Public Hearing Schedule for Xcel Rate Case
May 9th, 2016
The Public Utilities Commission has approved the Public Hearing Notice for the Xcel Energy Rate Case to be included in bills and publicized where ever. We’ve got some notice to get prepared:
Lo and behold, there’s one scheduled for Red Wing!! Thanks for small favors…
What are the issues in the rate case? Check the docket by going HERE TO PUC SEARCH DOCUMENTS PAGE, and search for docket 15-826.
A couple of things you might find interesting, I did, are some of the Direct Testimony filings.
In addition to whining about the grid being only 55% utilized (ummm, yes, we knew it wasn’t needed, but you went ahead and built it and now want us to pay through the nose, or other orifices, for your transmission for market export? ppppppbbbbbbft!), here’s the issue — prices have fallen, the market is down, down, down, and we’re conserving, using less, and so now they want us to pay more to make up for it, oh. Recap: Xcel Energy wants us to pay for the transmission over our land for their private profit, they want us to pay more because we’re using less, and they want us to make up for their poor business decisions… yeah, great idea.
This rate case and rate increase request is in large part transmission driven. Xcel wants to move from cost based rates to formula rates, and they want to shift transmission costs from the Construction Work in Progress recovery that was part of the deal leading to the 2005 Ch 97 – Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, with transmission perks, CWIP and Transmission Only Companies.
And then there’s the e21 Initiative, Xcel Energy’s effort leading up to the 2015 legislative session, and it seems that with the exception of AARP, only those who signed on to the e21 “Consensus” are allowed to intervene.
Great…
Lo and behold, there’s a public hearing scheduled for Red Wing!! Thanks for small favors… Mark the hearings on your calendar and show up. Before hand, do a little reading!
More Denial of Intervention in Xcel Rate Case
May 3rd, 2016
WOW… can you believe?? It’s not just me, it’s not just denial of Intervention of No CapX 2020. See 20162-118122-01_Denial2_Overland-NoCapX Intervention.
Intervention as a party in this Rate Case is only open to those who sold out to Xcel Energy and it’s “business plan” agenda of e21.
This is the most recent Order in the Xcel Energy Rate Case:
Here are their Intervention Petitions:
To see the full Rate Case docket, go to the PUC’s Search Documents page, and search for Docket 15-826.
And the Order… Dig this, parroting Xcel’s objections:
And this, even worse, as if the interests of the “Clean Energy Organizations” who bought into, stumped for, and sat quietly during the legislative hearings about Xcel Energy‘s e21 Initiative are the same as the interests of SunShare and Institute for Local Self-Reliance – ILSR:
This is SO offensive. There is no consideration that the perspectives are different, only statements that the issues, the concerns, are the same.
The late, great Myer Shark, rate case Intervenor extraordinaire, would spin in his grave at the limitations of participation in this rate case.
Myer Shark, Lawyer Who Fought Utility, Is Dead at 94
In the Matter of the Complaint by Myer Shark, et al …
Tours of Fort Peck Dam and Garrison Dam!
May 3rd, 2016
Did you know you can tour dams?!?! As a kid, we toured Ft. Peck, while visiting Hell Creek campground, the name oh-so-apt. And Hoover dam, which I remember better, this was SO long ago… And knowing how I love utility infrastructure, I’m trying to arrange tours. We shall see! And SUCCESS!!!! We get to tour Fort Peck Dam! Is this cool or what?!?!?
Alan Muller on Red Wing’s garbage ash “mining”
April 30th, 2016
U of M Humphrey “report” on CapX 2020
April 28th, 2016
It’s out, the report from U of M Humphrey School of Public Affairs about CapX 2020, headlining it as a “Model for addressing climate change.“
Transmission Planning and CapX 2020: Building Trust to Build Regional Transmission Systems
Oh, please, this is all about coal, and you know it. This is all about enabling marketing of electricity. In fact, Xcel’s Tim Carlsbad testified most honestly that CapX 2020 was not for wind! That’s because electrical energy isn’t ID’d by generation source, as Jimbo Alders also testified, and under FERC, discrimination in generation sources is not allowed, transmission must serve whatever is there. And the report early on, p. 4, notes:
Both North and South Dakota have strong wind resources and North Dakota also has low-BTU lignite
coal resources that it wants to continue to use. New high-voltage transmission lines are needed to
support the Dakotas’ ability to export electricity to neighboring states.See also: ICF-Independent Assessment MISO Benefits
Anyway, here it is, and it’s much like Phyllis Reha’s puff piece promoting CapX 2020 years ago while she was on the Public Utilities Commission, that this is the model other states should use:
MN PUC Commissioner Reha’s Feb 15 2006 presentation promoting CapX 2020
So put on your waders and reading glasses and have at it.
Here’s the word on the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell – Chapter 97 – Revisor of Statutes that gave Xcel and Co. just what they wanted, transmission as a revenue stream:
And note how opposition is addressed, countered by an organization that received how much to promote transmission. This is SO condescending:
… and opposition discounted because it’s so technical, what with load flow studies, energy consumption trends, how could we possibly understand? We couldn’t possibly understand… nevermind that the decreased demand we warned of, and which demonstrated lack of need, was the reality that we were entering in 2008.
And remember Steve Rakow’s chart of demand, entered at the very end of the Certificate of Need hearing when demand was at issue??? In addition to NO identification of axis values, the trend he promoted, and which was adopted by the ALJ and Commission, has NOT happened, and instead Xcel is adjusting to the “new normal” and whining that the grid is only 55% utilized in its e21 and rate case filings. Here’s Steve Rakow’s chart:
Reality peak demand trajectory was lower than Rakow’s “slow growth” line, in fact, it’s the opposite from 2007 to present. Suffice it to say:
