We're posting the letter Rowley Downs sent to the Public Utility Commission, taking exception with the administrative law judge's ill-reasoned ruling. If you want to read the full ruling, the strong, legal exception filed by the Office of Consumer Counsel, or any public comments,
1) Visit https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI_Search_UI.search
2) Type 14A-0287# in the box marked proceeding
3) Press search button
Here's the letter:
Dear
PUC Commissioners,
I
write as president of Rowley Downs Homeowners Association, Parker,
Colorado, and as a supporter of Halt the Power Lines, a grass-roots,
community-based group opposed strongly to the proposal that Public
Service Company/Xcel has presented to the PUC in proceeding
14A-0287E.
Whether
we are able to file a legal exception to the “Recommended Decision”
or not, we cannot allow our major concerns with the “facts” and
positions in the Recommended Decision to stand as presented. We call
on the entire Commission to review the ruling and reject Xcel's
request for a CPCN.
While
we find major concerns in many areas of the recommendation, I
highlight four of them.
First,
in item 7., the ruling notes:
On
July 23, 2014, the public comment was held in Parker, Colorado. ...In
addition to well over 100 written public comments filed in this
proceeding, numerous oral public comments were provided. The vast
majority of public comment supports need for the overall project, but
a majority also expressed siting concerns outside the scope of this
proceeding. Several comments express specific concern regarding
electromagnetic fields associated with the Project.
To
come to the conclusion that “the vast majority of public comment
supports need for the overall project” indicates at the very
minimum a major misunderstanding of the statements and intent of many
who oppose the project. We, as a homeowners association and later as
Halt the Power Lines, have met with Xcel representatives several
times, after they first raised with us the project less than a year
ago.
Siting
is an important element here. From the first meeting, company
representatives have presented the proposed path as a core part of
the project. The company has given lip service to the fact that it
would consider alternative routes once they get a CPCN, however, the
cost projections for the project that were presented to the PUC by
the company are based on the specific siting plan through Parker
neighborhoods. Thus, while the ruling and Xcel argue that legally
siting is not under consideration, it is at least the
proverbial “elephant” in the room, if not specifically
disingenuous. Several of statements in the ruling make it
increasingly important. The decision notes the company did not define
the project “in
terms of the most cost-efficient manner to serve identified customer
loads. Rather, the Company defined the scope of the Project so that
the only solution is the one offered by the Company.” Such
a conclusion about the company's approach should require the proposal
to be rejected out of hand. But it is consistent with the approach
we've seen in our dealings with Xcel. Such an approach also does not
prove the need for the project. Thus, Xcel has not proven the need
for the project.
The
ruling mentioned the July 23 public comment meeting. I attended the
meeting. I believe, according to PUC staff, twenty four people spoke
at the meeting, while I estimate between 100 and 200 people attended
the meeting. I recall only four people who spoke to support the
proposal. Additionally, the meeting, while publicly scheduled to be
held from 4 pm to 7 pm, was ended earlier than 7 pm. Several
community members intending to speak against the proposal arrived
after the meeting adjourned because they were expecting it to run the
publicly announced scheduled time. I personally had expected it to
run until 7 pm, even if there were times of “silence,” based on
my conversations in the days before the meeting with a PUC staff
member. The curtailed time was disappointing on the 23rd, but becomes
more troublesome in light of the decision's interpretation of the
public voice. It is worth nothing the August 1, 2014 edition of the
Parker Chronicle notes “the majority who spoke [at the July 23
public comment meeting] were against the transmission line....”
I
also believe the ruling greatly misinterprets the majority of emails
and letters that opposed the project. As an indication of public
opposition to the project, I attach more than 600 signatures
collected in the Parker area as the Board of Rowley Downs sought to
know neighborhood feelings and later as Halt the Power Lines
publicized the public comment meeting.
The
judge's odd and unsupported statements indicating that the majority
of those who have commented support the project raises the issue of
who does support such a project in advance of alternatives being
considered and it being “proved necessary” before the PUC.
Support of such a project in advance of a PUC hearing seems more
relationship and business based, rather than bearing any actual
relationship to the benefits of the project for the public. I believe
this is well understood by the presiding judge, PUC staff and
Commission. Yet, the ruling presents the statement on public support
of the project without such acknowledgement.
While
I believe this point is obvious to anyone involved in the process,
because of the ruling's incredibly inaccurate statement on public
opposition to the project, let me point out several specific examples
from this proceeding.
Example
One: The president of the Douglas County School Board sent a letter
of project support to the PUC on behalf of the board. Unfortunately,
the endorsement was never discussed in public or by the entire board,
which most importantly includes an Xcel executive. We believe this
case calls for a PUC review and investigation into how project
endorsements are acquired by Xcel. While claims have been made that
the Xcel executive on the board recuses himself from such decisions,
an investigation would be required to help the PUC to ensure that
what happened behind the scenes in school administration and within
Xcel did not compromise the PUC process. If he were involved behind
the scenes in any way in obtaining the endorsement, it raises issues
of process and public corruption.
Example
Two: I corresponded with a member of an area Town Council about a
letter he sent supporting the project. We had what developed into a
pleasant exchange of emails, but he never produced any analysis he
did to show the project was necessary.
Examples
Three and Four: I reached out to a local Town Council and to a church
in Aurora which sent letters in support of the project, asking
specifically for any analysis they did before supporting the project.
Neither responded. I suspect that few—most likely none—of those
who have publicly supported the project have ever done thorough
analysis of the need for the project.
Example
from Public Comment Meeting: I could not help but note that at least
three of the four who spoke in support of the proposal, left the
meeting immediately following their comments in the company with a
representative of Xcel.
I
feel safe in observing based on on my personal experience that in
this case that many, if not all, of those who supported this project
seem to have business relationships with Xcel or personal
relationships with Xcel representatives. While I am assured this is
“standard,” it becomes relevant when considering the judge's
statement that the majority of the public comment supports the
project.
Rowley
Downs and Halt the Power Lines have long opposed to the proposed line
and to the project, if it is not necessary. Following this
recommended ruling by the judge, we reiterate our opposition, and
based on his statements about Xcel's not considering alternatives
during its lengthy planning process, we are more adamant that Xcel
should not be granted a CPCN for the proposal and that the project is
not needed.
As
we've reached out to hundreds of Parker residents, we have found very
few who support the project, but many who believe that the PUC
process is tilted heavily to favor Xcel—that it will rubber stamp
whatever Xcel wants. Based on the Recommended Decision ruling and
reasoning therein, I fear if the recommended decision stands, it will
reinforce that perception.
Second,
the Recommended Decision seems to “punish” the Office of Consumer
Counsel (OCC) for not raising issues earlier, but it gives a free
pass to Xcel which is the party that is fundamentally responsible for
considering alternatives.
In
item 131, the Recommended Decision notes:
As
the Commission previously found, a vigorous transparent process is
essential to
justify reliance on the results of the process. If the OCC had timely
presented alternatives in the planning process, it is important that
they would have been given appropriate consideration.
I
raise two objections to this point.
The
decision notes that we are many years from the needing the power
projections in this proposal. In it's only timetable, the company
expects it to take only four years from PUC granting of CPCN to being
in service (2015-2019). The judged recommends the company not be
permitted to begin the project until 2020. Thus it seems, based on
the company's timetable that there is time for a two-year
reconsideration/replanning of the project, taking into consideration
other alternatives raised by the OCC. It is in the best interest of
all parties (besides Xcel) to take the time before the $170 million
plus expense is approved to ensure that it is needed and that there
is no other alternative that will be less costly for energy
consumers.
The
Recommended Decision portrays in the items below that Xcel has used
flawed (or, perhaps more accurately, no) processes to consider
alternatives to the proposal and in preparing the application for the
CPCN.
144.
Despite a lengthy planning process, the evidence of record fails to
fully answer some
of the very reasonable questions raised by Mr. Neil about how the
Company came to propose
this project. This leads one to question the least cost solution to
serve projected need through 2024.
146.
