YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → YouTube transcript (b8uLfsotJwM)

YouTube transcript (b8uLfsotJwM) — Transcript

20,934 words · 3,463 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

31:20Good afternoon. I'm Eric Blank. Uh we're
31:24back on the record in 25-0494E,
31:29Public Service Company of Colorado's
31:31Electric Rate case. Any preliminary
31:34matters uh before we jump uh into uh uh
31:40the witnesses I have Henry Surmos Neil
31:45Bennett and Bomber maybe. Uh so
31:49preliminary matters Miss Miss Nelson.
31:52>> Yes. Thank you uh Mr. Chair. Um I did I
31:56apologize for not noting this yesterday
31:59but Ms. Um Henry Seros had a um
32:04unavailability this afternoon, but she
32:06was able to clear one to three. Um so I
32:10circulated u a request to the parties
32:14last night asking if anybody would
32:15object to her going first this afternoon
32:18and I heard no objection. So UCA would
32:21ask that the order be changed
32:25>> [snorts]
32:25>> uh for Ms. Henry Seros to go first. Mr.
32:29after that. And I didn't hear you
32:32mention Scott England. Dr. England was
32:35on the list as well this afternoon.
32:39>> Okay. So, we'll do uh
32:44Dr. England, Neil Bennett, Nuspammer,
32:48and I assume Mr. Zmer, given the
32:51flexibility uh uh given to the uh
32:55company's witnesses, you'll have no
32:57trouble uh adjusting uh to Ms. Nelson's
33:01uh needs.
33:03>> Uh no, and I can go one better and say
33:05we are going to wave cross of Miss Henry
33:08Seros.
33:14>> Okay.
33:16Um
33:17so she saw us 20 minutes across uh from
33:20staff. So um Mr. uh Priola,
33:26good afternoon. Um just letting you know
33:28that CEC will also wave across of Mr.
33:32Schloo and Miss Henry Seros.
33:38>> Okay.
33:39>> Thank you.
33:40>> Uh Miss Chong.
33:43>> Thanks, Mr. Chair. staff would also wave
33:45our cross of Miss Henry Seros and we
33:47would ask to transfer that time to EOCC
33:49witness Mr. Bennett.
33:53>> Uh, yep.
33:56>> Thank you.
33:58>> Uh, Miss, uh,
34:01Leo,
34:03>> thanks chair. Um, I thought on the first
34:05day of hearing um, EOSC's witness, Dr.
34:06narrused. So, I think we're happy to to
34:09bring him back, but I just wanted to
34:11confirm that
34:12>> I I had a maybe. So, let me check. Uh,
34:15Commissioner Plant, uh, anything for doc
34:18Dr. Mr.
34:19>> Doctor.
34:20>> Dr. Musammer,
34:22>> I do not.
34:24>> Commissioner Gman,
34:25>> I do not.
34:26>> Uh, he may be excused. Sorry for the
34:29confusion.
34:30>> No worries. Thank you.
34:37So now it is I still have five minutes
34:42uh from core for Miss Henry uh uh Seros.
34:48Uh is that right Miss Chart Miss Chart
34:51Train?
34:51>> Actually core waved um our cross time
34:55already.
34:57>> Okay. Uh
35:00uh, Commissioner Plant, do you have any
35:03questions for Miss Henry Seros?
35:08>> I was just checking that. Um, [laughter]
35:11>> I cannot Why don't I ask Commissioner
35:13Gilman who may also be checking that?
35:15Uh, I do not.
35:19>> I I do not
35:20>> I don't
35:22>> uh miss
35:24>> Yeah, Miss Henry SA you scared us all
35:27away. [laughter]
35:30It's like the glasses maybe. I don't
35:31know. Uh, with that you may Oh, the
35:35microphone. Uh, with that you may be
35:37excused, ma'am. Thank you.
35:42So, maybe we're back to Mr.
35:44uh going first.
35:47Um any uh just let me check and see if
35:50there's any other preliminary matters uh
35:53before we uh go to Mr. Schloozac.
35:57Sounds like not. Uh Mr. Schloozac, can
36:00you hold up your right hand?
36:03Do you swear to tell the truth, the
36:05whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
36:07>> I do.
36:08>> Put your hand down. Is anybody with you
36:10or communicating with you in any way?
36:13>> No.
36:14If that changes, will you let us know?
36:16>> I will.
36:18>> Back to you, Mr. Bunker.
36:24>> Oh, you're muted, sir.
36:26>> I noticed I was off mute and then
36:28[laughter] I muted myself. Sorry about
36:30that. [clears throat]
36:31>> We can hear you now.
36:33>> Thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. Schloozak, would
36:36you please state and spell your name for
36:38the record?
36:40>> Coreyok.
36:41C O R Y S K L U Z A K.
36:48>> And your employer is
36:50>> [clears throat]
36:50>> uh the Colorado Office of Utility
36:52Consumer Advocate.
36:54>> And in this case, you filed three pieces
36:58of testimony. Is that correct?
37:01>> Yes. I Yeah, it was filed on my behalf.
37:04>> Yes. And that would be hearing exhibit
37:06300,
37:10excuse me.
37:11your answer testimony and attachments on
37:14April 28th, your revised hearing exhibit
37:18300, your answer testimony on May 28th,
37:22and you filed hearing exhibit 309, your
37:25testimony and attachment in opposition
37:27to the nonunanimous
37:29agreement on June 9th. Is that correct?
37:32>> Yes.
37:34And with regard to hearing exhibit 300,
37:37you had both public and confidential
37:40versions, [snorts]
37:42correct?
37:43>> That's correct.
37:46>> And when you revised hearing exhibit 300
37:51as the public version,
37:54let me rephrase that. When you revised
37:57here in exhibit 300, was it was it just
38:00as to the public version or the
38:02confidential version or both?
38:05>> Uh my understanding is that uh it was to
38:09both. So there was revised versions for
38:11both public and the confidential
38:13versions.
38:14>> Okay. And what [clears throat] was
38:18excuse me,
38:20what was confidential in your hearing
38:23exhibit 300? Um the the confidential
38:27parts were at pages 245 245 uh 244 to
38:34245 also page 254 and attachment CWS 106
38:41C and [clears throat] all of this
38:43pertain to the sale of the mineral
38:45rights at Fort St. Vrain and more
38:48particularly to the sales price
38:52and [cough]
38:54Oh, excuse me again. [clears throat]
38:57Did you listen to my cross-examine
38:59examination of PiSco witnesses, Mr. PK
39:03and Mr. Frightus last week?
39:06>> I did.
39:07>> And is it now your opinion that the
39:10sales price for the Fort St. vein
39:12mineral rights have been disclosed by
39:15PiSco's witnesses through revealing that
39:1850%
39:20sharing on the gain was essentially the
39:23sales price because the mineral rights
39:25had no cost basis.
39:28>> That is my understanding.
39:30>> So do you believe this uh testimony in
39:33your answer testimony that was marked
39:36confidential is no longer confidential?
39:40Uh yes, based on what uh Mr. Pay and Mr.
39:44Freighus had to testify about the sales
39:47price.
39:48>> Okay.
39:50And do you have any further corrections
39:53to make on the uh witness stand with
39:56regard to your hearing exhibit 309
39:59today?
40:01>> Um unfortunately, if we could bring up
40:04Mr. Schloozox's hearing exhibit 309.
40:08This was his testimony in opposition to
40:11the nonunanimous agreement.
40:15And in particular at page 28 on line
40:18three, do you have a correction there?
40:23Yes, I do. Uh just back up a second. uh
40:27on page 27 is where I launch into this
40:30discussion about uh whether there were
40:34meaningful gives by the company in the
40:37uh agreement and also theund 102.3
40:42million amount. So on line three I state
40:46from fried attachment APF30.
40:50So this is this is the correction uh Mr.
40:53Bunker. I I did not state what the tab
40:56is. So, anybody reading that is probably
40:59a bit bewildered. So uh
41:03I want to I want to insert after
41:05attachment APF30 the following
41:09at tab PSC-1y-
41:15300
41:17defran
41:22caps.
41:24So that's the insertion. So
41:27attachment APF30 had six tabs and I
41:30unfortunately did not indicate the
41:32particular tab. So with that correction
41:34the reader can find my references to the
41:37line numbers where I talk about these
41:40four buckets.
41:41>> Okay. Thank you. And did you also have a
41:46a revision to make on page 31 at lines
41:5015 through 17?
41:53>> I did.
41:55And could you explain that?
41:59>> Yes. So, these are two corrections. Same
42:02thing. Uh, in my haste to get this
42:06testimony out the door, I didn't uh
42:09update lines 14 through 17. So, on line
42:1315,
42:15uh, replace 43% with 50%.
42:20and replace 43.9 million with 51.5
42:24million. That's on line 15.
42:27And then on line 17, same thing. Replace
42:3143% with 50%
42:34and 43.9 million replace with
42:40uh using 51.5 million. This then
42:43reflects the testimony uh immediately
42:46above at page 30, line 21 through page
42:4931, line 8.
42:52>> Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
42:54And do you have any further corrections
42:57in hearing exhibit 309?
43:01Uh, I notice there's a there's a handful
43:04of uh grammatical errors and uh and
43:08other clerical type errors, but I I'm
43:10not going to waste the commission's time
43:12going through each of those. But if if
43:15we trip across some of those, I know
43:17it's embarrassing for me to see, but I'm
43:19not going to take any more time.
43:21>> Okay. Thank you. And with these
43:23corrections on the stand now to hearing
43:25exhibit 309, can you assert that hearing
43:29exhibit 309 and the revised version of
43:33hearing exhibit
43:36excuse me 300 are true and correct to
43:39the best of your knowledge?
43:41>> Yes.
43:43>> Thank you. And with that, Mr. Schloo is
43:45available for cross-examination and
43:47commissioner questions.
43:50>> Uh, thanks. Can you uh take that down?
43:53Uh
43:54uh Mr. MRI 45 minutes, but you waved a
43:58bunch across, so you're up.
44:00>> Uh thank you, Chair Blank. And just one
44:03clarifying question. Would UCA be able
44:05to prepare a rev one of that exhibit
44:09309?
44:13>> Yes.
44:13>> Yes. Yes, we can do that.
44:16>> Thank you.
44:17it.
44:19Uh, and just to clarify, I do have a Rev
44:22one, but that applies to hearing exhibit
44:24300. So, this would be Rev One for 309.
44:28>> Thank you.
44:31>> Okay. Uh, good afternoon, Mr. Schloozac.
44:34>> Good afternoon.
44:36>> Uh, is there a commission rule requiring
44:39a certain ratebased convention?
44:42>> No.
44:44Is there statute requiring a certain
44:45ratebased convention?
44:50>> Uh let me ask by convention do you mean
44:52methodology?
44:54>> Uh sure.
44:56>> Okay. Uh not to my knowledge.
45:02Uh, could we bring up hearing exhibit
45:04300 attachment CWS2
45:23and Mr. This is attachment two of 110 to
45:27your answer testimony. Can you please
45:30identify this document?
45:32>> Um,
45:35I'm going to have to move over to a
45:37different screen so I can make it
45:39bigger.
45:42It's um decision C22-0178
45:49in
45:52proceeding 25
45:57or is it 21?
45:59I can't read the proceeding number.
46:05Thank you. Um 21-0317E.
46:12>> Can we uh move forward to page 11,
46:15please
46:19>> and scroll down so we can see paragraph
46:2135.
46:27Could you please identify the bill
46:31impact for residential customers under
46:34the settlement agreement 5%.
46:42Um I'm reading from the decision this
46:46results in increase of $524
46:496.44% 44% in the average monthly
46:52residential bill.
46:55>> And the percentage bill increase for
46:57commercial customers was 6.24%.
47:03>> That's what it appears to be.
47:06>> And UCA joined this settlement, did it
47:08not?
47:10>> Um, yes. I believe we did. I don't know
47:14if it we fully uh joined it or
47:17partially. I don't recall.
47:19If we go to paragraph one on page two
47:27and scroll down.
47:40>> Does that refresh your recollection?
47:42>> Am I looking at paragraph Oh, paragraph
47:44one.
47:53Um, could you scroll up?
47:57>> Yes. Could we see the start of the
47:59paragraph on the proceeding page?
48:05>> Uh, approves the unopposed and
48:08comprehensive settlement agreement
48:09except as to one issue.
48:12So, I don't know if we were one that did
48:16not agree on that one issue. I don't
48:18know.
48:21>> But UCA was a party to this settlement.
48:26>> Yes.
48:28>> Can we please bring up uh hearing
48:29exhibit 309
48:34>> and go to page 66, please?
48:40And if we can scroll down so we can see
48:42this list here, that that's good. Thank
48:44you. Um, Mr. Schloozac, these numbers
48:49listed here uh on lines 9 through 15,
48:53the percentages are weighted average
48:54cost of capital numbers. Is that
48:56correct?
48:57>> Yes.
48:59>> And those numbers would reflect capital
49:02structure, cost of debt, and cost of
49:04equity.
49:06>> Yes.
49:07Can you please identify the portion of
49:10uh hearing exhibit 309 where you analyze
49:13the cost of equity for these companies?
49:16>> I don't.
49:18>> Can you identify the portion of your
49:19testimony where you analyze the cost of
49:21debt for these companies?
49:25Um, I do discuss cost of debt at several
49:30places in this testimony,
49:34such as in Atmas's recently settled case
49:38where I mentioned they are assumably in
49:41the same market for debt as a public
49:44service.
49:46>> We'll we'll move to that in just a
49:48minute. Um,
49:50you agree that the cost of equity needs
49:53to reflect the risk faced by the
49:55company. Do you not?
50:01>> I am not a return on equity
50:04expert. Mr. Fernandez is our expert on
50:07that, but I can generally agree to that.
50:11>> Can you identify the portion of your
50:12testimony where you analyzed the risk
50:15faced by the company?
50:18No,
50:20>> if we can scroll down
50:24to if we keep going
50:29uh right here at lines 1 through 4. Uh
50:32is this the referenced part of your
50:33testimony where you discussed uh ATMAS
50:36and their debt costs?
50:38>> Is this page 67?
50:40>> It is.
50:42>> Thank you.
50:45It should also be noted that Atmas Gas's
50:47whack did not change from its 2022 rate
50:50case to its 2025 rate case. I would
50:53think that Atmos Gas operates in the
50:55same debt markets as does PESCO, but
50:58that did not change the whack it agreed
51:00to, unlike PESCO. Yes.
51:03>> Can you identify the area in your
51:05testimony where you analyze Atmas' debt
51:07offerings and how they compared to PSCO?
51:12I did not do such an analysis.
51:15>> Does admiss issue debt at the operating
51:18company level?
51:20>> I do not know.
51:22>> Does Black Hills issue debt at the
51:24operating company level?
51:27>> I do not know. Question for Mr.
51:29Fernandez, however.
51:32>> Could we bring up hearing exhibit 135?
51:56I'm scrolling for it. Can you tell me
51:57the name that's associated with?
51:59Sometimes I catch the name faster than
52:01the number.
52:02>> Yeah, it's Mr. Weiner's rebuttal
52:04testimony.
52:20And can we go to page 35?
52:27Do you see here at lines 5 through 8,
52:30Mr. Mr. Wer testified that Black Hills,
52:33Atmas, and Colorado National Gas all
52:37issue debt only at the parent company
52:38level, not individual subsidiary level.
52:45>> That is what his testimony states.
52:48>> Do you have any reason to disagree with
52:50that?
52:52>> Well, I haven't read Mr. winners
52:55rebuttal testimony and neither I'm a
52:58cost of capital expert so it's hard for
53:01me to agree or disagree with that
53:04>> understood. Uh is it correct that UCA
53:09used PSCO's actual cost of debt of 4.55
53:12and its answer testimony whack
53:14recommendation?
53:16I believe that's correct.
53:21And I think that's somewhere in uh
53:23hearing exhibit 309.
53:28>> Thank you, Mr. Scholzac. That's all I
53:29have.
53:32>> You're welcome.
53:35>> Uh I have 20 minutes for staff. Mr.
53:40Larson.
53:41>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just for
53:43the record, I I don't suspect this will
53:45take more than half of that. Um, a lot
53:49of what I was going to ask has already
53:50been been covered. Um, how's it going,
53:53Mr. Schloozac?
53:55>> Uh, it's going well, Mr. Larson.
53:58>> So, I don't believe we've ever actually
54:00met formally. We've crossed paths
54:02before, but I'm Justin Larson. I uh,
54:04assistant attorney general. I represent
54:06trial staff in this proceeding. Uh,
54:08pleasure to meet you.
54:09>> Pleased to meet you virtually.
54:12And um so like I said, a lot of what I
54:15was going to ask you was just covered.
54:17So I'll just ask you a few questions
54:19about settlement in general. Um so in
54:23your testimony in opposition to the
54:25settlement, in addition to criticizing
54:27staff for entering into this particular
54:30settlement agreement, you also have some
54:32critical statements about staff's
54:34history of settlement in the company's
54:36electric rate cases. Is that correct?
54:39>> Yeah. Could you point me to that in my
54:41testimony?
54:43>> Sure. Can we pull up uh hearing exhibit
54:45309 and this will be on page 16.
54:54We're looking at uh lines four through
54:58five or four through Yeah, four through
55:01five. here states, quote, I noted that
55:03the commission's trial staff has agreed
55:05to either a full or partial settlement
55:07with the company in every single
55:09electric rate case since 1993. And that
55:12last clause there is italicize. You see
55:14where I'm at?
55:16>> Excuse me. That's correct.
55:18>> Thank you. And and you do acknowledge
55:21below that, albeit without italics or
55:24emphasis, that UCA and its predecessor,
55:27the officer office of consumer counsel
55:30or OC quote also entered into many of
55:33those settlements usually on a partial
55:35settlement basis. End quote. Did I get
55:37that right?
55:38>> You read that correctly.
55:41Now, you don't provide anywhere in this
55:44testimony like any specific figures
55:47about UCA's patterns of settlement in
55:49these cases, do you?
55:53>> Given my three days to write this
55:55testimony, no, I did not go into that.
55:57>> Yeah, fair enough. and and but below
56:00that uh in the the next Q&A and I'll
56:03just summarize you explain that the
56:05reason you're you're bringing this up is
56:07to highlight that due to UCA's unique
56:10role and perspective it's generally more
56:13willing than most other parties to
56:14litigate these types of proceedings.
56:16That a fair summary?
56:18>> Yes.
56:21>> Thank you. And we can pull that down. Um
56:24now I'll submit to you Mr. exclus that
56:28uh I I only went back and looked at the
56:31actual settlement agreements for the
56:33company's last five electric rate cases
56:35going back to 2011. Uh and that's just
56:38because that's as far back as e filings
56:40would would take me. But um based on the
56:43way that you worded this in your
56:44testimony, I was a bit surprised to
56:46learn that that staff and UCA were
56:48actually directly aligned in all five of
56:51those most recent settlements going back
56:53to 2011. Isn't that right?
56:56Are we talking electric or gas?
56:58>> Electric.
57:00>> Um I don't think that is correct. uh in
57:05particular in the uh is it the 2019 or
57:092021
57:11electric rate case where staff and the
57:14company agreed
57:17um
57:19well it was a current test share but and
57:22in any event they agreed to I think
57:24year-end rate base and we disagreed with
57:26them.
57:27>> Well let's let's uh let's go back and go
57:29through them. We can do it in
57:30chronological order. So, um, and if we
57:33need to pull them up, I have them in our
57:35box, but I I understand you researched
57:37this, but if we need to refresh it, just
57:39let me know. But, um, in the 2011 rate
57:42case, proceeding 11-947E,
57:46there was a comprehensive settlement to
57:48which both staff and UCA's predecessor,
57:50the OCC, were parties. Is that right?
57:55>> Um,
57:58and I'm h again, we're happy to pull it
58:00up. Sure, let's pull that up.
58:03>> Yeah. Can we pull up what's been
58:05pre-marked in staff's box as hearing
58:06exhibit 418?
58:10>> We're going to be looking at page four.
58:21Thank you.
58:25So, um, you see here that both staff and
58:29the Colorado Office of Consumer Council,
58:32which is the predecessor agency to the
58:34UCA,
58:36uh, both join this settlement agreement.
58:38Correct.
58:40>> Yes. Amongst a host of others.
58:43>> Sure. And, um, and we can pull that one
58:47down and we'll go ahead and pull up the
58:49next one. It's going to be hearing
58:50exhibit 419. This is for the the
58:52settlement agreement in the the
58:54company's 2014 rate case, electric rate
58:57case.
59:02And we can go to uh page five and six.
59:07You can see here I believe Mr. Schloozac
59:10that uh both staff and OC were parties
59:13to these this comprehensive uncontested
59:16settlement agreement.
59:20>> Yes.
59:23And can we please now pull up hearing
59:25exhibit 420
59:39and we're going to look at we'll start
59:41at page one. So this is the the
59:43settlement agreement in the 2019
59:45electric rate case. Um this was a
59:47partial settlement agreement limited
59:49just to wildfire mitigation plan
59:51activities which again both staff and
59:54OCC were parties. Is that correct?
1:00:04>> Um I don't know if I can agree with it.
1:00:06I'm looking at the caption which was is
1:00:08partially hidden but
1:00:10>> sure let's Oh apologies. Um we can go to
1:00:14page three here. Uh that'll explain I
1:00:16think a little bit more on the the
1:00:18nature of the settlement. So um and if
1:00:21you want to just read that uh this was a
1:00:24partial settlement agreement just
1:00:27related to wildfire mitigation plan
1:00:29activities. Is that correct?
1:00:33>> Um
1:00:35[clears throat]
1:00:39Mr. Warson if I could ask a question.
1:00:41This is just a wildfire mitigation
1:00:44settlement
1:00:46as one issue within the Ray case but not
1:00:49the rest of the Ray case. Is that is
1:00:51that what you've indicated?
1:00:53>> That's correct.
1:00:56>> Thank you.
1:00:57>> Okay. With that clarifi clarification
1:01:00which is very helpful Mr. Bunker um I
1:01:03would agree to that.
1:01:06Now in that case to your knowledge were
1:01:08there any other settlements between any
1:01:10of the parties
1:01:14>> perhaps.
1:01:16>> Would you accept my representation to
1:01:19you that that there were no other
1:01:21settlements in that case?
1:01:27Um, I have no basis right now to
1:01:30disagree with you without
1:01:33doing further research and refreshing my
1:01:35memory. Sure. So, subject to subject to
1:01:38check uh and just accepting my
1:01:41representation for what it's worth. Um,
1:01:44aside from that partial settlement, both
1:01:46staff and OC fully litigated the
1:01:48remaining issues in that case to your
1:01:49knowledge.
1:01:50>> Well, it was either this case, Mr.
1:01:53Lrison, or the 2021 electric brake case.
1:01:56get to the 2021 case in a moment.
1:01:59>> Okay.
1:02:02>> Now, and in fact, let's do that now.
1:02:04We'll pull up uh hearing exhibit 421.
1:02:07We'll just look at page one.
1:02:21Thank you. And um you can see here this
1:02:25was an unopposed and comprehensive
1:02:26settlement agreement except as to one
1:02:28issue
1:02:30uh that both UCA and staff were parties
1:02:33to correct.
1:02:39>> Um are you saying that
1:02:42>> Oh, and you can actually scroll down a
1:02:44little bit if you want to look at that
1:02:45first footnote there on page one.
1:02:48That'll explain the nature of the uh
1:02:50issue that was reserved for litigation.
1:02:52>> Oh lord, I feel like I'm at the
1:02:54optometrist right now because
1:02:56>> if Yeah, if it's possible to to magnify
1:02:59that a little bit. You see that?
1:03:01>> Yes. uh the commission's evaluation of
1:03:04the appropriate approaches to covering
1:03:06the remaining net book value in future
1:03:09decomi decommissioning costs associated
1:03:11with Craig generating station unit 2 and
1:03:14Hayden generation station units one and
1:03:18two is reserved for litigation as
1:03:20discussed in section 3R of the
1:03:23settlement agreement.
1:03:25>> Yes. So, do you understand that to mean
1:03:27that all parties to the settlement
1:03:29agreement agreed to litigate that issue?
1:03:33>> I I guess so.
1:03:37>> And finally, we'll this will be the last
1:03:40one. We'll pull up hearing exhibit 422.
1:03:43Um, this is the settlement agreement in
1:03:47the most recent rate case, uh, electric
1:03:50rate case prior to this one, 22-0530E.
1:03:58This was, uh, and we can just scroll
1:04:01down through page one and two if you
1:04:03need to refresh on this. Yeah, I think
1:04:06that should be good right there. Um,
1:04:10so this was a nearly comprehensive
1:04:12settlement agreement to which both staff
1:04:13and UCA joined all parts of, isn't that
1:04:16right?
1:04:18>> I believe that's correct.
1:04:21And if we can go actually to page eight
1:04:24uh paragraph 18
1:04:30that um one of those provisions that
1:04:33both staff and UCA agreed to in this uh
1:04:36settlement agreement was to a year-end
1:04:38ratebased methodology. Correct.
1:04:41>> Unfortunately, yes.
1:04:46>> Okay. And we can pull this down. Thank
1:04:48you.
1:04:49You're welcome.
1:04:50>> So, Mr. Schloo, it's fair to say then
1:04:53that staff and UCA have actually taken
1:04:56the exact same position on settlements
1:04:58in the company's electric rate cases for
1:05:00the past 15 years. Isn't that right?
1:05:04>> No, I would not say exact.
1:05:06I think that as we just discussed, there
1:05:08were some divergences.
1:05:12>> I I I did not note any divergences, but
1:05:14we can uh let the record speak for
1:05:16itself on that point.
1:05:18Um,
1:05:20generally speaking though, Mr.
1:05:22Schloozac, and I I understand you've
1:05:24you've done this for a long time, it's
1:05:26it's not unusual for staff in UCA to
1:05:28enter into settlement agreements and
1:05:30cases before the commission, is it?
1:05:33>> No.
1:05:36>> In fact, the commission's rules
1:05:38explicitly encourage parties to settle
1:05:40contested cases. Isn't that right?
1:05:43>> Yes.
1:05:48But as we know from the the context that
1:05:50we're in in this case, the commission
1:05:51ultimately has the authority to approve,
1:05:53reject, or modify settlement agreements.
1:05:55Right.
1:05:56>> That's my understanding.
1:05:59>> And one of the provisions of this
1:06:01particular settlement agreement in this
1:06:03case that you've taken issue with is the
1:06:05language that allows a party to withdraw
1:06:07from the settlement if the commission
1:06:09modifies the agreement in some way that
1:06:11the party finds acceptable. Isn't that
1:06:13right? That's correct. I believe it's
1:06:16paragraph 88.
1:06:18>> And and we can pull back we can we can
1:06:20pull back up any of those exhibit those
1:06:23uh settlements I just asked you about
1:06:25the prior cases uh if we need to. But
1:06:28would it surprise you to learn that UCA
1:06:30or OC signed and signed on to basically
1:06:33this exact same withdrawal language in
1:06:35every single one of those five
1:06:36settlement agreements I asked you about?
1:06:41given that we don't draft the settlement
1:06:43agreements. No, it's it's not uh
1:06:46surprising.
1:06:49>> And uh again, having spent several years
1:06:52working in this world, Mr. Schlooz, are
1:06:54you able to point me to any instance in
1:06:56which UCA or OC has entered into a
1:06:59settlement agreement and a case before
1:07:00the commission that did not include a
1:07:02withdrawal provision like that?
1:07:08Uh, no, but I think the lawyers may be
1:07:12able to come up with an exception which
1:07:14would be reflected in our statement of
1:07:16position.
1:07:18And
1:07:18>> just as a that's just as a basic
1:07:21credential matter, Mr. Slooach, would
1:07:23you on behalf of UCA ever agree to be
1:07:26bound by modifications to a settlement
1:07:28agreement without knowing what those
1:07:30modifications are?
1:07:38I can't answer that. It'll it'll depend
1:07:40upon the case
1:07:42>> and I'll state an objection at that
1:07:44point at this point in terms of it's
1:07:46calling for a legal conclusion and
1:07:49>> I can withdraw the question Mr. Chair
1:07:51and I actually I don't have anything
1:07:53else. Thank you for your time Mr. Slooz.
1:07:56>> You're welcome.
1:07:57>> Thank you Mr. Larson Commissioner Plant.
1:08:01Um, questions for Mr. Schlooza.
1:08:04>> Uh, no questions. Thanks,
1:08:06>> Commissioner Gilman.
1:08:10>> I do. I was just finding my right tab.
1:08:15>> Okay. Um, good morning, Mr. Good
1:08:18afternoon. [laughter]
1:08:21>> Good afternoon.
1:08:22>> Start.
1:08:23>> I mean, the hearing is fresh. It's as if
1:08:26the day just started. Um, okay. Uh just
1:08:30a few questions for you
1:08:33um on the regulatory assets
1:08:37um on the coal combustion residuals.
1:08:41Just a question for you. I talked with
1:08:43Miss O'Neal about this. I'm not sure if
1:08:45you were able to hear that.
1:08:47>> I did hear that.
1:08:49>> Okay. So she had kind of described this
1:08:52in response to my questions as a a
1:08:54matter of timing that the the previous
1:08:56settlement said no earnings basically on
1:09:00this or no carrying charge until you
1:09:03know it was like considered was the
1:09:05intent um but didn't preclude it after
1:09:09um so anyway just wanted to understand
1:09:11her remarks uh in the context of your
1:09:14position on the um coal combustion
1:09:16residuals.
1:09:19Yes. Well, first uh a qualification. Uh
1:09:22Mr. Kaikend Doll Ku Y K N D O L L of our
1:09:28office wrote on this. So he would be the
1:09:31guy on this. But uh uh our position uh
1:09:35Commissioner Gilman is uh that unanimous
1:09:39settlement in that coal combustion
1:09:42residual or CCR docket.
1:09:46that settlement agreement went out of
1:09:47its way to say that the CCR regulatory
1:09:51asset will not earn a return. So
1:09:56in our experience when a deferral is
1:09:58authorized
1:09:59uh by you the commission I I I really
1:10:03don't see that type language usually
1:10:06that's usually decided in a rate case
1:10:09but for some some reason it was decided
1:10:12this way in that underlying proceeding
1:10:15and the way we view it that's that's
1:10:17pretty uh ironclad and so I was
1:10:21surprised by Miss O'Neal's uh
1:10:24interpretation of that, especially given
1:10:27it was it was trial staff's Dr. Dew was
1:10:32very much involved with this language in
1:10:34the underlying underlying proceeding.
1:10:36So, we're going to continue to oppose
1:10:38this uh in our statement of position and
1:10:42we generally we don't agree with returns
1:10:45on regulatory assets, but particularly
1:10:47when we have language such as this.
1:10:50>> Okay. Thanks. And then moving to the
1:10:53Aegis deferral.
1:10:56Um,
1:10:58oh, sorry, no, the, um, excess liability
1:11:02insurance premium deferral.
1:11:04>> Yes.
1:11:05>> Um, so likewise, there's kind of a
1:11:08difference of opinion there on if the
1:11:09$50 million cap from a previous
1:11:11settlement was kind of an annual figure
1:11:15as Miss O'Neal had interpreted or
1:11:18cumulative. So just curious what
1:11:21um kind of butresses your opinion that
1:11:25that should be viewed as a cumulative
1:11:27figure.
1:11:29>> So first of all in the in the uh in the
1:11:32uh non-unanimous agreement it that was
1:11:35not spelled out uh and I didn't see the
1:11:38settling testimony from Mr. Pay or Ms.
1:11:40O'Neal uh explain how they got there. So
1:11:46that's why I I wrote what I did in my uh
1:11:50test settlement testimony hearing
1:11:51exhibit 309 which was based on Mr.
1:11:54Fernandez's answer testimony who handled
1:11:57this subject matter. I understand what
1:12:00Miss O'Neal was saying. So we will take
1:12:03a look at that
1:12:05uh and we will weigh in on that in the
1:12:07statement of position but uh it it she
1:12:11could be correct. She could be correct
1:12:13that they're they're taking it the cap
1:12:15from 2024 and the cap from 2025, but I
1:12:20haven't done the actual research. Mr.
1:12:22Fernandez did, and I think Mr. Bunker
1:12:24was involved in that, too. So, we'll
1:12:26take a look at that. So, sorry I can't
1:12:29give you a concrete answer today.
1:12:31>> No, I get it. You were uh you were one
1:12:34of the main opposition witness, so I
1:12:36just bundled it all together from your
1:12:39testimony. Um so happy to have you
1:12:41clarify anything um that'll be helpful.
1:12:44And then um with regard to the Aegis um
1:12:49regulatory assets, sorry to keep
1:12:50hammering these regulatory assets if
1:12:52these might have been other people's
1:12:54area. Um
1:12:56you essentially said in your uh
1:12:59settlement opposition testimony that the
1:13:01deferred balance in rate base consists
1:13:04mostly 78% of accumulated whack- like
1:13:08interest rather than the actual
1:13:10principal or capital spent. Um can you
1:13:14just help elaborate on that for me so I
1:13:17can get a better understanding of of
1:13:18your perspective of what went on there
1:13:20and why that's the case?
1:13:22>> Right. So what I wrote, Commissioner
1:13:25Gilman, was actually based on uh public
1:13:28service witness Marcy McCone and also
1:13:31Mr. Freighus. Uh so I'm not making
1:13:35anything up out of whole cloth, but it's
1:13:38it's taken from their testimony and then
1:13:41I think also discovery, but it is uh the
1:13:45majority is interest. And uh so when we
1:13:50back in 2016 when we set up you know uh
1:13:54this 50 million trigger for these
1:13:57regulatory asset it was only supposed to
1:13:59be capital expenditures
1:14:01uh two different buckets for capital
1:14:02expenditures and I think the agreement
1:14:05was after tax whack which is what I
1:14:10shortened it to whack like
1:14:13um but it was after tax whack but it it
1:14:16was supposed to be on those hard
1:14:18dollars, the capital expenditures,
1:14:20right? And then, as I stated in my
1:14:22answer testimony,
1:14:24once that whack-like interest or
1:14:27whatever you want to call it, once it
1:14:30once it accumulated and then got dumped
1:14:32into a rate case, my reading, my
1:14:35interpretation is it then ended. it then
1:14:38ended, but this accumulated uh
1:14:42whack-like interest has rolled over and
1:14:44rolled over and and now it's it's it's a
1:14:47rather large amount and it makes up most
1:14:49of that Aegis initiative regulatory
1:14:52asset. And so that's why I state, you
1:14:55know, first of all, it seems to stray
1:14:58away from the original agreement we
1:15:00reached in our settlement agreement back
1:15:01in 2016, the the Aegis case. Uh so so it
1:15:07strays away from that. It it it doesn't
1:15:09appear to be in sync with that. But also
1:15:11just from a policy and equity basis,
1:15:14they want to include it in rate base the
1:15:16settling parties to earn whack on whack
1:15:20or whack like. So it just seems so
1:15:23inequitable that rateayers now have to
1:15:25pay the weighted average cost of capital
1:15:27on something that's over 70%
1:15:30uh interest or whack-like interest. So
1:15:34that's our perspective in a nutshell.
1:15:40I'm sorry, Commissioner Gilman, you're
1:15:41on mute. There
1:15:42>> you go. Thanks. Um, moving to the
1:15:45mineral rights sale. Um, you would
1:15:48suggest in your opposition testimony
1:15:51that the commission um, delve deeper
1:15:54into the prudency of the sale. um Q
1:15:58levery for me on your concern with the
1:16:01prudency of the sale and the sale price
1:16:04and upon what that's based just so I can
1:16:06ensure I understand.
1:16:09>> First of all, thank you so much for
1:16:10asking about this. Um, so the mineral
1:16:14rights we now know were sold roughly at
1:16:17$189 million
1:16:20and that was one give we did appreciate
1:16:24from the company uh to
1:16:27uh 50% in in a credit of that 18 or 19
1:16:32million. Uh so I also developed in my
1:16:36testimony that and also Mr. Bunker's
1:16:39cross of uh Mr. Freighus that it's
1:16:43either 10 or 11 million is what those
1:16:45mineral interests spun off in net
1:16:49royalty revenues just last year in in
1:16:532025.
1:16:54And you know I saw that you know and
1:16:57I've been dealing with this oil and gas
1:16:59royalty revenue issue for many many rate
1:17:02cases. I think going back to the 2009
1:17:05electric rate case and and it's always
1:17:08been a big fight trying to get 50% to
1:17:10rateayers. In fact, they took it to
1:17:12district court and they lost. Public
1:17:14service did. But anyway, uh you know, it
1:17:18it's it's a nice chunk of money, not
1:17:19only for the company, but for rateayers.
1:17:22And it seemingly it's on it was on the
1:17:25rise because I was I and this isn't my
1:17:28answer testimony, Commissioner Gilman.
1:17:30uh you know it usually would hover
1:17:32around two million, two and a half
1:17:34million, three million shared with rate
1:17:35payers and now it's up to 5.6 million.
1:17:38So I was astounded when I saw that they
1:17:43basically traded away this annuity of
1:17:46royalty revenues for a mere 18 or 19
1:17:49million one-time sale. And I'm trying to
1:17:53figure out what in the world is going
1:17:55on. uh nobody can tell us
1:17:59uh that was on the stand Mr. P couldn't
1:18:01Mr. Freighus couldn't as to the
1:18:04company's motivation and and I just I
1:18:08just think there's something rotten in
1:18:10Denmark or rotten in Minneapolis
1:18:13uh I can tell you that Mr. Van Ael,
1:18:16Brian Van Ael, who's an executive. He
1:18:19was he had the signature on most of
1:18:21these sales documents.
1:18:24Maybe he would be the person to ask, but
1:18:27I just I I can't figure out the
1:18:30motivation. And something does not smell
1:18:32right here. And I kind of hearken back
1:18:36and Commissioner Gilman, I can't
1:18:37remember when you came on the
1:18:38commission, but back in 2019, we talked
1:18:41about the the cameo sale. If you
1:18:44remember the sale of Cameo Land,
1:18:45Chairman Blank might remember this. And
1:18:48that was like sold at a sweetheart price
1:18:51and and I I remember Commissioner uh
1:18:55Consilia was on the the commission at
1:18:57the time and she says, "I I want to
1:18:59stick the entire loss on this cameo
1:19:01sale." In that case, it was a loss on
1:19:03the company because something didn't
1:19:05didn't smell right. So, as far as what
1:19:09the commission can do, maybe it's too
1:19:11late in the day in this hearing, in this
1:19:13proceeding to look into it, but maybe
1:19:16open some sort of investigatory docket
1:19:19to see what in the world went on.
1:19:22Does that does that help or just
1:19:24confuse?
1:19:25>> No, I mean it helps. I agree with you.
1:19:28We did not seem to have a witness who
1:19:30could answer uh here. So, um, just
1:19:33trying to figure out, you know, what
1:19:35that venue is or what that actually
1:19:37looks like to that.
1:19:40>> And I, and I just add, you heard Mr.
1:19:42Bunker ask Mr. Freighus, would you put
1:19:44this 5.6 million a regulatory liability?
1:19:48And I know Mr. Freighus was going to say
1:19:50no, but I mean, the point is,
1:19:54not only was this a nice annuity stream
1:19:56for the company because they got 50% is
1:19:58a nice it was good for the rateayers,
1:20:00right? because it it helped offset the
1:20:03revenue deficiency. So, I was to say I
1:20:06was shocked in when I read Mr. Freighus'
1:20:09second supplemental direct testimony
1:20:11that they yanked this 5.6 million out of
1:20:14revenue and just made matters worse. I
1:20:17mean, it's just I couldn't believe it.
1:20:19It was the first I had heard they sold
1:20:20these mineral rights. By the way, the
1:20:22mineral rights they had to have because
1:20:25of the old Fort St. Rain nuclear reactor
1:20:27because my understanding is the nuclear
1:20:29regulatory commission requires a unified
1:20:32estate. If you're going to have a
1:20:34nuclear generation facility, you can't
1:20:36have somebody coming in to use their
1:20:39mineral rights to disturb the the
1:20:41estate. So that's why they had acquired
1:20:44those mineral rights.
1:20:46>> Okay. Um
1:20:49I think those are my only questions. Oh
1:20:52no, I have one more question. Sorry. Um
1:20:55to my understanding, UCA submitted a few
1:20:58um uh spreadsheets or workbooks that are
1:21:03at least accessible to us only in PDF.
1:21:07So I'm happy to list those for you and
1:21:09perhaps you all can try to see if we can
1:21:12get access to the executable or the
1:21:14native documents and just maybe a note
1:21:17for the future as well. But at least we
1:21:19don't seem to have access to some of the
1:21:20natives and that would be very helpful
1:21:22for us. Um,
1:21:24>> sure. How do how do we how do we
1:21:26practically do that? Do we do we send
1:21:29them to Ron Davis or
1:21:31>> you're way above my pay grade? I don't
1:21:33know.
1:21:36>> Send send them to commission council,
1:21:38please.
1:21:39>> Okay. Um those are uh at least that I
1:21:44understand uh these are attachment um
1:21:48CWS 36,
1:21:52CWS68,
1:21:54RAF2
1:21:56and LHS
1:21:585C.
1:22:00So at least those are the ones we've
1:22:02noticed um that it would be nice to have
1:22:05access to the executable. So, a
1:22:07clarifying question. Are these
1:22:09attachments to our test or do you want
1:22:11the workpapers that never were attached?
1:22:14>> No, I believe these were attached in PDF
1:22:18form only, but they look to be
1:22:20spreadsheets.
1:22:21>> Um, so we'd like to get the actual
1:22:24executable version of what was PDF. I
1:22:28understand because I did a work paper
1:22:31for
1:22:33uh my uh opposing testimony on the
1:22:35legacy meters where I added up
1:22:39everything. But again, those workpapers
1:22:41are not were not attached to my
1:22:43testimony.
1:22:43>> Yeah. No, these are real attachments. It
1:22:45just looks like they're spreadsheets,
1:22:46but we only have the PDF version, which
1:22:48is
1:22:50>> I'm sure Mr.
1:22:51>> I'm sure Mr. Bunker is making a note of
1:22:53that.
1:22:53>> Yeah. Commissioner Gilman, uh question.
1:22:56Would you like these to be provided to
1:23:00commission counsel in this case? And if
1:23:02you could just go through them quickly
1:23:04again, I think I got the four documents,
1:23:07but if you could provide them again, I'd
1:23:10appreciate it.
1:23:11>> Uh, yes, that would be helpful. Um, if
1:23:14you can just provide the executables
1:23:15here. It shouldn't be new data or new
1:23:18information to anyone. Um yeah, there
1:23:21are CWS36,
1:23:25CWS68,
1:23:29RAF2.
1:23:31>> Okay.
1:23:32>> And LHS 5C.
1:23:35>> Okay, those were the four I had written
1:23:37down. Thank you.
1:23:37>> Yeah, no worries. Thanks. We appreciate
1:23:39it. Um those are my only questions, Mr.
1:23:41Squezac. Thanks.
1:23:43>> You're welcome.
1:23:44>> Thanks, Commissioner Gman. Uh, I just
1:23:46had a uh Miss Harper, did you? No. Uh,
1:23:50yes, Miss Harper.
1:23:51>> Um, just a note to Mr. Bunker that um I
1:23:55am talking to our admin folks and I'll
1:23:57be in touch with how to uh provide
1:23:59those. I don't I don't think that email
1:24:01is the way to go. So, I'll I'll be in
1:24:03touch with you, Mr. Bunker, on the
1:24:04process.
1:24:05>> Excellent. Thank you.
1:24:08>> Thanks, uh, Miss Harper. Just a few
1:24:10questions. Uh, Mr. Schloozac, really
1:24:13high level. uh if we adopted all or even
1:24:16some of the UCA's recommendations,
1:24:19uh the company is telling us that it'll
1:24:21will likely create credit metric
1:24:23concerns and could lead to a downgrade
1:24:25by the credit agencies.
1:24:28Any response uh to this concern and any
1:24:32thoughts about how this commission
1:24:33should trade off concerns between credit
1:24:35metrics and affordability?
1:24:38>> Um first, my qualifi qualification. Uh
1:24:42Mr. Fernandez is the is the credit guy
1:24:45for UCA, but I will respond to you this
1:24:48way. I was listening to that back and
1:24:51forth between you and the company's
1:24:53witness and I never heard the word
1:24:56probable. I heard potential or possible.
1:25:01So, I mean, I've been doing these Ray
1:25:03cases since 2005 and and that's a
1:25:06constant. It's been a constant of the
1:25:08not only public service but of all the
1:25:11utilities of uh you can't do this, you
1:25:14can't go too far. It's going to harm our
1:25:16credit ratings. But
1:25:20I mean, does it does it actually come to
1:25:23pass? Does it come to fruition? I I I
1:25:26don't know. But should all of UCA's uh
1:25:32recommendations be adopted?
1:25:35I mean, that's up in the air what's
1:25:37going to happen, but I mean,
1:25:40they can always file another phase one,
1:25:42which they very well may do if they file
1:25:44a phase two, right? So, I if they really
1:25:48think it's going to harm their credit uh
1:25:50credit ratings, they can write the ship
1:25:52by coming back in saying, "See, we told
1:25:54you so."
1:25:57>> Um, just a quick question on ONM. It
1:26:00seems as if in 2023 the company cut O&M
1:26:03spending uh and in 2024 experienced some
1:26:06customer service problem problems. It
1:26:09further seems like there's some
1:26:11indicative evidence from uh the first
1:26:13quarter of 2026 that there may be
1:26:15similar O andM uh cuts coming uh this
1:26:19year. Are you concerned about future
1:26:21customer service problems uh from the uh
1:26:24company potentially cutting O andM in
1:26:262026?
1:26:29Yeah, this is this is sort of the flip
1:26:31side of the credit question, right?
1:26:33Because they say it has a potential for
1:26:36downgrade. Well, we could also say this
1:26:38has a potential to hurt uh you know
1:26:41customer service. uh we are concerned
1:26:43about the cuts in O andM and we do
1:26:45understand how this works that they get
1:26:47a certain O andM level set in base rates
1:26:52and then uh how do how do they get a
1:26:55higher earnings is uh they just cut O
1:26:58andM in between rate cases. So yeah, we
1:27:00are concerned and I thought the
1:27:02conversation was very interesting of how
1:27:04this might play out in the quality
1:27:06quality service plan and uh that's
1:27:08something UCA would really want to get
1:27:10involved in.
1:27:12any thoughts about trying to do uh
1:27:14something in this case as best we can
1:27:16given that the onm cuts may already be
1:27:19occurring.
1:27:22>> I have not talked to our new director so
1:27:26uh I wouldn't want to venture too too
1:27:29far beyond my silo.
1:27:31>> Okay. This case has involved maybe 10 or
1:27:3415 uh or maybe more issues surrounding
1:27:37potentially misaligned regulatory
1:27:39incentives and various approaches to
1:27:42better align them to improve the
1:27:44company's uh performance. It sounds like
1:27:46you've been doing this uh regulatory
1:27:48work I think you said back to 2005 over
1:27:5220 years. Do you think the company is
1:27:54now following its uh financial
1:27:56self-interest more aggressively than it
1:27:58has in the past or does it seem pretty
1:28:01similar to you?
1:28:04>> Well, there's been so many big rate
1:28:06cases over the years. Uh
1:28:10I you know I I was listening to Miss uh
1:28:13O'Neal talk about well of course it's
1:28:15the highest uh rate increase because
1:28:18each each each time should uh be the
1:28:21highest rate increase just because the
1:28:23company keeps getting bigger inflation
1:28:26etc. I I'm paraphrasing. She may not
1:28:29have exactly said that, but um
1:28:33I mean I find that alarming that every
1:28:35new rate case we're going to have a a
1:28:37historic high. I I I find that alarming
1:28:40and
1:28:42in this case I think they they really
1:28:45did push it as far as you know
1:28:48maximizing their profit. You know I I
1:28:50talk a lot about profit maximization
1:28:53enrichment of shareholders. Is is it are
1:28:56they doing it more than in the past?
1:28:58That's really hard to say, but it it
1:29:00really strikes me that they're trying to
1:29:02make all their internal metrics because
1:29:04I tell you what, I I listen to their
1:29:06earnings calls. I read their earnings
1:29:08call transcripts and it's all about
1:29:10building rate base. It's all about
1:29:12capital expenditures and, you know,
1:29:16dividend growth. So
1:29:19I you know I I it's hard to compare to
1:29:21past cases but you know talk about mis
1:29:24misaligned incentives I think year end
1:29:26rate based is one of those.
1:29:29Okay.
1:29:30Uh given the capital spending bias you
1:29:33described in your testimony and the
1:29:35amount of capital that the company is
1:29:36spending on transmission. any thoughts
1:29:39about trying to take another look uh at
1:29:42uh transmission spending that gets put
1:29:44in the TCA maybe as soon as later this
1:29:47year?
1:29:48>> Uh so I haven't given that much thought
1:29:51but I know you have some questions for
1:29:52Chris Neil.
1:29:54Chris would be the guy to jump on that.
1:29:58Uh but
1:30:01you know the the whole TCA writer thing
1:30:04and and the role in uh I also disagree
1:30:07with m what Mr. Freighus had to say
1:30:10Friday afternoon on that.
1:30:13>> Uh Mr. Bunker redirect.
1:30:17>> Thank you. Just a couple of questions.
1:30:19Uh Mr. Scoozach, do you recall the
1:30:21conversation
1:30:23few minutes ago with Mr. Zmer regarding
1:30:26whether there was a PUC rule or statute
1:30:29regarding a certain ratebased convention
1:30:33and then Mr. Larson when he was talking
1:30:36about the 2022
1:30:39uh electric rate case decision, he
1:30:41talked about year-end rate base and can
1:30:46you go into can you explain for us why
1:30:51is UCA against a year-end
1:30:55rate method and is in favor of the
1:30:5813month average?
1:31:03uh in this case.
1:31:04>> Yes, in this case.
1:31:06>> Well, I so I mean I have it all in in my
1:31:09two pieces of testimony. Yes. But uh you
1:31:12know in summary uh I it it's it better
1:31:17it it's better for the regulatory
1:31:19principle that is the matching
1:31:21principle. And I know Mr. Freighus
1:31:23disagrees with that in his rebuttal
1:31:25testimony and back and forth we go. But
1:31:29it's,
1:31:31you know, well, first of all, let me
1:31:32back up. So, public service is is is
1:31:37dumping into regular rate base 3 years
1:31:42of capital expenditures of plant, right?
1:31:45So, 25, 24, 23. Two of those come in at
1:31:50full value at year-end value. That that
1:31:53should be apparent.
1:31:55uh but it's it's always worth repeating.
1:31:58So it's only the year 2025 that we're
1:32:01talking about with the issue of
1:32:03ratebased convention or ratebased
1:32:05methodology. I just want to get that out
1:32:07there. Uh but it's, you know, as I state
1:32:12in my testimony, it smooths it out. It
1:32:14it averages the plant. It matches up
1:32:18with uh revenues and expenses. It just
1:32:22it just matches better. And then there's
1:32:24the practical effects
1:32:26uh of I understand there's more
1:32:28regulatory lag in a 13-month average,
1:32:30but as I state in my testimony uh the
1:32:34commission actually uh embraced that
1:32:37saying regulatory lag can be beneficial,
1:32:39can be a good thing, but also uh the
1:32:42practical effect of it has a huge a
1:32:46significant effect on uh what rateayers
1:32:50are going to have to pay the additional
1:32:52amount versus what shareholders get uh
1:32:56from this case. Uh we all know it it
1:32:59really moves the needle. So in a
1:33:02nutshell, there you go.
1:33:03>> And that difference between using
1:33:06year end versus 13-month average is
1:33:09about 6062 million. Is that right?
1:33:14>> So that's [clears throat]
1:33:16$60 million is the delta or change
1:33:19between Mr. Freighus' attachment APF20
1:33:24using year end and depreciation
1:33:27annualization
1:33:28and his APF23
1:33:31which used 13-month average and no
1:33:35depreciation annualization
1:33:37and then again and then APF 2020 then
1:33:43kind of became the rebuttal testimony
1:33:45revenue requirement. So which then you
1:33:48know was the basis for the settlement
1:33:50revenue requirement. So I'm a little
1:33:52hesitant to agree to 60 million because
1:33:54that was only as between attachments APF
1:33:5820 and 23. But yeah, it's a big amount.
1:34:01But also be careful when you say 60
1:34:03million. Not only is that the ratebased
1:34:06methodology, that's also the
1:34:07depreciation annualization adjustment
1:34:09which in this case is is around $16
1:34:12million.
1:34:13>> Yep.
1:34:15And were you listening to my uh
1:34:17cross-examination of staff witness Mr.
1:34:20Lei uh yesterday?
1:34:24>> Was that yesterday?
1:34:27[laughter]
1:34:27>> Seems like it was.
1:34:29>> Uh yeah, I do remember the
1:34:31cross-examination
1:34:32>> and and and he and I spoke uh a little
1:34:35bit about his testimony and that he
1:34:38still supported or agreed with his
1:34:41testimony supporting 13-month average.
1:34:44Right.
1:34:45>> Yes, he he did.
1:34:46>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'm going to object. This
1:34:48is outside the scope of
1:34:50cross-examination or commissioner's
1:34:52questions.
1:34:54>> U Mr. Bunker, that does sound right to
1:34:57me.
1:34:58>> Well, yeah, actually, Mr. Zmer brought
1:35:00up the question of ratebased convention
1:35:04and Mr.
1:35:06Larson brought up year-end rate base as
1:35:10part of his discussion of the five
1:35:12decisions in the five separate cases and
1:35:15that last one being his attempt to
1:35:18confirm that the UCA agreed to year-end
1:35:22rate base and that settlement agreement.
1:35:25So I I think that uh the doors been open
1:35:27for me.
1:35:30>> Mr. Zmer.
1:35:31>> Yeah. My questioning was limited to
1:35:33whether there was a statute or rule
1:35:35requiring a certain convention, not any
1:35:38substance or UCA's position or anyone
1:35:40else's position on use of that
1:35:43convention.
1:35:45>> If I may, Mr. Chair, I was simply asking
1:35:48him if UCA agreed to a year- end
1:35:50ratebased convention in the 2022
1:35:53electric rate case. I did not ask about
1:35:54this case.
1:35:57>> Mr. Bunker, it does seem like uh you're
1:36:01uh expanding it. Um
1:36:04>> Okay, [clears throat]
1:36:06>> you're all right.
1:36:07>> I have no further questions on redirect.
1:36:10Thank you.
1:36:11>> All right, Mr. Schloozac, uh you could
1:36:14be excused.
1:36:15>> Thank you.
1:36:18>> Uh Dr. England,
1:36:23>> uh can you hold up your right hand?
1:36:27Do you uh uh swear to tell the truth,
1:36:29the whole truth, and nothing but the
1:36:31truth?
1:36:32>> I do.
1:36:33>> You put your hand down. Is anybody uh uh
1:36:36communicating with you in any way?
1:36:39>> No, they are not.
1:36:40>> If that changes, will you let us know?
1:36:43>> Of course.
1:36:44>> Uh back to you, Miss Nelson.
1:36:47>> Thank you. Uh Dr. England, will you
1:36:49please state your full name and spell
1:36:52your last name for the record?
1:36:55My [clears throat] name is Scott
1:36:56England. Last name E N G L A N D.
1:37:01>> And by whom are you employed?
1:37:05>> I'm employed by the Colorado uh utility
1:37:08consumer advocate.
1:37:10>> And what's your job title?
1:37:12>> I am an economist.
1:37:16Did you prepare what's been admitted
1:37:19into the record as um you as hearing
1:37:23exhibit 303 which is your answer
1:37:26testimony filed in this case?
1:37:29>> I did.
1:37:30>> Did you also prepare uh what's been
1:37:33admitted as hearing exhibit 307 which is
1:37:37your crosans answer testimony in this
1:37:39proceeding?
1:37:40>> Yes. Do you have any corrections to
1:37:43either piece of testimony?
1:37:46>> Not that I am aware of, nor would I like
1:37:48to make at this time.
1:37:50>> Thank you. [laughter]
1:37:53Dr. England is available for
1:37:55cross-examination and commissioner
1:37:56questions. Thank you.
1:37:58>> I have EOC with 30 minutes and it's 207.
1:38:05>> Thank you. Um, good afternoon Dr.
1:38:07England. Uh, good afternoon. Are you the
1:38:10same England that's playing in the World
1:38:12Cup right now?
1:38:14>> Uh, I have no relation with anyone from
1:38:18England.
1:38:19>> Okay. Just wanted to clear that out. My
1:38:22name is Casey Canelio and I represent
1:38:24Energy Outreach Colorado. Uh, we've met
1:38:26before and it's good to see you today.
1:38:28>> You as well. Um,
1:38:30>> Mr. England, I'd first like to direct
1:38:32your attention to your crosswer
1:38:34testimony which is hearing exhibit 307.
1:38:39Okay.
1:38:40>> And if we could turn to page uh three
1:38:45and so we can see footnote one.
1:38:50Um thank you. Um so um Dr. England, you
1:38:53site to commission decision uh C-26-0213
1:38:58uh in the most recent public service
1:39:00renewable energy plan proceeding. Do you
1:39:02see that?
1:39:03>> I do.
1:39:04And do you re and you rely on that
1:39:06decision in part to support UCA's
1:39:08recommendation uh that the commission
1:39:10reject EOCC's resunded proposal in this
1:39:13case?
1:39:15>> I believe I use that decision to
1:39:18indicate the commission
1:39:21offered EOC the opportunity to bring it
1:39:23back in this rate case or the next
1:39:26proceeding rate case.
1:39:28>> Okay. Um thank you. if we could now pull
1:39:30up hearing exhibit um 712 which is in
1:39:33EOCC's box folder.
1:39:35And while this is getting pulled up, Dr.
1:39:37England, these are going to be um UCA's
1:39:40responses to EOC discovery request 11
1:39:51and Yep, it's just that one page if we
1:39:53could see the full.
1:39:55Awesome. Thank you. Um so Dr. Stringland
1:39:57in response to EOC 111 subp part A UCA
1:40:02acknowledges that the commission in
1:40:04decision C26-0213
1:40:07stated IQ customers have been
1:40:09contributing to the recess charge for
1:40:11years while the prior re while the prior
1:40:15solar rewards community program
1:40:16delivered far less capacity than was
1:40:19anticipated. Correct.
1:40:22>> Correct.
1:40:23And in response to EOCC11 subp part B,
1:40:26UCA also acknowledged that the
1:40:28commission in that decision stated, "We
1:40:31share EOCC's view that these customers
1:40:33deserve timely and meaningful benefits."
1:40:38>> Correct.
1:40:39>> Um, and you were the sponsor of of this
1:40:42uh discovery response, Dr. England.
1:40:44>> I was.
1:40:44>> Um, great. I'd like to move to admit
1:40:46hearing exhibit 712.
1:40:49>> Uh, any objections? Uh, Miss Nelson or
1:40:52Mr. Bunker.
1:40:53>> No objection.
1:40:55>> So moved.
1:40:56>> Thank you. Um, Dr. England, neither of
1:40:59those commission um, findings are
1:41:01discussed anywhere in your crossher
1:41:03testimony. Is that correct?
1:41:08>> I do not believe I put those in my
1:41:10crossher testimony.
1:41:12>> And UC admitted that admission uh, in
1:41:15response to subp part C of this
1:41:17discovery request. Do you see that? Yes.
1:41:20>> Um, so just to confirm, your crosans
1:41:22answer testimony does not discuss the
1:41:25commission's findings that
1:41:26incomequalified customers have
1:41:28contributed to the RISA for years or the
1:41:31commission statement that those
1:41:32customers deserve timely and meaningful
1:41:34benefits.
1:41:36My crosans answer testimony went to the
1:41:39issue that refunding funds through the
1:41:42RHISA is a legal issue that we believe
1:41:47is not appropriate.
1:41:49>> Okay. Um thank you. We can take this
1:41:51exhibit down.
1:41:54Um Dr. Dr. England, as part of your
1:41:56crosans answer testimony, um, in this
1:41:59case, um, UCA didn't perform any
1:42:01evaluation of EOCC's operational ability
1:42:04to administer the proposed assistance it
1:42:07seeks in this case, did it?
1:42:10>> No. Nor did we call into question uh,
1:42:14EOCC's ability to facilitate um,
1:42:18programs, the issuance of funds, or
1:42:21anything of that nature.
1:42:23>> Okay. Thank you. That answers my next
1:42:25question. Um, would you agree that
1:42:27Energy Outreach Colorado is the primary
1:42:29nonprofit entity specifically referenced
1:42:31and utilized within Colorado's energy
1:42:34assistance framework?
1:42:41>> Yes.
1:42:43>> And UCA does not contend there currently
1:42:45exists another organization providing
1:42:47services identical to those provided by
1:42:49EOC.
1:42:51>> Not in the same capacity. No. Okay. So,
1:42:55UCA's recommendation to reject EOC's
1:42:58research proposal was not based upon an
1:43:00evaluation of EOCC's operational
1:43:03capabilities.
1:43:06>> No, it's solely based on the legal issue
1:43:08of whether it is possible to do such.
1:43:12>> Okay. Um, and so UCA didn't perform an
1:43:16analysis in this case of the number of
1:43:18incomequalified customers carrying a
1:43:21rear, did it?
1:43:24No.
1:43:25>> And
1:43:28um UCA didn't perform an analysis of how
1:43:30many customers could benefit from EOCC's
1:43:32proposal?
1:43:34>> No.
1:43:35>> Okay. Thank you. Um
1:43:38if we could pull up hearing exhibit 700,
1:43:40which is Mr. Andrew Bennett's answer
1:43:42testimony for EOC.
1:43:45And while this is getting pulled up, um
1:43:47Dr. England, you reviewed Mr. Mr.
1:43:49Bennett's answer testimony before
1:43:50preparing your cross-ans answer
1:43:52testimony.
1:43:53>> I'm sorry. Repeat that.
1:43:55>> You reviewed Mr. Bennett's answer
1:43:57testimony for EOC in this case. Uh
1:43:59before you prepared your uh crosser
1:44:02testimony.
1:44:03>> Yes. I thought you said reviewed his
1:44:04cross answer and I was like I don't have
1:44:08precog ability to do that. So just want
1:44:10to make sure I apologize if I did. Um if
1:44:13we could turn to um page 37 please.
1:44:19Um, and Dr. England, looking at uh lines
1:44:22one to um to three, do you see here that
1:44:27Mr. Bennett testified that participation
1:44:29and project development in prior income
1:44:31qualified community solar programs did
1:44:34not occur at the scale or pace
1:44:35originally anticipated under prior
1:44:37company renewable energy plans?
1:44:41>> I see that. And UCA didn't pres present
1:44:45any testimony disputing that statement,
1:44:47did it?
1:44:49>> We did not.
1:44:51>> And um are you aware that Mr. Bennett's
1:44:55answer testimony also addressed um an IQ
1:44:59community solar garden weight list?
1:45:03>> Yeah, I believe he has a table in his
1:45:05testimony somewhere.
1:45:06>> Yes. Unfortunately, I don't have the
1:45:07page number to pull that up, but UCI
1:45:10didn't present uh testimony disputing
1:45:12that approximately 8,400 customers are
1:45:14on on that weight list. Did it
1:45:17>> I'm don't know what the number was, but
1:45:18we did not dispute it.
1:45:20>> Okay. Would you agree that customers
1:45:22participating in IQ Community Solar
1:45:25Gardens receive bill credits that reduce
1:45:27their electric bills?
1:45:30>> Yes.
1:45:31>> Okay.
1:45:33Thank you. Um,
1:45:35we can take this hearing exhibit down.
1:45:38Um, Dr. England, were you present um on
1:45:42Monday? I had to think about that. Uh,
1:45:44during Commissioner Plant's questioning
1:45:46of company witness, Mr. uh, Piscuchi
1:45:48about Comanche Unit 3,
1:45:51>> I believe. So,
1:45:53>> um, and so you heard Commissioner Plant
1:45:55ask the um, ask that company witness the
1:45:58following question. Why can't we just
1:46:00subtract out the things that people have
1:46:02paid during that time period for which
1:46:05they didn't receive any performance so
1:46:07that you end up backing out those costs?
1:46:09Do you recall that?
1:46:12>> Sounds familiar.
1:46:14>> Okay. Um turning to the issue before us,
1:46:16UCA does not dispute that income
1:46:19qualified customers have contributed to
1:46:21the rescharge for years.
1:46:24>> Correct.
1:46:26And UCA doesn't dispute that prior
1:46:29incomequalified community solar
1:46:31participation has not occurred at a
1:46:33scale or pace originally anticipated.
1:46:36>> Correct.
1:46:38>> And um did you hear my discussion last
1:46:41week with company witness Miss McCone
1:46:44that the company's most recently
1:46:46reported balance is $142.5 million?
1:46:52>> Yes, I was there. I remember that
1:46:54questioning. Okay. And UCA doesn't
1:46:57dispute that the company um currently
1:46:59reports that balance in excess of $140
1:47:01million.
1:47:03>> I don't know the exact balance, but it
1:47:06does not surprise me if it's that much.
1:47:10>> Okay. Um yeah, despite those facts,
1:47:14UCA's recommendation remains that the
1:47:16commission reject EOC's proposal to use
1:47:18a limited portion of those funds to help
1:47:20incomequalified customers. Again, UCA's
1:47:23position is that it's a legal issue. The
1:47:26Resa funds are intended to be used for
1:47:30renewable projects, renewable
1:47:32generation, and bill assistance does not
1:47:34fall into that category.
1:47:36If the commission views additional
1:47:39customer assistance is warranted in this
1:47:42case, there may be another mechanism in
1:47:45which to um induce a similar refund to
1:47:50income qualified customers. Um
1:47:54it does appear that the resub balance is
1:47:57a reflection of the management of the
1:47:59renewable program itself by public
1:48:02service. And
1:48:04should the commission find that there
1:48:08has been some dereliction of duty on
1:48:10their behalf and wants to effectuate a
1:48:13refund some other with some other
1:48:16method, UCA would probably support that.
1:48:20Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, Dr. England,
1:48:24last set of questions for you. Are you
1:48:25aware that Black Hills Electric uh
1:48:27recently filed an electric rate case
1:48:29with the commission?
1:48:30>> Yep. And unfortunately, this is going to
1:48:32be an issue in that case as well.
1:48:34>> Okay, great. That's exactly what I want
1:48:36to talk to you about. Um, if we could
1:48:37turn to hearing exhibit um 713 in EOSU's
1:48:40box folder.
1:48:45And while this is getting pulled up, um,
1:48:47this will be, uh, direct testimony from
1:48:49that recently filed docket, which I
1:48:52believe you said you're you're aware of.
1:48:54Um, so, Dr. England, did did you do you
1:48:57see that this is the direct testimony of
1:48:59Michael Harrington in um, the recently
1:49:02filed Black Hills Electric case, which
1:49:04is proceeding number 26-0232E.
1:49:09>> Yes. and just want to warn you, I've uh
1:49:12just started reading this application.
1:49:15>> Okay, that's fair. It was just filed and
1:49:18we're in a hearing, so I won't dock you
1:49:20for that. If we could turn to page uh 40
1:49:22of this direct testimony
1:49:25and look at lines uh 19 to 20 at the
1:49:29bottom. Um Dr. Dr. England, do you see
1:49:32here that Black Hills is proposing to
1:49:33refund approximately uh $29.5 million of
1:49:38resisa over collections to customers?
1:49:43>> Yes. Over a 2-year period.
1:49:46>> Thank you. And looking at line 20 um and
1:49:49into the top of page 41, if we could
1:49:52scroll down a little
1:49:54um
1:49:56that page looks blank. Um wow. That's
1:50:01really unfortunate. I apologize.
1:50:02[laughter]
1:50:03Um,
1:50:06>> it it's the same page. Like it it just
1:50:08has a blank page in it. So I just can't
1:50:11show you both pages at once, but I think
1:50:13the sentence
1:50:14>> Oh, okay. Um
1:50:16>> Oh, like it goes the
1:50:17>> I think what I'm looking for is
1:50:20>> Oh, maybe not.
1:50:21>> Yeah, this is okay. There's a missing
1:50:23page. Um, well, Dr. England, if I
1:50:25represented you in this um direct
1:50:27testimony after uh Mr. Mr. Harrington
1:50:30discusses the RISO overolction amount.
1:50:32Um, Black Hills is also proposing um to
1:50:35use approximately $600,000 of RISA over
1:50:38collections uh for targeted in for a
1:50:40targeted income qualified refund pilot.
1:50:43Uh, were you aware of that?
1:50:45>> I am aware of that. Yes.
1:50:47>> Okay. Um, I'd like to move for the
1:50:50admission of hearing exhibit 713.
1:50:54>> Any objection? And maybe I need to fix
1:50:56the that missing page before it
1:50:59officially comes in. But
1:51:01>> um I UCA has no objection to the
1:51:05commission taking administrative notice
1:51:07of hearing exhibit 713 since it was
1:51:10filed in another proceeding in front of
1:51:13the commission. But uh Dr. England
1:51:17testified that he had just started
1:51:20reviewing the application and and um
1:51:23hadn't reviewed uh doc uh Mr.
1:51:27Harrington's testimony specifically. So
1:51:30no objection to the admission um
1:51:33concerning or on the basis of
1:51:35administrative notice.
1:51:38>> All right, we'll take administrative
1:51:39notice of it.
1:51:41>> Thank you.
1:51:45>> Go ahead, Mr. Zar if do you have a
1:51:46concern?
1:51:48>> Yeah, norm under the administrative
1:51:50notice provisions you have an
1:51:52opportunity to examine or redirect
1:51:56around the issue and here we don't have
1:51:58that. This is from a witness in another
1:52:01proceeding and the fact that it may be
1:52:04happening happening there is not
1:52:06relevant to any of the issues in this
1:52:07proceeding or probitative of any facts
1:52:09at issue.
1:52:12Uh
1:52:13actually I think that's right miss
1:52:17uh um
1:52:21I'm not sure there's a proper foundation
1:52:23uh for this document from this witness.
1:52:27Uh it is somebody else's uh direct
1:52:30testimony in a different case
1:52:33uh that the witness has said he hasn't
1:52:36really read. though. Um I do think
1:52:39there's a foundation uh concern.
1:52:43>> Okay. Well, we have the discussion in
1:52:45the transcript of the of the testimony.
1:52:47So, um that's fine.
1:52:50>> Okay. So, this will not be an exhibit.
1:52:52Uh this is not an exhibited exhibit for
1:52:55the uh this is not admitted to evidence,
1:52:58but the transcript uh will speak for
1:53:01itself. Thank you.
1:53:03>> Thank you.
1:53:03>> Uh last two questions for you, Dr.
1:53:05England. Um, so regardless of whether
1:53:08you support um the proposal that we just
1:53:11went over in the Black Hills case, Black
1:53:13Hills is proposing to use a portion of
1:53:15accumulated reset balances for targeted
1:53:18income qualified customer assistance.
1:53:20Correct.
1:53:22>> That is my understanding.
1:53:24>> So EOCC's proposal is not the only
1:53:27proposal before the commission right now
1:53:30involving the use of accumulated reset
1:53:32balances to provide targeted benefits to
1:53:34income qualified customers.
1:53:38Correct.
1:53:41>> Okay. Thank you for your time, Dr.
1:53:42England. Those are all my questions.
1:53:45>> Commissioner Plant, questions for Dr.
1:53:47England?
1:53:47>> I do not have any questions.
1:53:50>> Commissioner Gman,
1:53:51>> no questions. Thanks.
1:53:53>> Uh, I don't either. Uh, Miss Nelson,
1:53:57redirect for M. Dr. England.
1:53:59>> Sure. Just just one question. Dr.
1:54:02England, when you were talking about uh
1:54:04the this commission in this proceeding
1:54:09potentially doing something else, I
1:54:12think you said using some other method
1:54:15to provide economic support to the IQ
1:54:20customers and the customers that Miss
1:54:22Canu can that EOC represents. Um what
1:54:28did you have in mind? You did not mean
1:54:29the increased balance in the the RISA
1:54:34account, did you?
1:54:36>> I was just simply um indicating that
1:54:39there is a balance in the RISA account,
1:54:43which is suggestive of collecting more
1:54:46funds than programs funded. And should
1:54:50the commissioners or the commission view
1:54:53that in some way as a mismanagement of
1:54:55the renewable energy program and is of
1:54:59the opinion that incomequalified
1:55:02customers are being uh hurt by
1:55:08this management of the renewable program
1:55:10that if they view additional customer
1:55:14assistance is necessary and they want to
1:55:17mag uh quantify if it at a similar
1:55:20dollar amount. There are other ways in
1:55:23which to do it than through the RISA
1:55:25itself. And UCA is still of the opinion
1:55:29that directly refunding RISA funds is
1:55:33not legally uh allowable.
1:55:38>> Thank you. I have nothing further.
1:55:41>> Uh thank you Dr. England. You may be
1:55:44excused.
1:55:46Uh I think Mr. Neil is the uh next
1:55:50witness on my list.
1:55:53You are Mr. Neil. Can you hold up your
1:55:54right hand? Do you swear to tell the
1:55:56truth, the whole truth, and nothing uh
1:55:58but the truth?
1:55:59>> I do.
1:56:00>> You can put your hand down. Is anybody
1:56:02with you or communicating with you in
1:56:03any way?
1:56:05>> No, they're not.
1:56:06>> If that changes, will you let us know?
1:56:09>> Yes, I will.
1:56:11>> Uh Miss Nelson, any uh prelim
1:56:14preliminaries?
1:56:15>> Sure, I might as well. Um, Mr. Neil, can
1:56:18you please state your name, spell your
1:56:21last name for the record?
1:56:23>> My name is Chris Neil. Nei L.
1:56:27>> And by whom are you employed?
1:56:30>> The Office of Utility Consumer Advocate.
1:56:33>> And what is your job title?
1:56:36>> Rate SLFinancial Analyst.
1:56:39>> Thank you. Um, Mr. Neil, did you prepare
1:56:42what's been admitted as hearing exhibit
1:56:46306,
1:56:48Rev One, your answer testimony filed in
1:56:51this proceeding?
1:56:52>> Yes, I did.
1:56:54>> Do you have any corrections to that at
1:56:55this time?
1:56:56>> No.
1:56:58>> Thank you. Mr. Neil's available for
1:57:00commissioner questions.
1:57:02>> I think I was the only one who had
1:57:03questions. Commissioner Plant. Yep. I
1:57:05see both colleagues nodding. Uh Mr.
1:57:08Neil, uh, given the capital spending
1:57:10bias Mr. Slooac describes in his answer
1:57:12testimony and the amount of capital that
1:57:15the company is spending on transmission,
1:57:17any thoughts about taking another look
1:57:20uh perhaps as soon as uh the fall TCA
1:57:23filing about how much uh transmission
1:57:26spending gets in the put in the TCA.
1:57:30Yes, I think that would be a good idea.
1:57:32And I think that the capital bias
1:57:34indicates that capital expenditures are
1:57:37very profitable for public service and
1:57:39that's why they're doing as much as they
1:57:41can either distribution investment or
1:57:43transmission investment.
1:57:45>> And it sounds like you think uh maybe
1:57:48looking at it sooner than later would be
1:57:49a good idea.
1:57:51>> Yes. And I also point out there are
1:57:52transmission studies going on right now
1:57:54through fiasco through the CCPG. There
1:57:57are two of them going on. So it would be
1:57:59timely to review those the results of
1:58:01those transmission studies and also the
1:58:04just the bias towards spending lots on
1:58:06transmission.
1:58:08>> Um just one more question. I appreciate
1:58:11your answer testimony going through the
1:58:13long-term rate impact modeling including
1:58:16including raising concerns about too low
1:58:18capex the treatment of fuel and PPA cost
1:58:21the roller curtailment the impact of
1:58:23behind the meter solar and other factors
1:58:26and we can try and concerns uh the next
1:58:29time we ask for this type of modeling
1:58:31you know for me uh given that uh the
1:58:34capital spending is going into rate in
1:58:36this case is getting advertised over 40
1:58:3950 60 errors. It seems like this model,
1:58:42even if flawed, is a useful tool
1:58:45compared to other measures that may be
1:58:47more of one-time current snapshots.
1:58:49Um, assuming we start getting your
1:58:51substantive concerns addressed, any
1:58:54thoughts on, you know, sort of the value
1:58:57of current wallet share versus long-term
1:59:00rate impact.
1:59:02Well, as I said, you know, there are
1:59:03flaws in this model, but it is a useful
1:59:05model to indicate to us that um
1:59:08moderation of capital expenditures as to
1:59:11use the rating agency term would be good
1:59:14to hold down affordability and there are
1:59:17significant affordability concerns with
1:59:19public services uh rates and future
1:59:22rates.
1:59:24and any comments about how we may use
1:59:26this tool more appropriately going
1:59:28forward
1:59:32correcting some of the flaws including
1:59:34that the real cost that they're going to
1:59:36put in and not very you know the low
1:59:38capital expenditures you know I think
1:59:40the capital expenditure should be
1:59:41somewhere between your 7% case and their
1:59:43case uh and that will give us better
1:59:46information but also as you indicate
1:59:49ways to try to reduce their capital
1:59:52expenditures There's, you know, they've
1:59:54got electric vehicle forecast, driving
1:59:57distribution, uh, investment because
2:00:00they don't do enough, uh, manage, they
2:00:03don't manage charging well enough and
2:00:04they're having charging on peak and
2:00:07they're having, uh, heat pumps loads
2:00:10char hitting on peak and driving
2:00:12distribution expenditures and they're,
2:00:14you know, putting all kinds of, uh,
2:00:16projects someplace rather than on places
2:00:19where there's already transmission
2:00:21capacity. Uh so there's there are many
2:00:23issues that are are are can be
2:00:25questioned and can represent ways to
2:00:28reduce capital expenditures and
2:00:29therefore rate increases.
