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):
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:
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
DRAFT PERMIT – 10901028-101 – 2016.pdf
TSD – 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
Comments filed on Dairyland Q-1
July 1st, 2016
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:
And here are the Comments I filed on behalf of No CapX 2020:
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!
Xcel Energy Rate Case — taxes & xmsn rider
June 27th, 2016
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:
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:
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:
(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):
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):
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):
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!
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:
#ImWithHer ? Ummmm…
June 17th, 2016
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?