up to the Public Utilities Commission to do their due diligence and issue a permit.

    The language used in the “Recommendations” section was a little odd, but after reading it and the “Conclusions” sections a couple of times, I just don’t see that any strong recommendation was made.

    Comment by Neal W — December 23, 2010 @ 11:43 am

  2. Yes.. I was thrown by the language saying that Gibbon and Arlington cross overs met the criteria, but indeed, what he did was ANOTHER non-decision, non-recommendation, which the PUC I think is also going to try to duck. They have a procedural problem in that the “Myrick” route added on Dec. 15 last year as the public hearings were closing was not reviewed in the EIS and they cannot choose a route that is not in the EIS. Oddly too, MOES refused to do a supplemental EIS, which they have the option of doing, I raised that, but didn’t push it because that’s so unfair to the Myrick people who got dumped on last minute, I didn’t want to help them screw them over.

    This whole thing is so obscene…

    Comment by admin — December 23, 2010 @ 12:12 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