Xcel Energy objects AGAIN! Of course…

Filed under:Rate Case - Transmission — posted by admin on February 2, 2016 @ 4:48 pm

MVP portfolio map

The rate case trudges on… I’d filed a SECOND Petition for Intervention, and Xcel has filed a SECOND objection:

Overland-NoCapX_Intervention2_FINAL

Xcel Energy’s SECOND Objection to Overland/No CapX 2020 SECOND Petition to Intervene

Look how they’re framing this.  The “Clean Energy Organization” intervenors claim essentially that because they’ve intervened before they should be granted intervention status before, and not much more.  Most do not state a position, much less the specific interests in this rate case:

Clean Energy Organizations” – Petition to Intervene

Does Xcel Energy hold the “Clean Energy Organizations” to the standards that they think Overland/No CapX must meet?  Of cousre not.  No objection to the “CEO” intervention.  Different intervenors, different standards.

Check this objection:

objection1

Not relevant or appropriate?  It’s Xcel that wants to switch Construction Work in Progress payments into the general rate case, it’s Xcel that brought up the CapX 2020 and MVP projects and Schedule 26A in its testimony.  Benson Direct: CapX p. 8, 14, 17, 28, 39, 56-57 and Schedule 2 p. 3-4 of 11; MVP and Schedule 26A: p. 17, 58, 76-77, 87, 125-126.   Burdick: CapX 2020 p. 28-29; and transmission generally throughout:

Burdick1

Burdick2

From Burdick’s testimony, it’s a basis for their theory of the case!

And Xcel again trots out the claim that “Petitioners fail to demonstrate that any alleged relevant interest they may have in this proceeding is not already represented by the other parties.”  Xcel, please, demonstrate how they ARE represented by other parties?  Commerce?  The A.G.’s Office?  Noooooo…

And what’s Xcel’s final objection to the Overland/No CapX 2020 Intervention?

Lastly...

Lastly2

There’s no mention of the many No CapX 2020 interventions granted, including the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need (06-1115); CapX Brookings-Hampton Routing Permit with U-CAN (08-1474); the CapX 2020 Fargo to St. Cloud Routing Permit together with NoRCA (09-1056); the Hampton-La Crosse Routing Permit with North Route Group (09-1448); and the ITC MISO MVP 3 Minnesota/Iowa 345 kV (12-1053).  Xcel seems to have a difficult time with use of the word “with” in addressing those groups that have joined No CapX in these dockets which have interests represented by No CapX 2020.  No CapX 2020 has been granted many more Petitions for Intervention than have been denied.

CapX & MVP cost allocation and a stroll down memory lane…

Filed under:Cost Recovery,FERC,Rate Case - Transmission — posted by admin on @ 1:58 pm

ferclogo

Today a FERC order came out addressing a Petition for Limited Intervention Out-of-Time made by No CapX 2020 and United Citizens Action Network, filed on May 20, 2010, nearly 6 years ago.

FERC Intervention-NoCapX & U-CAN  FERC Docket ER09-1431

This was SO far back, 2010, back when the CapX Applicants and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission were ramming through CapX 2020 Certificate of Need BEFORE there was any cost allocation scheme solidified.

CapX

And it was at the time that MISO was hammering together the MISO MVP 17 project transmission Portfolio.

MVP portfolio map

Now that CapX 2020 transmission rate recovery is before the Commission, the Minnesota PUC, FERC goes back into history to make sure that No CapX 2020 and United Citizens Action Network are not part of the discussion:

ER09-1431_Order Denying Reconsideration (denial of No CapX & U-CAN Petition on p. 8)

So this just happens to come up when cost allocation and recovery are at issue in the Minnesota PUC Rate case… and Xcel’s attorney is working so hard to keep us out of that docket.

 



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace