U of M to “document the CapX2020 experience” EH???

Filed under:Nuts & Bolts,Reports - Documents — posted by admin on February 18, 2015 @ 3:51 pm

chimp_scratching_head

This Research Assistant job popped up — wonder who’s paying for this… and what’s the point?

UofM

CapXJob

 

House Bill 2047 — Washington State does Buy the Farm!!!

Filed under:Buy the Farm,Laws & Rules — posted by admin on February 16, 2015 @ 7:20 pm

OH HAPPY DAY!!!!

Washington State is working on “Buy the Farm” and a bill was introduced last Monday:

House Bill 2047

It’s been referred to House Judiciary — here’s the page for status of bills:

CHECK STATUS OF HOUSE BILL 2047 HERE

Is this exciting or what?!?!

 

Reply Briefs filed in Badger Coulee Xmsn Docket

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Wisconsin — posted by admin on February 14, 2015 @ 6:18 pm

pilesofiles

The Wisconsin PSC docket for ATC and NSP Wisconsin’s Badger Coulee line marches on.  As of Friday, there are more briefs filed and waiting to be read.  The WOW brief is… well… WOW, as it admits on p. 7 of its Reply Brief:

The need for the Project, however, is not Wisconsin-centric.

DOH!  That says it all, everything the Wisconsin Public Service Commission needs to know.

ATC NSP Reply Brief

MISO Reply Brief

CETF Reply Brief

SOUL Reply Brief

Clean WI Reply Brief

Holland Neighborhood Preservation Assoc Reply Brief

Town of Holland Reply Brief

Town of Middleton Reply Brief

Kunze Reply Brief

ELPC Reply Brief

WOW Reply Brief

Powers Reply Brief

Just filed Petition for Intervention in Xcel’s e21 Docket

Filed under:Cost Recovery,Laws & Rules,News coverage,Nuts & Bolts,PUC Docket — posted by admin on February 6, 2015 @ 5:44 pm

e21

Yes, I’ve filed this under “Energy” “Disaster” because it’s a train wreck of a proposal, and I cannot believe people would buy into this… or sell out into this.  What, you say?  e21!

102115_e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014

In December, Xcel filed this, and I swear, this was the heading:

REQUEST FOR PLANNING MEETING AND DIALOGUE
ROADMAP FOR SUPPORTING THE e21 INITIATIVE

“Roadmap for SUPPORTING?”  Really…

So what is it?  It’s a lot of whining about how hard it is to be a utility and that things are changing.  Ummmmm… yeah.  As if Xcel didn’t know that?

It feels to me like it’s another whack at “restructuring,” a/k/a deregulation, and a “we’re too big to fail” argument.  And as before with “restructuring,” everyone’s getting in line, jumping on the bandwagon.

Listen to this recommendation:

(J)1. Encourage the use of, and give additional weight to, settlement agreements among parties, as long as the Commission determines that the agreements are in the public interest.

Really…

And now that we’ve permitted and built all this excess transmission capacity, they’re whining about under-utilization… can you believe it?  Check this recommendation:

(N) Identify and develop opportunities to reduce customer costs by improving overall grid efficiency.  In Minnesota, the total electric system utilization is approximately 55 percent (average demand divided by peak demand), thus providing an opportunity to reduce system costs by better utilizing existing system assets (e.g., generation, wires, etc.).

This sounds like the best opening to get into the CapX and MVP dockets and get them revoked.  Give me a break…

So I just filed this, we’re gonna do what we can:

Legalectric and Muller – Petition for Intervention

Why file for intervention?  Well, this thing is all about stakeholders, and argues that, hey, look, all the stakeholders agree so just do it.  Ummmm… right… and just who are the stakeholders?  Those who have made those agreements with them in the past that got us right where we are today, DOH! What a fine mess you’ve gotten us into… let’s not do it yet again!

finemess

YES!! ALJ Newmark extends time, NoCapX Brief is IN!

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Wisconsin — posted by admin on February 3, 2015 @ 11:36 am

cheeringsection2

Judge Newmark has just filed an Order granting the NoCapX Motion for Extension to File Non-Party Brief and here it is:

Order to Enlarge Time

And the Brief, filed yesterday, which is now accepted, in the record:

No CapX 2020_Non-Party Brief

YES!!!

cheeringsection3

No CapX 2020 Non-Party Brief

Filed under:BadgerCoulee - Wisconsin,Cost Recovery,FERC,Wisconsin — posted by admin on February 2, 2015 @ 10:16 am

question_marks

Leave it to the PSC to say, “Hey, here’s an open door” and then make it a screen door that’s locked!  In the Badger Coulee docket, the ALJ offered an opportunity to file “Non-Party” briefs and then it turned out the transcripts weren’t posted on ERF until the Thursday afternoon before the Friday brief deadline.  Thankfully Frank Jablonski offered to send the early transcripts sans corrections on Tuesday when I asked. I’d filed a quick Motion for Extension, no word on that yet, but brief has been filed:

NoCapX Motion for Extension to File Non-Party Brief

How is one supposed to write a brief without transcripts?  Oh, right, we’re not supposed to.  Oh well…  So here we go:

No CapX 2020_Non-Party BriefFILED TODAY!!!

In this docket I was compelled.  There were such important things that were utterly ignored.

For example, check the record about cost allocation, rate recovery, return on investment… Look at the testimony of Hodgeson (ATC) and Hoesly (NSP-Wisconsin).  Hodgson’s not exactly credible on the stand — when questioned about rate impacts on ratepayers, nada, he refused to address impacts on ratepayers, only that “benefits” will go to utilities:

Untitled4

Trying again:

Hodgson1Untitled2Untitled3

Nothing about Schedule MM, nothing about Schedule 26A, which are how they came up with this numbers game.  And he put it together, lots was submitted CONFIDENTIALLY, info under wraps.  But the most primary concepts he will not talk about, and the primary documents are not in the record.

Can you believe that?  I… know… no-tingk!

schultz_180

Does Hodgson know nothing?  Not quite.  Take a look at Hodgson’s prefiled testimony, and do a search for Attachment MM and Schedule 26A, look at how he talks about it:

Hodgson Direct

Hodgson Rebuttal

Hodgson Sursurrebuttal

His testimony is about cost allocation, apportionment, and each balancing area’s assessment for the lump of the MISO 17 MVP Portfolio projects.  And, yup, in Hodgson’s Direct Testimony, “Attachment MM” is used 12 times in his Direct Testimony.  “Schedule 26A” is used 8 times.  So where is Attachment MM?  Where is Schedule 26A?  They’re not attached as exhibits.  They’re not in the record that I could find.  WTF???

Who cares about MISO Tariff Attachment MM and Schedule 26A in the Badger Coulee docket?  Apparently no one.  The Applicants sure wouldn’t want to disclose this if they don’t have to, and they didn’t.  The intervenors didn’t care, it’s not been entered as an exhibit by any of them.  So where in the record is anything about how these MVP costs will affect Wisconsin ratepayers?

Here’s NSP-Wisconsin’s Hoesly, his testimony on this is limited to p. 5-6, noting that Hodgson did the work:

Hoesley Direct Corrected

THERE WAS NOT ONE SINGLE QUESTION FOR HOESLEY!  Well, PSC’s Urban and Sirohi too…

Here they are, the primary documents, from the ITC Midwest MN/IA 345 kV case:

MISO Tariff Attachment MM (from ITC docket)

Exhibit B_Schedule 26A Indicative Annual Charges_02262014 (from ITC docket)

Hodgson also refers to MISO Tariff Attachment O, and here it is:

ATC’s Rate Formula (Attachment O)

And for a bigger picture, here’s recent ATC info:

ATC_2015_Attach_O_G_MM_Schedule 1

ATC_AttachmentMM 100114

ATC Budget and Rates (note they use “coincident peak” for these calculations):

ATC Budget and Rates

And from that, these documents (some repeats) that were prepared for an October rate dog & pony:

Budget Presentation
Rate Formula (Attachment O)
2015 Attachment GG
2015 Attachment MM
2015 Schedule 1
2015 Transmission Service Rates (Schedule 7 & 8)
ATC Rate Projections through 2019

Who cares?  Well… anyone who is concerned about what Wisconsin, Minnesota, or anyone in MISO might be stuck paying for these MVP projects!

Do tell — how can the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin make a decision in this docket without the MISO Tariff Attachment MM and Schedule 26A in the record?  How can it make a decision without considering what Wisconsin’s assessment for all those $5.86 BILLION in MISO’s 17 MVP projects amounts to?



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace