Over the years, I've worked with lots of different transmission opposition groups. Each one claims its own state government is the most corrupt. But I've never found a clear winner of The Most Corrupt State Government Award... until now. I think we've finally crossed that line with a clear winner. It's Wisconsin.
Watching the PSC Commissioners discuss Cardinal Hickory Creek yesterday, I smelled it coming. Such platitudes for citizens who gave it their all to demonstrate the project is neither needed nor economic. The more Commissioners loved the citizens, the tighter they were winding up to stab them in the back. Then there was the announcement that no audience participation or outbursts would be tolerated during the discussion. Clues, clues... someone call Sherlock Holmes!
Good ol' Sherlock probably would have deduced that it was all a farce. Did the Commissioners really read the entire evidentiary record? Or did they make a snap political decision completely outside the record?
I'm going to guess it was the latter. Opponents expressed shock and disgust at the Commission's decision. The evidence proved the project was not needed or economic. They had been feeling rather confident.
But is it really ever about the evidence? State utility commissions want you to believe their stilted court-like process is fair. For the most part, it is, while it is underway. Judges have to follow the law. The evidentiary record is built from all sorts of contradictory evidence. But it's often not for the judge to decide, or even make a recommendation. Such is the case in Wisconsin, where the Commissioners hold court long after the administrative hearing process concludes, pretend they have studied the evidence in depth, and then make a decision on the project. Then it's up to the judge and/or staff to construct an order using evidence from the record to back up the decision the Commissioners have made.
It's completely ass backwards. It's not that the Commissioners carefully weigh the evidence in order to reach their decision. They reach their decision and then expects the "facts" to back it up to be teased out of the record by the staff writing the Order.
How would just such a system work in a civil or criminal court? What if someone else who didn't even attend your trial made a decision unrelated to the evidence? Would that be due process?
Stories about the PSCW's Cardinal Hickory Creek approval yesterday stated:
Watching the PSC Commissioners discuss Cardinal Hickory Creek yesterday, I smelled it coming. Such platitudes for citizens who gave it their all to demonstrate the project is neither needed nor economic. The more Commissioners loved the citizens, the tighter they were winding up to stab them in the back. Then there was the announcement that no audience participation or outbursts would be tolerated during the discussion. Clues, clues... someone call Sherlock Holmes!
Good ol' Sherlock probably would have deduced that it was all a farce. Did the Commissioners really read the entire evidentiary record? Or did they make a snap political decision completely outside the record?
I'm going to guess it was the latter. Opponents expressed shock and disgust at the Commission's decision. The evidence proved the project was not needed or economic. They had been feeling rather confident.
But is it really ever about the evidence? State utility commissions want you to believe their stilted court-like process is fair. For the most part, it is, while it is underway. Judges have to follow the law. The evidentiary record is built from all sorts of contradictory evidence. But it's often not for the judge to decide, or even make a recommendation. Such is the case in Wisconsin, where the Commissioners hold court long after the administrative hearing process concludes, pretend they have studied the evidence in depth, and then make a decision on the project. Then it's up to the judge and/or staff to construct an order using evidence from the record to back up the decision the Commissioners have made.
It's completely ass backwards. It's not that the Commissioners carefully weigh the evidence in order to reach their decision. They reach their decision and then expects the "facts" to back it up to be teased out of the record by the staff writing the Order.
How would just such a system work in a civil or criminal court? What if someone else who didn't even attend your trial made a decision unrelated to the evidence? Would that be due process?
Stories about the PSCW's Cardinal Hickory Creek approval yesterday stated:
According to PSC records dating back to the 1970s, the commission has never rejected a utility application to build a transmission line.
Never rejected an application. Never. Ya got a problem, Wisconsin. Your PSC is broken. Your PSC is broken because your political system is broken. Cardinal Hickory Creek was approved because of politics.
But did these earnest, hard working citizens waste their time? Absolutely not. They stand ready to continue the fight, and they will be more determined and better prepared for the next time.
But did these earnest, hard working citizens waste their time? Absolutely not. They stand ready to continue the fight, and they will be more determined and better prepared for the next time.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
RSS Feed