Kara Semmler, a staff attorney for the state Public Utilities Commission, wants a decision from the PUC’s three elected members about how they plan to proceed regarding the permit hearing schedule next month for the TransCanada XL crude-oil pipeline project. Attorneys for the landowners group Dakota Rural Action missed their first deadline to file documents and affidavits from their witnesses (known as pre-filed testimony). DRA requested an extension and the PUC gave DRA an extra two weeks. DRA didn’t file anything by that Sept. 22 deadline either. As of Friday morning, with still nothing from DRA lawyers Paul Blackburn and Caitlin Collier, Semmler wrote a letter to PUC executive director Patty Van Gerpen, requesting clarification from the PUC about the situation. Here’s the body of Semmler’s letter:
On June 30th, 2009, the Commission issued a Procedural Order after receiving no public comments. The
Order outlined the pre-hearing discovery and testimony process and set November 2 through 6 evidentiary hearing dates. Based on the Commission’s order, commission staff made arrangements with fifteen witnesses regarding availability. Eight out of town staff expert witnesses made necessary travel and lodging arrangements. The PUC reserved a hearing room, and contracted with a court reporter for the November hearing dates. The hearing is now less than thirty days away.
Despite the June procedural schedule and a subsequent extension, Dakota Rural Action has not yet filed
testimony. More concerning, however, Dakota Rural Action made statements that lead staff to believe it
may ultimately request the November hearing be rescheduled. To delay the hearing will cause substantial scheduling problems. It may be impossible at this late date to obtain a hearing room with the necessary webcast equipment. Additionally, Commission staff may contractually run into difficulties with its experts.
South Dakota code gives the commission a very limited time in which to consider this siting application.
Commission Staff believes it is necessary for the parties to be forthcoming regarding their position and asks the Commission to render a decision regarding whether the hearing will proceed as it was scheduled in June. Commission staff believes it is important and necessary to follow procedural schedules and urges the commission to enforce the current procedural schedule and hold the hearing as scheduled.
The matter now is on the PUC’s agenda for its Tuesday meeting.
Recent Comments