Legalectric

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:

Data Practices Act Request

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

Investor Presentation – NYInvestorMtgs_5-10-2016_1500085349

2015 10K – Xcel Energy

2015 10K – NSP

Back to last night’s hearing…

Check the rules about public participation:

1400.6200 INTERVENTION IN PROCEEDINGS AS PARTY.

Subp. 5.  Participation by public.

The judge may, in the absence of a petition to intervene, nevertheless hear the testimony and receive exhibits from any person at the hearing, or allow a person to note that person’s appearance, or allow a person to question witnesses, but no person shall become, or be deemed to have become, a party by reason of such participation. Persons offering testimony or exhibits may be questioned by parties to the proceeding.

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):

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:

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

Time for a nap.  Just filed Comments on the USDA RUS’s Environmental Assessment for Dairyland’s Q-1 D South transmission line.  Here’s the EA:

Q1-South_Environmental Assessment

And here are the Comments I filed on behalf of No CapX 2020:

No CapX 2020 EA Comment_July 1, 2016

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh, and the interesting thing is that just this morning, I got a copy of the “Briggs Road-La Crosse Tap 161 kV Rebuild Study”  Thank you, Chuck Thompson!

Really!  Xcel Energy has paid less than $1 million in federal income taxes in the 7 years from 2009 through 2015!

This is from the Direct Testimony of Nancy Campbell, Department of Commerce DER:

Campbell_DER_Direct Testimony_20166-122243-04

Here’s the Exhibit she refers to, scroll down to “NAC-20” at the very end, where you’ll find Xcel’s answer to IR 1171:

Campbell_Direct_Attachments1_20166-122249-01

I’m looking into whether any intervenor or state agency is looking at the Xcel Energy proposal to take transmission out of CWIP rate adjustments and put into general rates. What they’re asking is:

and:

(this paragraph is is repeated a few times).  This Transmission Cost Recovery plan can be found by searching the Xcel Energy Rate Case Application (PUC Docket 15-826):

1_Application_201511-115329-01

But this transmission cost recovery is at a rate that is FERC approved MISO rates, challenged at FERC, and greatly reduced in the FERC ALJ’s Order — note Xcel Energy’s “DCF result” is 8.40%, a long way from 12.38% (on the very last page):

FERC EL-14-12-002_ALJ Order

The issue, per the ALJ:

Here’s a more detailed look at the issues in the Complaint:

And cost apportionment for these projects is spread out in MISO Schedule 26A (updated every year).  This is how they’re apportioning costs among the utilities handling the many zones in MISO:

Yeah, it’s impossible to read — here’s the Excel spreadsheet (2014 version, this is updated annually):

Exhibit B_Schedule 26A Indicative Annual Charges_02262014

There’s lots of testimony in this rate case, including from the “Minnesota Large Industrial Group” (note Minnesota large industrial customers pay lower per kw cost than us regular residential customers!), and so digging through this is just the beginning…

And remember, this is the case where the ALJ denied Overland and No CapX 2020 intervention, saying:

Further, the Petition states that purposes for which No CapX 2020 was “specifically formed” (fn 22 omitted) was to participate in dockets which are now closed, raising the question of why No CapX 2020 continues to exist.

Really, that’s what the judge said!

Denial #2_Overland-NoCapX Intervention

Why No CapX 2020 continues to exist?  Perhaps to raise issues that no one else is raising?!?!  Oh, well, they can’t have that, can they…

Speaking of Xcel Energy, they’re in the news:

Large Outflow of Money Witnessed in Xcel Energy

I keep seeing #ImWithHer everywhere.  Somehow this is the hashtag adopted by Hillary supporters, maybe even promoted by Hillary Clinton herself.

Given the common use of “I’M WITH STUPID” to the extent that “I’m with…” will be invariably not end well for Hillary, why is this being used?

And it also opens her up to such obvious funnin’!

How stupid can they be?