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:
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):
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:
Hollydale Xmsn Report at long last!
June 7th, 2016
Remember Xcel Energy’s Hollydale Transmission Project that was derailed when it was clear it wasn’t needed, and so Xcel Energy withdrew the application with regular compliance reports on status of the project, and a promise of a need study so long ago???
Yeah, I’ve been forgetting too, it’s been so long. Here’s Xcel Energy’s page on what’s now called the “Plymouth Project.”
But, here it is!! Finally, it has arrived, the Hollydale System Assessment Report from Xcel Energy that we’ve all been waiting for:
Plymouth_and_Medina_Electrical_System_Assessment-Final_Complete
Pay particular attention to the map above of the “study area,” and note that it is the Interstate 494/694 ring and Hwy 55 to the east and north where the problems are, and the problems are yellow and orange, and not red. The problems are not in the area of the Hollydale substation and not to the west, towards Medina.
When do we start seeing problems? Looks like it’s in 2036, 20 years from now, double the usual 10 year transmission planning outlook (hint, that means it STILL is not needed) — and note, again, the problems are to the east and north, along the highways:
I’ve got to scour this report, but I do not think that they’ve considered select placement of distributed generation, i.e., solar panels on all the big boxes in the areas above in red! Or residential solar on those in yellow. What’s so difficult about that?
Here’s their choice:
On the plus side, there’s new substations planned in the red territory. On the minus side, they still want to utilize the Hollydale substation. On the plus side, they plan to expand transmission using 34.5 feeders, which is what I promoted as a solution. On the minus side, they plan to keep the 69 kV line through Plymouth, with an eye on utilizing it in the future. On the PLUS side, they claim that there’s no impact on the Hollydale – Medina section of the 69 kV line, claim that there’s no change from present use and non-use, and for my clients in Medina, that’s a good thing. On the MINUS side, they don’t propose to tear that “unused” 69 kV line down. On the MINUS side, they don’t propose to put all the transmission and distribution underground. And remember, just yesterday, when there was a large distribution outage due to wind out in the western suburbs?
So now, it’s time to read this report!
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!
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:
US Supremes Weigh in on Electric Market
April 19th, 2016
Here’s an interesting case (oh, how I hate that word “interesting”). It’s about whether a state can offer “incentives” over and above FERC wholesale electric rates that would incentivize construction of new in-state generation. US SCt says NO! The states can only regulate retail rates.
This is a case regarding Maryland “incentives” and PJM, but it’s applicable to our good friends at MISO too.
So do tell, what does this mean for FERC set rates of recovery and cost allocation for all this transmission to enable the wholesale market? What happens when FERC rates stick their nose under the tent in state rate proceedings, i.e., Schedule 26A covering return and cost allocation for these big transmission projects we know and love? From what I can see of Schedule 26A, they’re allocating a “retail share” and, well, what business does FERC, via MISO (in this area), have with retail rates?
Schedule 26A – Indicative Rate Charges MISO (last updated 3/31/2016)
Look at all the ways we’re charged for transmission: