Legalectric

UPDATE – April 19: Now there’s a Notice 0f Comment Period:

Comments are due by May 15 — see Notice 0f Comment Period  for particulars.

Last Tuesday, there was an “Informational Meeting” where Xcel Energy was allowed to present its plan for an “Alternate Rate Design” to the Commission.  Nevermind that there is an “Alternate Rate Design” PUC Docket 15-662 and there’s an ongoing rate case right now, PUC Docket 15-826.  No, Xcel gets to circumvent all that, and get special time before the Commission.

The Office of the Attorney General registered a complaint, raised some pertinent questions (OAG-RUD_Letter_20174-130495-01) and asked that the meeting be cancelled:

Pretty simple concept, but noooooo… the meeting went forward.  And Chair Lange’s position was that we’d deal with the Attorney General’s Office’s objections AFTER the presentation by Xcel — it was absurd.

At the outset, I jumped in and requested that Chair Lange and Commissioner Schuerger recuse themselves due to their work in putting together Xcel’s e21 Initiative:

Here’s the full post with background on that:

e21_MikeBull_Center for Energy and Environment

Well, that request to recuse went over like a lead balloon…

And when “discussing” this with the Asst. A.G., one Commissioner said, essentially, “Well, Xcel Energy will file its proposal, a docket will be opened, and you can just intervene in that docket.”  NOPE, no way, that’s not how it works, intervention is NOT to be assumed, presumed, and no way is that a legitimate rationale for allowing Xcel Energy’s presentation time before the Commission.

What did Xcel have to say?  Not much of substance:

20174-130765-01_Xcel_Presentation

But note that Xcel proposes for this process to be orchestrated by CEE and Great Plains Institute… AGAIN!

Remember the OAG-RUD’s_Letter that any rate design should be an INDEPENDENT process, not one orchestrated by Xcel Energy (and/or its toadies).

Anyway, back to the notion of intervention… We’ve been having problems with OAH limiting interventions, unduly limiting public participation, for some time now:

More Denial of Intervention in Xcel Rate Case

May 3rd, 2016

2nd Petition for Intervention in Xcel Rate Case

January 25th, 2016

Rate Case – Response filed to Xcel’s Objection to Intervention

January 6th, 2016

Just recently in a Minnesota Power rate case, there have been two examples of unreasonable denial, that of Minnesota CUB and AARP:

CUB_Denial_20174-130756-01

Denial_AARP_20174-130739-01

Both of these were cases where there were NO objections to their intervention by any party, and yet the ALJ denied intervention, claiming that their interests were “identical” to those of already admitted intervenors.  WHAT?

To be continued… In the meantime, work on those comments in the “Alternative Rate Design” docket:

Notice 0f Comment Period:

Comments are due by May 15 — see Notice 0f Comment Period.

Xcel Energy has released its 2016 SEC 10-K, and here is the number I care most about, the peak demand, incorporated into the chart above:

“Peak Demand” is the number they use to attempt to justify “need” for all sorts of abhorrent and expensive infrastructure, particularly infrastructure of the transmission variety.  Here are the specifics in megawatts (MW):

As Xcel Energy’s Ben Fowkes says, this is the “new normal.”  From the Seeking Alpha transcript of the XEL Earnings Call, January 31, 2013. 

So I think the economies are in decent shape across all our jurisdictions. Doesn’t necessarily mean it translates to high sales growth. And that’s consistent with our forecast. I mean, we’re not anticipating that we’re going to see a tremendous rebound in sales, even as the economies start to improve. I mean, I think, that’s our new normal, frankly.

Hence, they’re looking for other ways to make money, which they found in transmission, specifically CapX 2020 transmission, which was justified with this chart from MN Dept. of Commerce’s Steve Rakow, in his bar napkin depiction of the ups and down of peak demand:

Compare this drunken-dream drawing with the actual peak demand above — doesn’t look at all similar, does it.  Nevertheless, we’ve been stuck with over $2 billion in transmission infrastructure build-out which we’re just starting to pay for, and just starting to see show up in rate cases.  People are just now starting to get a feel for the economic impact, as if the environmental and quality-of-life impact isn’t bad enough…

Meanwhile, after going through years and years over CapX 2020, followed by the MISO MVP 17 project portfolio, now under construction, MISO wants to spring another bunch of projects on us. Their “Transmission Overlay.”  Yeah, right…

Here’s the list, in a spreadsheet:

20170131 EPUG Preliminary Overlay Ideas List

This is the MN, WI, SD, ND and some IA wish list weeded out from that spreadsheet (click for a larger version):

They want to add all of this, nevermind that Xcel is whining in its e21_Initiative that only 55% of the grid is not 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).

And they want to build more?  MORE?!?!

And they want to ram it through even though it’s not needed, just like CapX 2020 transmission?  As if Obama’s RRTT wasn’t enough, pushing CapX 2020 Hampton-La Crosse transmission line:

Obama “fast tracks” CapX Hampton-LaCrosse?!?!?!

… check out tRump’s Executive Order 13766:

Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects

GRRRRRRRRRRRR!  As if there’s not enough work to do these days… but you know, the work never ends for us “paid protesters.”  And a woman’s work is never done either.

Xcel Energy’s rate case just received another interesting twist — a request of the PUC that the parties to the “settlement agreement” show their work!  I love it when that happens.

20168-124453-01_PUC Letter_8-29-2016

PUC staff wants detailed information about how they reached the numbers they did, how the settlement relates to each of the parties initial positions and testimony, etc., to “show your work!”  The PUC staff is requesting this information so that the Commission can determine whether to accept, modify, or reject the partial settlement agreement.  And note that the parties are mostly those e21Participants who signed off on Xcel’s Exe21_Initiative scam.

GOOD!  Take a close look, PUC!

To review the filings in this docket, go to this PUC SEARCH DOCUMENTS PAGE and search for docket “15-826.”

Wednesday, at 7 p.m. at SE Tech College in Red Wing, there’s a public hearing about the Xcel Energy rate case (PUC Docket 15-826 — to look at all the filings GO HERE TO PUC SEARCH PAGE and search for docket 15-826).

Here’s my LTE in the Red Wing Republican bEagle:

Letter: Speak up at Xcel rate case hearing

To the Editor:

No one is excited about shelling out more money to Xcel, but the utility has requested an increase in rates, and it’s up to us to speak up. Xcel wants more money to cover the cost of transmission its been building and for upgrades to power plants. But there’s more to this story.

As Xcel’s Ben Fowkes notes, the industry has a “new normal.” Wholesale cost of electricity is down and holding. Fuel prices, the main variable cost, are low, whether coal or gas. Cost of energy via power purchase agreements is low. Cost of financing construction is also low. Xcel’s peak demand is down, 8,621 MW for 2015, from the 2006 all-time peak of 9,859. Xcel’s 2016 1Q energy sales are down 1.9 percent despite a 0.9 percent increase in customer growth.

We’re conserving – why should we pay more? Why are residential rates higher than large energy users?

Xcel’s rate case is transmission driven. Four CapX 2020 transmission lines in Minnesota cost $2+ billion. The MISO MVP 17 project portfolio of transmission across the Midwest will cost $5.24 billion-plus, of which we pay a share. This transmission moves electricity through Minnesota to points east, for the private purpose of market sales of electricity, from any point A to any point B in the eastern Interconnect.

And that’s the rub. Transmission is not necessary to serve Xcel’s load in Minnesota — it’s transmission for market access — and we should not bear those costs.

Xcel worked hard to reach consensus with the usual rate case intervenors on its e21 Initiative, including a “Multi Year Rate Plan” based on its corporate business case rather than cost-based rates. Xcel worked hard to ram through e21’s legislation, with those usual suspects sitting quietly in committee as Senate and House toadies greased the skids. What’s in it for those who agreed? What about ratepayers?

Who is speaking for the ratepayers? The judge has rejected intervenors — some who would object to Xcel’s plans are shut out. AARP and the state’s Office of Attorney General-RUD are making a valiant effort, but your voice is needed. If you’re an Xcel ratepayer and are dubious of Xcel’s business plan, if you want Xcel to justify costs, if you want consideration of what costs are recoverable, if you want limitations on recovery for travel, lobbying expenses, or prohibition of market-based infrastructure and activities to sell electricity beyond Xcel’s service territory, here’s your chance.

I pushed for a hearing in Red Wing at the prehearing conference, and it’s next Wednesday: Xcel Rate Case Public Hearing, 7 p.m., Minnesota State College Southeast.

Carol A. Overland

Red Wing

Well, that was interesting… and it took all evening!

First a sidebar, but an important one.  The Agenda CBS Public Meeting-Minneapolis caught my attention, seeing PUC Commissioner John Tuma named front and center. The PUC’s page  on Commissioner ex parte, conflict, and basic decorum has disappeared — I called the PUC about Commissioner Tuma’s appearance (fair warning, prior to event), and noted that the page had disappeared.  Here are the rules (the page was what stressed the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety:

7845.0400 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; IMPROPRIETY.

Subpart 1. General behavior.

A commissioner or employee shall respect and comply with the law and shall behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the commission’s decision making process.

Subp. 2. Actions prohibited.

Commissioners and employees shall avoid any action that might result in or create a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, including:

A. using public office for private gain;

B. giving preferential treatment to an interested person or entity;

C. impeding the efficiency or economy of commission decision making;

D. losing independence or impartiality of action;

E. making a commission decision outside official channels; and

F. affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the commission.

7845.0700 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

Subp. 4. Outside employment.

A commissioner or employee shall not negotiate for or accept outside employment or other involvement in a business or activity that will impair the person’s independence of judgment in the exercise of official duties.

I registered this in a Comment section, provided copies of the rules, and expected something similar to Commissioner Koppendrayer’s response in a similar situation years ago (see below). Commissioner Tuma is new, and being there was not the worst of possible activities, other past and present Commissioners have done much worse, but it’s not OK.  His presence on the panel, on the stage, lends the impression of support of the DOE’s efforts, and nuclear waste, nuclear decommissioning funds, nuclear uprates and rehab, all are issues that have been and will be in front of the Commission in highly contested cases.  It lends the appearance of losing independence, impartiality, and impairment of judgment in future exercise of official duties.

I’ve seen this a few times.  One positive experience was at the Sawmill Inn when Commissioner Koppendrayer was named on a coal gasification love-fest panel when Excelsior’s Mesaba Project was before the PUC, and I’d called the Commission ahead of time and spoken to the then Asst. A.G. who said, not to worry, they knew ex parte and conflict of interest and rules of decorum.  Yet at that meeting, which Koppendrayer DID attend despite advance warning, I jumped up and objected from the back of the room, noting the PUC’s focus on avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, and Koppendrayer said something like “Overland’s got a point, and I should leave” and he did!  He earned quite a few “respect” points that day.   IEDC gets carried away  February 15, 2007.

On the other hand, I’m also remembering Commissioner Phyllis Reha’s coal gasification junket to Belgium via Great Plains Institute, a well-funded toady for coal gasification (and GPI was on panel last night, another cause for concern, how much were they paid!).  How blatant can you get?  MCGP Request for Recusal (Commission saw no problem!).

… and there’s her stumping for CapX 2020 transmission: PUC Commissioner Reha: Enhancing the Nation’s Electricity Delivery System.  That was the basis of another Motion, but of course, Commissioner Reha and the Commission saw no problem with her actions!  NoCapX Motion to Recuse Commissioner Reha & Exhibit A – Reha Power Point Presentation.

And then there’s Great Plains Institute’s involvement.  After their intense and well funded toadying for coal gasification ($437,000 over 21 months), and transmission, and then Xcel Energy’s e21, Dog help us!  Anything GPISD in involved with has got my attention, and not in a good way!

Last night’s agenda was packed, and we got a lot done.  A guy name Scott Thomas (the NSP engineer perhaps?) was at my table and jumped up and objected when we had a bit of opposition theater, I jumped up to counter, DOH, every hear of freedom of speech.  I mean really, it took all of 5 minutes, let people speak up!

Here’s my comment, in large part based on “consent” a la SNUY’s approach for sexual consent, substituting “nuclear” for sexual — if we’re going to get screwed, this is the best possible of consent definitions:

DOE – Overland Comment 7-21-2016

Here’s the DOE’s Consent-Based Siting page.  Notice was in the Federal Register, who reads that? Invitation for Public Comment in the Federal Register.  Comments are being taken through July 31 or email to them at consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov.

Here’s how they’re framing it, with questions to be answered:

• How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair?
• What models and experience should the Department use in designing the process?
• Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role?
• What information and resources do you think would facilitate your participation?
• What else should be considered?

We broke into small groups and actually had a pretty good discussion.  Peggy Rehder, Red Wing City Council, was also at “Table 2” and of course we’re disagreeing.  She’s frustrated at having spent 6 years on this and getting nowhere, but in terms of nuclear waste, 6 years is but a second or two…  I’ve got 22 years in, and some there had many more.  A key point was that the DOE must restore trust if it wants to get anywhere, and how would that happen?  Stopping production of more nuclear waste is a key step.  Dream on… this process is a move to enable continued generation of nuclear waste, continued operation of nuclear plants, now being relicensed, uprated, nuclear waste expanded.

Prairie Island’s President Shelly Buck was on the panel, and that was good — PIIC is in such a mess, the plant and nuclear waste right next door, and they’ve been screwed over so many ways, so many times.  Will they be regarded as a “stakeholder” this time around?  They’ve intervened in so many nuclear matters, doing everything they can to protect the Community…

Parts of it were webcast.  There will be a video of the evening’s festivities sometime, LINK HERE (when it’s posted, scroll down to “Minneapolis”) and there was a photographer snapping shots every few seconds (hmmmm, well, I guess that will be added to all our files!).

Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition (that SEED Coalition grew from Energy Foundation funding, same as MN’s defunct “SEED Coalition” which morphed into “RE-AMP” about 2005), was present, and vocal (YES!), regarding their concerns about nuclear waste siting in Texas and New Mexico, particularly about a recent application to NRC for a nuclear waste storage facility in western Texas, near the New Mexico border. See www.NoNuclearWasteAqui.org for more info.

Alan Muller, environmental consultant in Minnesota, and Exec. Dir. of Green Delaware, spoke of his having TWO Prairie Island reactors on the other side of town here in Red Wing, and the THREE Salem and Hope Creek reactors, visible from the office window in Port Penn, Delaware.

Here’s the Arizona meeting, CHECK OUT THE VIDEO HERE.  Well worth the listen, the panel is much better qualified than the one in Minnesota (with the exception of Prairie Island’s Shelly Buck, and Canada’s Kathryn Shaver from their Adaptive Phases Management Engagement and Site Selection, Nuclear Waste Management Organization, listen up to them when Mpls. video is released).

Take some time and consider the DOE’s informational booklet.  Put your thoughts together and send in comments: consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov.

I think it’s worth trotting out the EQB Citizens Advisory Task Force report on nuclear waste, from the Florence Township Nuclear Waste Daze:

Florence Twp Site – Citizens Advisory Task Force – Nuclear Dry Cask Storage

And also thing about the many casks on Prairie Island — those TN-40s and TN-29 have aluminum seals that need to be replaced EVERY 20 YEARS, and to my knowledge they’ve not been replaced, and there are casks that have been loaded and sitting there for more than 20 years.  What’s up with that?  What’s the plan?  Back when they were permitting that, there was no plan.  So…

Consider this 3 Stooges approach to cask unloading — don’t know of any other attempt to unload casks, maybe that’s one of the lessons learned here:

INEL TN-24P stuck

Here’s an INEL report on a TN24 leak:

10813-TN-24P leak

And an NRC report on unloading:

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 97-51:  PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH LOADING 
AND UNLOADING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION                             CASKS

Here’s an EPRI report on (these technical reports are important!) Creep and Crud, which occurs with storage:

100217 – Creep & Crud

Here’s a report generated after the “ignition event” at Pt. Beach, where spent fuel was loaded in a cask, then set out of the pool, and let sit overnight, then they attempted to well it, well, welding cask full of bubbles of hydrogen from the interaction of zinc and the acidic solution the assemblies are sitting in, left overnight, BOOM!

NRC_ Bulletin 96-04_ Chemical, Galvanic, or Other Reactions in Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Casks

Where are all the reports about the weld flaws on the VSC-24 casks?  They’re in Pt. Beach, Palisades, and Arkansas One.

Estimated Risk Contribution for Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of Welded Stainless Steel Canisters for Dry Cask Storage Systems – EPRI

And here’s a report relevant to us here in Minnesota, given all our granite and our “2nd place” position in the federal site selection resulting in “choice” of Yucca Mountain:

Granite report SAND2011 6203