Current PLTF Lawsuit Against Xcel

On March 4, 2003, the Power Line Task Force sued Xcel to require it to obtain mandated permissions from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board before proceeding with construction of the SE Metro Line. 

The decision was rendered by the Dakota County District Court on December 1, 2003.  The Court found for Xcel and granted its petition for summary judgment.  A copy of the decision is reproduced here.  (This copy is created using text-recognition techniques that may therefore contain minor formatting errors.)  The decision is incredibly mistaken, containing numerous errors of fact and interpretation.  We will shortly post an analysis of these errors.

Here are excerpts from the relevant Minnesota Law.

Here is the complaint and the accompanying Interrogatory and Request for Production of Documents.  Xcel successfully petitioned the court to change the venue from Hennepin to Dakota county. 

Here is more information in Q&A format.

Here is the PLTF Brief and here is the Xcel Brief (page spacing may be slightly off.)  Here is the PLTF Reply Brief and here is Xcel's Reply to the PLTF Brief (again, the spacing on pages may be off, but the information is properly placed on pages.) 

Here is the last PLTF submission to the court and here is Xcel's final submission.  The case was heard by Judge Asphaug on September 15, 2003.  The judge found for Xcel.

The PLTF appealed and submitted its statement of the case.  Here is its Memorandum.  Xcel answered, of course.  The Task Force then entered its final reply.

. Xcel has begun installing the pylons and stringing the wires in Inver Grove Heights.  Here are pictures of the new pylons, and here are pictures of the construction process.

Xcel sent a supplementary letter to the Court on October 7, and the PLTF responded on October 24.  Both sides submitted supplementary exhibits.  The PLTF submitted Xcel's Writ of Mandamus for South St. Paul.  Pages 5, 6 and the last page of are particular interest.  It also submitted the original application to South St. Paul.  Finally, it submitted the letter Xcel sent to homeowners indicating that construction was about to begin.  Here is the Jackel case to which Xcel refers and here is the documentation that Xcel claims supports its notion that construction began before August 1, 2001.

The court requested both parties provide draft conclusions in law and findings of fact and a proposed order.  (We will also post Xcel's suggestions, when available.)

The suit was covered by the AP, Pioneer Press and Star Tribune.  Here is a copy of the press release.