Halt The Power Lines

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