Notably, the Project is not defined in terms of the most
cost-efficient manner to serve identified customer loads. Rather, the
Company defined the scope of the Project so that the only solution is
the one offered by the Company. No feasible alternative was developed
through the planning process.
151.
One way the Company defined the Project was as an extension of a
prior project. This provides the basis for the Company’s position
that there is no alternative to expanding the Project except not to
expand the Project. In electric transmission, it is highly improbable
that there is only one way to serve load. As a purpose, the position
does little to advance any required element of proof to obtain a
CPCN.
152.
There is no indication whatsoever that the Company considered
alternative projects to alleviate the constraint. To the contrary the
only alternative considered was to not alleviate the constraint. The
cost of an alternative means to alleviate constraint, even if part of
a different project scope, would help quantify the benefit of
constructing the Project to achieve that benefit.
153.
Public Service demonstrated a future need, yet chose to define the
project differently than how to plan transmission to most
efficiently serve that need. Thus, many questions raised by Mr.
Neill might never have been considered.
154.
The planning process should not permit a utility to define a project
such that customer interests are harmed. For example, it is
concerning that the stated objective of the transmission study
performed was to determine the amount of additional generation that
can be accommodated by the Project. While such a study shows that
future generation can be supported by the Project, it does little to
support that the Project is the chosen alternative that best serves
the public interest.
Yet,
besides such scolding of Xcel, the decision rejects the OCC-raised
alternatives and recommends rewarding Xcel for its sloppy analysis
and its lack of alternative consideration. If the OCC should have
been earlier in its objections in the open process, to a much greater
degree Xcel should have been more complete and diligent in its
alternative consideration and in its communication with communities
it intends to impact in rates and other ways. The CPCN must be
denied because Xcel failed to consider alternatives.
If
the ruling stands, the OCC which has done rapid, extensive
and laudatory work on this proposal may get involved
earlier in the process in the future, but, if I'm Xcel, I am
left believing that using incomplete alternative analysis in the
future is still the best course to my ends. I may be criticized for
it, but because of time pressure, I'll get what I want.
As
the representative of the people of Colorado, the PUC should hold
Xcel accountable for their poor planning and demand better in the
future.
Third,
the Recommended Decision notes:
Public
Service has conducted more than 70 meetings to introduce the Project
to stakeholders
and solicit feedback. In 2013, meetings with local elected officials
provided overviews
of the proposed project and timeline. Meetings have also been held
with economic development groups, homeowner associations, developers,
and many other stakeholders within Aurora and Parker.
The
meetings that representatives of Xcel held with Rowley Downs (and
later with Halt The Power Lines) were clearly meant to answer
questions about the project as proposed in such a way as to defend
the proposal, not to present or consider proofs or alternatives. The
meetings, from my experience, were held only to check off the PUC box
that the company had reached out to community groups. There was no
discussion of alternatives. Now we learn in the judge's ruling why:
they hadn't considered any. At our first two meetings, a company
representative promised alternatives would be shown at the later
public open houses. No one at the open houses could or expected to
show us considered alternatives. Again, now we know why: They hadn't
considered any.
Fourth, the
OCC's concern in item 86, at a time when we want to ensure our power
grid is safe and diversified, is important and deserves careful
consideration. The Recommended Decision notes the OCC raised the
“lack of geographic diversity if the Project is approved because
approximately half of Public Service’s 2014 peak demand will depend
upon three transmission lines running in one transmission corridor.
[The OCC] contends this risk was not given proper consideration in
Public Service’s analysis because of the absence of less risky
alternatives considered.” In an age of terrorism, we believe the
full Commission needs to consider the risk associated with the
approach outlined.
On
behalf of both Rowley Downs and Halt the Power Lines, I petition the
full PUC Commission to reject the Recommended Decision and to deny
the CPCN.
Thank
you for your consideration, and again, I attach more than 600
petition signatures against Xcel's proposed project to reinforce the
message that the Recommended Decision was completely wrong related
to community support. The vast majority of the community is opposed
to this proposal.
Respectfully,
President,
Rowley Downs HOA Board
Supporter,
Halt the Power Lines
