There’s been some interesting legal maneuvering taking place with regard to the appeal of phase one (U-16838), which we wrote about last week. Enbridge has filed a reply brief to the appeal and they’ve also asked to have the appeal dismissed. Counsel for those who filed the appeal has filed a reply to Enbridge’s reply (I told you it was legal maneuvering). It’s all pretty interesting stuff for law geeks.
A couple of issues at play involve (a) whether someone can be considered an aggrieved party for purposes of an appeal if that person was not a party to the original case; and (b) whether the law allows appellants to remain anonymous. Enbridge, obviously, says no and no.
We hope the Court of Appeals will disagree with Enbridge on both points, neither of which is directly relevant to real basis of the appeal: whether the MPSC’s Notice of Hearing was defective.
The appeal is probably a long shot, but we’re remaining hopeful. A decision is likely to come down from the Court of Appeals this week. Stay tuned.