In Re Northern States Power Company (Nsp) Wilmarth Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Northern States Power Company (Nsp) Wilmarth Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility

459 N.W.2d 922, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 282, 1990 WL 127219

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 31, 1990

DocketC6-89-1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 459 N.W.2d 922 (In Re Northern States Power Company (Nsp) Wilmarth Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Northern States Power Company (Nsp) Wilmarth Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility, 459 N.W.2d 922, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 282, 1990 WL 127219 (Mich. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

WAHL, Justice.

We granted the petitions of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Northern *923 States Power Company to review an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing a decision of the MPCA that denied the request of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned with Protecting Environmental Quality (hereafter MCCPEQ) for a contested case hearing and issued a permit for the construction and operation of a refuse-derived fuel ash storage facility. We reverse.

In our view, while there are obvious factual distinctions, the question of entitlement to a contested case hearing is governed by our recent decision in Matter of Air Emission Facility Permit, 454 N.W.2d 427 (Minn.1990). There, we considered and discussed Minn.R. 7001.0130, subp. 1 (1989) and concluded that it was “simply not enough to raise questions or pose alternatives without some showing that evidence can be produced which is contrary to the action proposed by the agency.” Id. at 430. In this regard, the MCCPEQ has not sustained its burden of demonstrating entitlement to the contested case hearing.

Our review of the extensive record developed during the course of the multiple proceedings prior to issuance of the permit leads to the conclusion that the agency decision was supported by the requisite substantial evidence. Id. (citing with approval Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 825 (Minn.1977)). Moreover, the MCCPEQ was actively involved throughout the proceedings, submitting considerable dates and raising concerns about each aspect of the permitting process and its results.

Because the record demonstrates substantial evidence to support MPCA’s permit decision and because the record does not demonstrate entitlement to a contested case hearing, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed.

Reversed and permit reinstated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WAHL, Justice.

We granted the petitions of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Northern *923 States Power Company to review an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing a decision of the MPCA that denied the request of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned with Protecting Environmental Quality (hereafter MCCPEQ) for a contested case hearing and issued a permit for the construction and operation of a refuse-derived fuel ash storage facility. We reverse.

In our view, while there are obvious factual distinctions, the question of entitlement to a contested case hearing is governed by our recent decision in Matter of Air Emission Facility Permit, 454 N.W.2d 427 (Minn.1990). There, we considered and discussed Minn.R. 7001.0130, subp. 1 (1989) and concluded that it was “simply not enough to raise questions or pose alternatives without some showing that evidence can be produced which is contrary to the action proposed by the agency.” Id. at 430. In this regard, the MCCPEQ has not sustained its burden of demonstrating entitlement to the contested case hearing.

Our review of the extensive record developed during the course of the multiple proceedings prior to issuance of the permit leads to the conclusion that the agency decision was supported by the requisite substantial evidence. Id. (citing with approval Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 825 (Minn.1977)). Moreover, the MCCPEQ was actively involved throughout the proceedings, submitting considerable dates and raising concerns about each aspect of the permitting process and its results.

Because the record demonstrates substantial evidence to support MPCA’s permit decision and because the record does not demonstrate entitlement to a contested case hearing, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed.

Reversed and permit reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 N.W.2d 922, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 282, 1990 WL 127219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-northern-states-power-company-nsp-wilmarth-industrial-solid-waste-minn-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack