Legalectric

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:

Remember Xcel’s CapX 2020 peak demand projections of 2.49% annual increase?  How wrong can they be?  And how unjustified was their basis for a Certificate of Need for CapX 2020?  And how are they held accountable for those gross misrepresentations?  This is why the rate case in progress, PUC Docket 15-826, is so important.

I love it when this happens… Xcel Peak Demand is again DOWN!  There’s a trend, and it’s called decreased demand.  Demand has yet to exceed the 2007 peak, and now it’s 8 years…

Here’s the Xcel Energy SEC 10-K filed a couple days ago:

2015 – Xcel Energy 10-K

Is it any wonder they want to get away from a cost based rate a la their “e21 Initiative” scheme?  Particularly now that the bill for CapX 2020 is coming due and their newest rate case (PUC Docket GR-15-826) is now underway?

And the specifics, and note how they inexplicably forecast a 2016 peak of 9,327:

Here we go, thanks to Xcel Energy and Office of Administrative Hearings, based on the bias and double standards for participation and obstructions to intervention in the latest Xcel Energy rate case (PUC Docket GR-15-826).

Yes, Intervention in the rate case denied again:

20162-118122-01_Denial #2_Overland-NoCapX Intervention

And I quote:

Further, the Petition states that purposes for which No CapX 2020 was “specifically formed” (fn omitted) was to participate in dockets which are now closed, raising the question of why No CapX 2020 continues to exist.

H-E-L-L-O?!?!?!  This rate case docket is all about shifting the CapX 2020 and MISO MVP 17 project portfolio transmission costs from one scheme to another.   I specifically cited all the references to CapX 2020, MISO MVP, and transmission.

Here’s what has gone before…

Intervention Petition II

Xcel objection to second petition to intervene

Overland-NoCapX_Intervention Petition 2

Intervention Petition I

20161-117574-01_Order Denying Intervention Petition 1

No CapX 2020_Response to Xcel’s Objection

20161-116957-02_Xcel’s Objection to Intervention

NoCapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland_Intervention Petition Packet

And in a parallel track, note the double standard in pleading.

• Note that Xcel has objected only to the Overland/No CapX 2020 intervention.
• Note that Xcel has not objected to those who participated in the “e21 Initiative” which is the basis for this rate case “multi-year rate plan” and transmission shift.
• Note how little the other “intervenors” say.
• Note they do not state their interests.
• Note they do not state how their interests are different from general ratepayers.
• Note they do not state how their interests will not be represented by OAG and Commerce.

OAH has approved Interventions of “The Commercial Group,” “Suburban Rate Authority,” and “City of Mineapolis.”  I’m sure the approval of “Clean Energy Organizations” will soon follow, despite the lack of specific pleading and the apparent conflict with one “attorney” representing so many organizations that either have differing positions and interests, or which are adequately represented by other organizations and don’t need to intervene… funny how this double standard works…

Read the Petitions:

Petition to Intervene of the Commercial Group

Petition to Intervene of Suburban Rate Authority

Petition to Intervene 0f City of Minneapolis

Petition to Intervene 0f “Clean Energy Organizations”

Petition to Intervene of MN Chamber of Commerce

Check out each of these petitions.  Look at the pleading, what’s stated, and as importantly, what is NOT stated.  What are their interests?  How are the “interests” different than general ratepayers in their class?  How are their interests not represented by Office of Attorney General and/or MN Dept. of Commerce?

So what to do?  Participating in the public hearing is not sufficient, and if that’s the limited offering, well, there’s no Discovery for a public participant.  What’s next?  Fight for the privilege of an unfunded intervention, as if there’s nothing else to do?  The issues raised by Overland/No CapX 2020 will not be addressed otherwise.  And thos overt quashing of participation is not consistent with the “public” in “Public Utilities Commission” and the Commission’s mandate.

Meanwhile, FERC just denied the 2010 Petition for Intervention too in the case regarding the cost allocation for these CapX and MISO MVP projects, yes, that took them 5 1/2 years to do, so why now?  Check this out:

FERC Order – Docket ER09-1431 (p. 8)

Odd that should come up now… naaaah, not really.

Yesterday at the Xcel Energy rate case prehearing conference, Xcel’s attorney, Eric Swanson, stated that they’d be objecting to the No CapX 2020/Overland intervention.  Just after that prehearing conference ended, their objection was filed:

20161-116957-02_Objection Intervention

Good idea, Xcel….

What do other Petitions for Intervention look like?  What other Objections has Xcel made to Interventions?  What do Petitions for Interventions that have been granted by an ALJ look like?  Let’s compare…

Recently, Xcel Energy’s Chris Clark, who I’d been working in tandem with years ago when he was just lowly corporate counsel cohort opposing the legislatively mandated Power Purchase Agreement for the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project said, “I just don’t understand why the transmission side hates you so!” (rough, not exact quote).

Well, Chris, I guess you’re gonna find out.

I presume that this is just a way to eliminate anyone that they haven’t bought off in the course of that “e21 Initiative” where they “reached consensus” about wanting a business-plan based multi-year rate plan — many of the usual suspects were NOT present at that Prehearing Conference and there’d only been two Interventions filed prior to the Prehearing Conference, and only one filed since.

e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014

Yeah, great idea.  I testified against that effort at both Senate and House committees, where the room was backed full of those who’d “reached consensus” and they were all S-I-L-E-N-T as Sen. Marty and Rep. Garofalo ushered that bill through.  SHAME!  Will they show up for the rate case, and what position might the take?  Certainly not anything challenging the “Multi-Year Rate Plan.”

There was an interesting twist too.  I’d brought up that under Minn. Stat. 10A.01, Subd. 2, participation on a rate case is deemed lobbying, and requires registration and reporting when/if the thresholds are met, and requested that this requirement be addressed in the Prehearing Order.  The ALJ clearly knew nothing about it.

Minn. Stat. 10A.01, Subd. 2.  Administrative action.

“Administrative action” means an action by any official, board, commission or agency of the executive branch to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule under chapter 14. “Administrative action” does not include the application or administration of an adopted rule, except in cases of rate setting, power plant and powerline siting, and granting of certificates of need under section 216B.243.

I’d noted in the discussion that the lobbying statute is typically noted in the Commission’s referral to OAH, and thankfully, on the record, I’d thought to look at that Order, and there it was, p. 7:

And I noticed that Eric Swanson was very, very quiet during that discussion.  HE is the one who charged me with not registering as lobbyist in the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line case, as attorney for Minnesota Power.  That was such a low budget virtually pro bono operation that there’s no way either RRANT or I would meet the thresholds for registering or reporting.  That gambit of his was just more harassment, trying to limit legitimate critique of their project and process.

So now, for a response to that Objection to Intervention of No CapX 2020 and Overland…

“Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy” filed a rate case with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, PUC Docket 15-826.  You can see all the filings — GO HERE TO PUC SEARCH PAGE — and search for docket 15-826.

Prehearing Conference

Monday, January 4 at 1:30 p.m.

PUC Large Hearing Room – 3rd Floor

121 – 7th Place E.

St. Paul, MN  55101

Xcel is asking for a big increase, and they admit it’s transmission driven.  So yes, I’m interested, you betcha.  No CapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland (as individual) have intervened:

No CapX 2020 – Overland_InterventionPacket

So far, here’s what’s been happening:

A rough schedule has been proposed by Commerce DER, which will be hashed out at the Prehearing Conference, and probably altered as the case moves forward:

The PUC Staff Briefing Papers for last Thursday’s meeting:

Staff Briefing Papers_1_201512-116122-01

Staff Briefing PapersAddeudum_1_201512-116402-01

Staff Briefing Papers Addendum_2_ PI Decision Options_201512-116402-02

Staff Briefing Papers_Tuma Option_201512-116402-03

Here’s the webcast:  Video – should be good for 90 days from Dec. 10

Video – Docket 15-662 — Rate Design — video at 00:15:00 – 02:20:00

Video – Docket 15-826 — Rate Case — starts at 02:20:00

There has been one other intervention — “The Commercial Group” which is the biggies, like Walmart.  There have been several Notice of Appearances filed, but not interventions. ???

The AG’s Office has been the only one filing challenging comments thus far, which is why I have felt the need to barge in.  The “usual suspects” have been part of the e21 nonsense, and other agreements in the past that have both compromised their position and not been in the public interest.  Here are the AG Comments thus far.  RUD is dead on about NSP/Xcel’s overstatements, and those proven overstatements should be sufficient to grind this thing to a halt and get on more realistic terms:

OAG_RUD_Comments_11-20-2015_201511-115843-01

OAG_RUD_Comemnts_InitialComments_201511-115670-01

This is just Minnesota.  Obviously there will be a similar proceeding in Wisconsin in the very near future.

And given this rate case is transmission driven, the linkage between the FERC approved MISO rate and the reduction of return on equity in the FERC docket will have to be addressed: