Xcel Rate Case Hearings on Tuesday & Wednesday
July 17th, 2016
There are a few more hearings for Xcel Energy’s rate case coming up:
Who cares about this rate case? Center for American Experiment does, but it’s a pretty myopic view, claiming that “Renewable Mandate Drives New Increase in Utility Bills.” Wish they’d read the testimony. Anyway, you all should care because this is a transmission driven rate case (see 2A2_MYRP_Chuck Burdick Testimony p. 28-30; 2C2_Xmsn_Benson) Greasing the skids was a consensus agreement reached by Xcel Energy on many issues, including Xcel’s proposal for a “Multi-Year Rate” plan prior to legislation being introduced to give Xcel what it wanted:
Exhibit 1B – e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014 – Xcel Filing PUC Docket 14-1055
Note this snippet, where they’re whining that their grid is only 55% utilized:
(N) Identify and develop opportunities to reduce customer costs by improving overall grid efficiency. In Minnesota, the total electric system utilization is approximately 55 percent (average demand divided by peak demand), thus providing an opportunity to reduce system costs by better utilizing existing system assets (e.g., generation, wires, etc.). (e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report, p. 11).
Well, DOH, we know that CapX 2020 wasn’t needed, we know the purpose was evident in the map starting at the Dakota coal fields, and putting it on our land wasn’t enough (for those who think it’s “for wind” no, it’s not, what a crock, you should have heard the testimony, seen the exhibits, the record demonstrates it isn’t, www.nocapx2020.info), now they want a whole new scheme for us to pay for their infrastructure to sell coal eastward?
For some reason, this docket disappeared… wonder who all on this consensus e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report made that happen!?!
Or maybe the e21 Project Team?
Does anyone else care that Matt Schuerger, most recent Dayton appointee to the Public Utilities Commission, was instrumental in working the e21 scam? Shouldn’t he have to recuse himself from any consideration of Xcel Energy’s e21 Initiative rate case?
And look at Bill Grant’s role in e21. He’s now Deputy Commissioner at Commerce in charge of energy issues, and was for 20+ years head of Midwest Izaak Walton League (working over then employee Beth Solholt and IWLA employee, now PUC Commissioner, Nancy Lange). Given Nancy Lange’s role in e21, she should also recuse herself.
And then there’s Mikey Bull’s role, as he recounts, and look who all is involved:
The e21 Initiative started as little more than a glimmer in my eye a couple of years ago, when I was a Manager of Policy and Strategy for Xcel Energy. I’d just come back from a meeting at the Edison Electric Institute about the impact of various dynamics – low load growth, increasing infrastructure investments, deeper penetrations of distributed resources – on the current utility business model. In general, rates were going to rise under the current model far faster as a result of those forces, and utility revenues become more uncertain.
Those dynamics were later chronicled in the Disruptive Challenges report issued by the Edison Electric Institute in January 2013. I realized that it was important for Xcel to try and get out ahead of the curve.
So I reached out from Xcel to Rolf Nordstrom at the Great Plains Institute and Nancy Lange then at CEE (now a Minnesota PUC commissioner), to start putting the e21 project together. Rolf and I worked to put a strong core project team together – CEE, Great Plains, Xcel Energy, Minnesota Power, George Washington University Law School and consultant Matt Schuerger. We then compiled a terrific group of stakeholders who together represent much of what constitutes the public interest – low income customer advocates, small and large business representatives, utilities, environmental organization, cities and other public entities, and regulators. Beginning last February, this group of 25-30 stakeholders met monthly for day-long sessions that were wonderfully facilitated by Rolf and Jennifer Christenson, his colleague at GPI, toiling together deep in the weeds of utility regulation.
It was an honor to work with all of them, as we coalesced around the set of consensus recommendations detailed in the report.
Here’s the full recap:
The legislation, SF1735, well, check the links below, and you can see how that went down. I was there, seeing is believing. First it was introduced, but despite the full room of SILENT “usual suspects” who had acquiesced to e21, and only a couple of us objecting to the bill, Sen. John Marty pulled it from consideration, initially on the Senate Energy and Environment Committee same days as legislative extension of the Getty and Black Oak wind contracts (the project couldn’t do it before the PUC so they go to the legislature), stuck in a placeholder “e21 Lite” and then put it in later as part of the Energy Ominous Bill, SF 1431:
- the problems with SF 1735… March 18th, 2015
- Bill to extend Getty/Black Oak wind contracts? (e21 discussed at this Committee meeting) March 24th, 2015
- SF 1735 – SHAME on each Senator who voted for it (in the Energy Ominous Bill) May 5th, 2015
These issues were raised, e21 marches onward, and here we are, in a rate case.
