WTF?!?!  Leslie Glustrom has been denied intervention status by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission!  Shades of what happened to me in Big Stone, and almost in the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need! She made her Petition/Motion to Intervene, and Xcel objected and the PUC booted her out.  (I’m searching for the Order).

The story gives a pretty careful description of what happened, what’s missing is information on all the good work Leslie has done over the years, contributing to the record, helping come up with a better result, and now this…

Here’s Leslie at Nancy’s wedding a few years back:

Boulder energy watchdog kicked out of Xcel dockets at PUC

Sat September 17, 2011 9:18 PM  | about: XEL

NEWS PROVIDED BY:
McClatchy

Sept. 17–Boulder resident and longtime Xcel Energy (XEL) watchdog Leslie Glustrom has been banned from “intervening” in two cases at the Public Utilities Commission that involve the electric company, a move she says paves the way for eliminating individual participation in utility regulation across the board.

“What’s happening is that the last vestige of the public is being extinguished from the, quote-unquote, Public Utilities Commission,” she said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Xcel Energy filed “Testimony” in the Hiawatha Project Certificate of Need docket. It’s odd, there are NO intervenors in this docket, everyone from the Routing docket is sitting this one out.  WHY???

Here’s the testimony:

Testimony of Lehman, Rassmussen and Zima

Note that they go on and on about how peak load has increased, or is it has almost equaled the 2006 peak… which is it?

Look carefully at the charts on pages 30-32.  Here’s the one on p. 32 (click for bigger chart, you’ll need it!)

Now let’s compare this with prior info:

And from their Hiawatha Project filings, first their REVISED chart (click for larger version):

And this was their original:

And remember, this was the stuff that MOES, errrrr, the agency formerly known as MOES, had a hissy fit about my Commenting on Xcel info about peak demand!!!!

I need to read this, have only skimmed it so far, but I trust there will be a way to address this stuff in the record???

(Yes, that’s Summer grrrrrrrrrrl.)

Remember how hot it was back a couple of weeks ago?  Xcel’s Tim Carlsgaard was again bragging about Xcel’s peak:

9,083 MW

There’s plenty of time this summer to ramp it up higher, but so far, 9,083.

Here’s Xcel’s peak demand for the last decade, taken from their 10-Ks filed with the SEC:

Carlsgaard’s number came from an informal calculation or two, interruptible service was part of it, and I think it was deducted, but you never can be sure with a PR shill!!!  Anyway, 9,083MW is nothing to write home about.  If you remember, Capx 2020 was based on a 2.4% increase ANNUALLY.  If we’d done that, starting from 2005, we’d be at:

10,620 MW

So we’re down about 1,600MW from their projections, and from what CapX was based on…

Their projections of a 2.4% increase annually add up quickly:

2005  –   9,212

2006 –   9,433

2007 –   9,659

2008 –   9,891

2009 – 10,128

2010 – 10,371

2011 – 10,620

In 2006 they jumped ahead of projections by a couple of years, but since then have dropped further and further behind, now with a peak trailing behind the peak of 2005…

So one way of looking at it is that they’ve pushed the “need” for additional power out for years.

Another way of looking at it is that they’re about three 500MW coal plants shy of what they projected.

Another way of looking at it is that they 1,600MW short is about Prairie Island’s and Monticello’s three nuclear reactors short.

Another way if looking at it is that it’s 1,00MW of cheap generation for wholesale and there’s plenty of room on 2,050-2,211 MVA (4,100-4,422 MVA double circuited) CapX 2020 transmission to ship that over to points east…  (see MCEA, ME3, Waltons Schedin IR3)

So Tim, do tell, where am I off here???   p.s.  Always check my math, I’m an attorney, not a vet, because my brain has grey sponge in the math department.

.

Xcel Energy’s Hiawatha Transmission Project moves forward.

Recently, Comments and Reply Comments were due in this “informal” Certificate of Need proceeding.  All the intervening parties in the routing docket have been sitting on their hands, or worse (I hope not, but why the silence?).  So when only MOES filed “Comments” I filed Reply Comments, because theirs were SOOOOO… soooooo… well, read them yourself, they’re in INITIAL comments recommending that the Certificate of Need be approved, shouldn’t they at least make it look better by waiting to see what comes in before declaring that it should be approved?!?!?!  … and the basis, well, it’s just absurd:

MOES – Comments and Recommendation

Here’s what I filed — I don’t have a dog in the fight, no client, no direct interest, but I cannot stand it when there’s NO response, NO filings, it’s just not right, and that’s when I get twitchy that somebody is pulling a fast one, and others did join in:

Overland Reply Comment

Johnson Reply Comments

Johnson – Reply Comment Attachment

City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County Reply Comments

Suburban Rate AuthorityReply Comments – LATE

Xcel Reply Comments

And then MOES has the last word, complaining that Xcel’s aren’t allowed under the PUC Rules of Practice in Minn. R. ch 7829!

MOES Comments and Recommendation

There’s a problem with not having a dog in the fight, and that is that I’ve not been tracking what’s going on in the Hiawatha Project Certificate of Need docket, or more correctly, what’s NOT going on.  OH MY!  Look what I just learned!

THE COMMENT PERIOD ON “NEED” ENDED 3/31/2011!!!

Yup, really, here’s the notice:

PUC’s Notice of Comment Period

That was sent out in early March, setting the deadline for Initial Comments as March 31, 2011, and Reply Comments for April 29, 2011.

This Certificate of Need is going through the “informal process,” something arbitrary set up by the PUC and MOES, with no rules, and oh, it is going weirdly.  Here’s the PUC Order authorizing the “informal process” that was issued in February:

Order of PUC establishing “informal process”

Let me see if I understand this.  The Environmental Report is not done, in fact it’s not yet begun, the Scoping Comments were due yesterday, April 6, 2011.   And the notice for the Scoping of the Environmental Report notes that there will be a public hearing on need, as required by the statute and rules, after the Environmental Report is released.

… but the initial Comment period is closed, the Reply comment period ends April 29, 2011, and all of that will be over before the Environmental Report is done and before the “Public Hearing.”  HUH?  This makes no sense.

Worse, the only party to file comments by the March 31, 2011 deadline was MOES!  There were how many intervenors in the Routing docket, and they raised such a stink about the need for a Certificate of Need proceeding that they rammed through a bill requiring it, and now that it’s begun (and now that their $90k was line-item vetoed by Pawlenty) they are all absent, not a one has bothered to show up and submit a single Comment.  Give me a break!  What does it take to put a comment in?  And not one… and a few have submitted letters saying they won’t be intervening, notably the large funded intervenors:

Letter from Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis and Midtown Greenway Coalition, stating they have no intention of intervening

…sigh… gee, I wonder why they’re not intervening…

Anyway, here’s what MOES has to say, and remember this is the beginning, not nearly the end:

MOES – Comments and Recommendation

So once again, let me see if I understand this.  MOES has submitted Initial Comments recommending that this Certificate of Need be approved, and is basing that on the Application, and to support that Recommendation, using demand data from 2006, and using the Chisago Project record from 2007 as the basis for saying that a determination regarding undergrounding should be made in the routing docket.  Really, that’s what it says, PLEASE read it!

MOES, CAN YOU SPELL “PREMATURE?”

Look what Xcel filed on January 6th, 2011, as a “Supplemental Filing” replacing their “Appendix B, Figure 7, Monthly Demand and Capability” chart (click to enlarge):

Compare that “Net Peak Demand” with the original chart — there’s a LOT more capability than demand… but hey, we knew that:

So can you believe this MOES Recommendation to grant the Certificate of Need?  Where are my waders…

MOES clearly has not taken this chart into account showing a 10-15% decrease in demand.  Plus MOES is not taking into account any Comments because theirs were filed on the first deadline!  They’re taking everything Xcel says in its application and presuming it’s fact!  Even the 55MW need claim based on 2006 data.  HELLO?!?!

A Recommendation should come at the end of the process, not the beginning.  DUH!

Well, here we go… Reply Comments due April 29, 2011.

Duck and cover!