But PUC on eminent domain... TransCanada gets partial ruling

The PUC has ruled to partially grant TransCanada's motion to exclude testimony on eminent domain. They find that the PUC is not in a position to rule on whether eminent domain is legal in this case. However, the PUC denies the general motion and will hear testimony in general about TransCanada's conduct in dealing with landowners. Says the PUC, testimony relative to company conduct in its dealing with landowners is "relevant to the social and economic impacts of the project." Of course, both TransCanada and the interveners can raise objections to specific questions and statements as the hearing goes on.

Below are my notes from the live broadcast of the discussion that eld to this partial ruling:

Oh no -- Kara Semmler of the PUC staff says she doesn't feel the eminent domain issues are relevant to this PUC hearing.

Curt Moeckly from Britton speaks up to say it is. He speaks of dealing with the TransCanada representatives, argues that the place of this hearing is to give the state chance to act in the interest of SOuth Dakota's landowners. "Everything is relevant in light of the fact that this foreign company attempts to come here and take our land." he argues that the PUC can make a valid decision only if it hears everything that TransCanada has attempted to do in this state. TransCanada has to be responsible for its actions, and the PUC needs to hear about it.

Curt Hohn of WEB Water District: four burdens of proof, one is socioeconomic, and having land taken is an impact on landowners. 18 landowners currently face condemnation, possibly hundreds will. PUC can level playing field and allow everyone to speak. We have to live with what's done for 50 years; you'd think we'd have a little time now to listen to everyone's concerns. Give a few minutes to the landowners.

Mr. Smith comment to TransCanada lawyer Koenecke: TransCanada must show that they won't cause significant harm to social and economic situation. To me at some level, I would think that those relationship probably have some relevance. Some testimony read so far on eminent domain perhaps just pure questions of law, not suitable for evidence here, but in terms of the actual landowner relationship, actions, in terms of speaking to how the company, the applicant does things, I might have to agree with the interveners.

Sounds like Commissioner Dusty Johnson: is there a way we can focus testimony toward the main issues of concern? Mr. Smith recommends making rulings on specific questions; applicant and interveners have right to raise objections to specific questions throughout the hearing; better than blanket ruling.

Johnson asks if there's any value in making some sort of opening directory ruling. Smith says this commission is not here to determine whether TransCanada is a common carrier... but in some other states, the law does not read that way. SD PUC just isn't involved in landowner acquisition, just in approving construction, moving dirt. It's up to the courts to determine whether the Legislature has given companies the authority to use eminent domain.

Smith suggests partial motion could exclude testimony about legality of eminent domain. However, with respect to the general subject of conduct of the company, that testimony "is at least relevant and we'll deal with it on a case by case basis."

Smith says will grant motion in limine with respect to availability of eminent domain but deny the motion with respect to general questions and testimony relative to company conduct in its dealing with landowners. "That's relevant to the social and economic impacts of the project."

Compensation? Smith says PUC doesn't have authority to deal with that issue. The court -- the jury -- will decide what constitutes sufficient compensation.