Public participation? Tough in Xcel rate case
July 14th, 2016
Last night there was a hearing in Mankato on the Xcel Energy rate case (Docket E002/GR-15-826). Public participation in Public Utilities Commission dockets is supposed to be a happenin’ thang… But there were no witnesses to question yesterday at the public hearing, and the Xcel representative who was there could not answer questions. Worse, there was no commitment to have witnesses available to the public at the public hearings, and only advice that the public could attend the evidentiary hearing. ATTEND?!? When might we be able to question witnesses?
Sent this Data Practices Act Request this morning to round up the Information Requests and Responses regarding transmission, transmission riders, MISO and FERC:
Xcel Energy wants to shift its transmission rate recovery from CWIP and AFUDC to general rates, but there was no one there to talk about it. These are the MVP projects at issue, in Schedule 26A, below, which are worked into MISO tariff and FERC blessed:
And here’s the projects in Schedule 26, below, but hmmmm, no project costs shown (click for larger view):
I entered these exhibits:
Exhibit 1A – XcelCover_e21_Request for Planning Meeting and Dialogue – PUC Docket 14-1055
Exhibit 1B – e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014 – Xcel Filing PUC Docket 14-1055
Exhibit 2_MISO Schedule 26A Indicative Annual Charges_02262014
Exhibit 3 – FERC EL-14-12-002_ALJ Order – ROE on MISO Transmission
Next meeting I’ll have some more:
e21_MikeBull_Center for Energy and Environment
MISO Schedule 26 Indicative Annual Charges
1Q_Earnings Release Presentation_5-9-2016_1500085150
Investor Presentation – NYC-Boston_3-1-2=16_1001207698
Back to last night’s hearing…
Check the rules about public participation:
1400.6200 INTERVENTION IN PROCEEDINGS AS PARTY.
Another, the PUC practice rules:
And yet another:
And this one (though they’ll say it isn’t applicable because a rate case isn’t part o the Power Plant Siting Act):
1405.0800 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
At all hearings conducted pursuant to parts1405.0200 to 1405.2800, all persons will be allowed and encouraged to participate without the necessity of intervening as parties. Such participation shall include, but not be limited to:
“Consent-based” nuclear waste siting?
July 13th, 2016
The DOE is hosting a meeting on “consent-based” nuclear waste siting? Who are stakeholders? What does it take to become a “stakeholder?” Who has legitimate authority to give consent for storing nuclear waste? Who would agree? And who would agree and on whose behalf, i.e., City of Red Wing, Goodhue County agreeing on behalf of those of us living here? AAAAAAAAACK!?!?! And given how the Minnesota legislature has dealt with nuclear waste, mandating siting “in Goodhue County.”
DOE Meeting
Thursday, July 21 from 5-9 p.m.
Hilton – 1001 Marquette
Minneapolis
From the south, hop on light rail at Ft. Snelling, and transfer or hoof it down to 10th & Marquette.
If you can’t make the meeting, check the Invitation for Public Comment in the Federal Register and email Comments to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov by July 31, 2016.
Info available online at energy.gov/consentbasedsiting and the DOE’s informational booklet.
From the DOE:
Philando Castile — dead. What’re we going to do about it?
July 7th, 2016
Philando Castile. Another police shooting death, another police murder. How do we turn this around? Why do police officers have their hands on their guns, and not tasers? Was nothing learned from Jamar Clark’s shooting? It goes beyond a matter of prosecuting the shooters, it goes beyond training, it goes to the fear, profiling, and systemic racism that triggers these shootings by police. Again, how do we turn that around?
What to do, what can be done… and it seems to me here’s a start: It’s time for systemic change to address the race/class/religious profiling and fear, for police protocol putting tasers as the first option (not guns), training all police officers on the use of deescalation techniques, raising the legal threshold for justifiable use of force, and a serious look at police psych testing and reevaluation of criteria for hiring. After the fact, we need an independent investigation, truth, and restorative justice process. Attend vigils and demonstrations, particularly us white folks. We can push in all venues, and action sure helps the existential angst!
A vigil for Castile being planned for 5:30 p.m. today at J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School, where he worked and was well-respected. He was a cafeteria supervisor there and had worked St. Paul Public Schools since 2002.
Diamond (used Lavish fb account) Reynolds, Castile’s girlfriend, recorded this right after the shooting last night and posted it to facebook — facebook disappeared it for a while, but it’s back, and even the STrib has posted it, that probably won’t disappear.
The whole world is watching… It’s gone national, the police murder of Philando Castile, pulled over for a tail light out, and shot while sitting in his car while following directive of police to produce his license and reaching for his wallet.
From the New York Times:
Philando Castile Shooting in Minnesota Leads Governor to Seek U.S. …
And NPR:
‘I’m Outraged’: Mother Of Philando Castile, Slain By Police, Speaks Out …
Who was Philando Castile? From the St. Paul School District:
“Saint Paul Public Schools and its staff grieve the tragic death of a former student and current employee, Philando Castile.
He graduated from Central High School in 2001 and had worked for Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS) since he was 19 years old, beginning in 2002, in the Nutrition Services Department.
Mr. Castile was promoted to a supervisory position two years ago and was currently working in one of our schools during the summer term.
Colleagues describe him as a team player who maintained great relationships with staff and students alike. He had a cheerful disposition and his colleagues enjoyed working with him. He was quick to greet former coworkers with a smile and hug.
One coworker said, “Kids loved him. He was smart, over-qualified. He was quiet, respectful, and kind. I knew him as warm and funny; he called me his ‘wing man.’ He wore a shirt and tie to his supervisor interview and said his goal was to one day ‘sit on the other side of this table.’”
Those who worked with him daily said he will be greatly missed.”
And thanks to the STrib for posting a transcript of Diamond Reynolds’ video:
Officer: Ma’am, keep your hands where they are.
Reynolds: He just got his arm shot off. We got pulled over on Larpenteur.
Officer: I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his head up.
Reynolds: Please don’t tell me my boyfriend just went like that.
Officer: Keep your hands where they are please.
Officer: Get the female passenger out.
Reynolds: Where’s my daughter? You got my daughter?”
Officer: Let me see your purse. You have any weapons or anything?
Reynolds: Could you please get my phone for me?
Other officer: I’ll talk to my supervisor.
Reynolds: It’s right there it’s on the floor. It’s right there.
Other officer: Could you just stand here sweetie?
Child: I want to get my mommy’s purse.
Other officer: I’ll take care of that OK? Just stand right here for me.
Reynolds: Stay right here. Before you take the handcuffs off of me can you [inaudible]
Other officer: Can you search her before [inaudible]? I can’t it’s got to be processed OK?
Reynolds: Come here (to child).
Other officer: Is that your phone?
Reynolds: I can’t believe they just did this I’m [expletive] [screams].
Child: It’s OK, I’m right here with you.
Reynolds:[Cries]
Reynolds: Y’all please pray for us Jesus please y’all. I ask everybody on Facebook everybody that’s watching everybody that’s tuned in please pray for us. Sister I know I just dropped you off but I need you to pick me up I need [inaudible] to call my phone.
Peaking gas generator for Rochester
July 6th, 2016
Way back during the CapX 2020 proceeding, it became clear that Rochester Public Utilities planned to build gas generation just west of town, at the “Westside” site. But this was downplayed, and ignored by the ALJ, because it would be evidence that CapX 2020 wasn’t “needed.” And of course demand was way down, which we knew but which was also ignored, and that was one more reason CapX 2020 wasn’t needed. The Rochester gas generation was delayed.
But recently they announced the new gas pipeline around the city, and now, the gas plant. Today, from the MPCA:
Intent to Construct Air Emission Permit for Rochester Public Utilities Westside
PUBLIC NOTICE – 10901028-101 – 2016.pdf
Open for public comment through Thursday, August 4, 2016
MPCA requests/expects certain things to be addressed in Comments, “you must state” per the MPCA:
(1) Your interest in the permit application or the draft permit.
(2) The action you wish the MPCA to take, including specific references to the section of the draft permit you believe should be changed.
(3) The reasons supporting your position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the MPCA to investigate the merits of the position.
Send Comments to:
Rachel Yucuis
Industrial Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651-757-2863
Email: rachel.yucuis@state.mn.us