2:00:34>> Um my computer may be freezing. Uh
2:00:36that's all I had. Miss Nelson, any
2:00:39redirect?
2:00:44>> You are on mute, Miss Nelson.
2:00:48>> Sorry, I apologize. No, I have no
2:00:50redirect for Mr. Neil.
2:00:53>> Thank you for Thank you for joining us.
2:00:55Uh, Mr. Neil, appreciate it.
2:00:59>> Um, uh, I think my last our last witness
2:01:03is Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, are you out
2:01:05there?
2:01:10>> Yes, I am.
2:01:12>> Uh, can you hold up your right hand? Do
2:01:16you swear to tell the truth, the whole
2:01:17truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.
2:01:20>> Put your hand down. Is anybody with you
2:01:22or communicating with you in any way?
2:01:24>> No.
2:01:25>> If that changes, will you let us know?
2:01:28>> Certainly.
2:01:29>> Uh back to you, Miss uh Canelo.
2:01:32>> Thank you. You got it perfectly. Um
2:01:35>> it only took like a whole week.
2:01:37>> Yeah. [laughter]
2:01:38Thanks. Um Mr. Bennett, could you please
2:01:42uh state and spell your last name for
2:01:43the first and last name for the record?
2:01:45>> Yes. Andrew Bennett. A N D R E W B B B B
2:01:49B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Bennett
2:01:49B E N E T.
2:01:52>> And by whom are you employed and what is
2:01:55your position?
2:01:56>> I'm employed by Energy Outreach Colorado
2:01:58or EOCC and my position is vice
2:02:00president of advocacy.
2:02:03>> And Mr. Bennett, did you cause to be
2:02:05filed in this proceeding your answer
2:02:07testimony, crosswer testimony, and
2:02:09settlement opposition testimony, which
2:02:12have been marked as hearing exhibits
2:02:14700, 702, and 703, respectively?
2:02:18>> I did.
2:02:19>> And if I were to ask you the same
2:02:21questions uh today contained in those
2:02:23testimonies, would your answers be the
2:02:25same?
2:02:26>> Yes.
2:02:27>> And do you have any corrections,
2:02:28revisions, or changes to those
2:02:30testimonies?
2:02:31>> No.
2:02:32>> Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bennett is
2:02:34available for cross-examination and
2:02:36commissioner questions.
2:02:38>> Mr. Mr. Zelmer.
2:02:41>> Thank you, Chair Blank. Uh, good
2:02:42afternoon, Mr. Bennett.
2:02:44>> Good afternoon.
2:02:45>> Uh,
2:02:47EOCC, UCA, AP, and Boulder have entered
2:02:50into a stipulation regarding the
2:02:52company's EAP proposals in this
2:02:54proceeding. Is that correct?
2:02:56>> Yes.
2:02:58And that stipulation states that the
2:02:59commission should approve the company's
2:03:01proposed PIP EAP enhancements
2:03:05presented in the company's
2:03:08direct case and additional affordability
2:03:10measures presented in the company's
2:03:12rebuttal case.
2:03:14>> Yes.
2:03:16>> Could we pull up uh hearing exhibit 155,
2:03:19please?
2:03:27And can we go to page 35?
2:03:35And we see here the settlement agreement
2:03:37provides uh for approval of the
2:03:40company's proposed EAP and PIP
2:03:43enhancements as proposed in the
2:03:46company's direct testimony and further
2:03:47refined in rebuttal testimony.
2:03:50>> Yes. Yes.
2:03:51>> So, at least up to this point, there's
2:03:52alignment between the EOCC stipulation
2:03:55and the settlement agreement. Is that
2:03:57correct?
2:03:58>> Correct.
2:03:59>> And then if we go down to paragraph 61,
2:04:02it also provides for a onetime 5 million
2:04:05contribution
2:04:07to those programs. And that concept is
2:04:10also incorporated in the EOC
2:04:12stipulation. Is that right?
2:04:13>> Correct.
2:04:16You're hearing exhibit 703
2:04:19explains that EOP EOC opposes the
2:04:22settlement agreement. Is that correct?
2:04:25>> Uh if we could pull it up, I think it's
2:04:27caveed that we oppose treating it as a
2:04:31settlement agreement. I think going back
2:04:33to the same arguments council made
2:04:36during the prehering conference. So I
2:04:39think the document names that we had to
2:04:42file it under verse what we're saying
2:04:44are are different and nuanced in my
2:04:46opinion.
2:04:48>> Okay. Um [clears throat]
2:04:51so does EOC oppo does EOC oppose the
2:04:55financial resolution that results from
2:04:59what you characterize as a stipulation?
2:05:03So, we didn't provide testimony on
2:05:07things like the whack or the roe or
2:05:10other positions like that. So, we hadn't
2:05:13taken a position on that. Um,
2:05:18but we did not sign on to the
2:05:20settlement. Um, and if you go through
2:05:24the exhibit 703, the testimony I wrote,
2:05:27it was about the issues that were at
2:05:29heart for EOC and what we're concerned
2:05:31about and what we had written testimony
2:05:34on. Um, so
2:05:37yeah, I I think the characterization
2:05:40that filing the opposition testimony was
2:05:43that we're opposing the settlement isn't
2:05:45quite right. We arguing very specific
2:05:48issues.
2:05:51Okay. Um, can we scroll down
2:05:55just a little bit? Paragraph 62 provides
2:05:58for future collaboration to explore a
2:06:01pilot to further address energy in
2:06:03security and methods to target
2:06:05assistance to the most vulnerable. Does
2:06:07EOCC oppose that provision?
2:06:09>> Uh,
2:06:12no. I mean, we participated in the last
2:06:13energy and security working group. Um,
2:06:18I think it'd be important to have like
2:06:21defined goals and you know the last one
2:06:24we we as like a group spent a lot of
2:06:27time basically rehashing Dr. Nbalmer's
2:06:31calculations and spent the entire time
2:06:33basically coming back to Dr. Nomber was
2:06:36right. Um, so
2:06:39it's not in and of itself. I think it
2:06:41just needs to be defined and have
2:06:43specific goals.
2:06:45>> So, do you oppose that provision?
2:06:48>> Uh, no, I don't.
2:06:50>> But just with a caveat that it needs to
2:06:52be clear. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I
2:06:54couldn't hear you.
2:06:55>> Uh, you answered no. And that's all we
2:06:57needed.
2:06:58>> Uh, can we move down to paragraph 63
2:07:02that provides for filing certain
2:07:03materials by December 1st, 2026? Does
2:07:06EOCC propose oppose that?
2:07:09Give me just a moment just reading the
2:07:11whole thing.
2:07:16>> No.
2:07:17>> Can we scroll down to paragraph 64?
2:07:22This paragraph uh provides requires the
2:07:25company to focus its outreach and
2:07:26education on all potentially eligible
2:07:28populations but with a particular focus
2:07:31particular attention to customers andor
2:07:34geographic areas that may have
2:07:36relatively higher levels of energy
2:07:38burden. senior citizens and young
2:07:40children. Does EOC oppose this?
2:07:42>> No.
2:07:44>> Go down to paragraph 65.
2:07:50This paragraph requires the company not
2:07:52to conduct any involuntary
2:07:54disconnections for customers referred to
2:07:56EAP through LEAP EOC
2:08:01CEO support programs even if not
2:08:03enrolled eligible or enrolled in EAP.
2:08:06Does EOC oppose this provision?
2:08:09>> Uh,
2:08:11no. But I think we did I did discuss
2:08:14something similar in my cross answer
2:08:16that if we're going to have um all
2:08:20disconnections stopped that we do need
2:08:22to make sure that we have proper
2:08:24procedures or plans in place so that we
2:08:26don't have buildups of rearages. That
2:08:29way customers don't inadvertently build
2:08:32up a ridge that then comes due and then
2:08:34would not be able to pay it and then you
2:08:36have the disconnections issues all over
2:08:38again. So no we don't but I would
2:08:40reference back to uh crosswans answer
2:08:42testimony.
2:08:43Can
2:08:44>> we scroll down to paragraph 67?
2:08:52>> Uh this requires uh third party auditing
2:08:56of sample self testation. Does EOCC
2:08:58oppose that?
2:09:00>> No. [clears throat]
2:09:04>> Paragraph 68, regarding limiting down
2:09:07payments. Does EOCC oppose that?
2:09:09>> No.
2:09:11>> Paragraph 69, to eliminate limits on
2:09:14monthly benefit amounts apart from the
2:09:16relevant energy burden threshold. Does
2:09:18EOC oppose that?
2:09:20>> Uh, no, but my understanding is that
2:09:22those limits actually don't exist. There
2:09:25was an inadvertent list or line item on
2:09:28an exhibit by Excel Energy. So, we don't
2:09:31oppose it because it doesn't actually
2:09:32exist.
2:09:34>> Does EOC oppose the $1.5 million annual
2:09:40administrative funding which was an
2:09:42increase over the company's direct
2:09:43proposal?
2:09:45>> No.
2:09:48>> Nothing further. Thank you.
2:09:50>> Thank you.
2:09:55I think staff had a uh some cross for
2:09:58her. Miss Mclofflin.
2:10:01>> Yes. Thank you, chair. Um good
2:10:04afternoon, Mr. Bennett. I believe we've
2:10:06met before, but for the record, my name
2:10:07is Katie Mclofflin and I represent
2:10:09staff. Uh I have a few questions for you
2:10:12today. I want to start off by asking you
2:10:15about Energy Outreach Colorado.
2:10:17>> Certainly.
2:10:18>> EOC provides certain energy assistance
2:10:21resources to income qualified
2:10:23individuals. Correct.
2:10:24>> Correct.
2:10:26>> And EOCC gets some of this funding
2:10:27through the energy assistance system
2:10:30benefit charge. It's a mouthful. Um,
2:10:33agree.
2:10:34>> Yes, we did. Yeah.
2:10:36>> And that charge is on almost all the
2:10:38public services rateayers bills.
2:10:40Correct.
2:10:41>> Yes. Uh, you can opt out and then
2:10:44customers that are enrolled in income
2:10:46qualified programs or like energy
2:10:48assistance are automatically opted out.
2:10:50>> Okay. And and just as you stated, it's
2:10:53it's a opt out. It's automatically on
2:10:56individuals bills.
2:10:58>> Correct.
2:10:58>> Okay. And I looked at my bill from last
2:11:01month and the energy assistance system
2:11:03benefit charge is 83 cents. Does that
2:11:06sound right?
2:11:06>> For fuel. Yes.
2:11:08>> And that's 83 cents for electric and 83
2:11:11cents for gas. Correct.
2:11:12>> Correct.
2:11:13>> Okay. And Pasco has about 1.6 million
2:11:17electric customers. Does that sound
2:11:19right? Sounds about right.
2:11:21>> And about 1.5 million gas customers.
2:11:24>> Yes. Sorry.
2:11:26Sorry. I was getting my lighting back on
2:11:27it.
2:11:28>> No problem.
2:11:30Does EOCC also receive funds from other
2:11:33utilities through similar assistance
2:11:35energy charges?
2:11:36>> Yes, all the regulated utilities
2:11:39contribute. Um that so that was under
2:11:41House Bill 21105.
2:11:43>> Okay. And is EOC regulated by the PUC?
2:11:45>> No, we are not.
2:11:48And on every single electric bill,
2:11:50there's an option for customers to
2:11:52essentially donate, check a box to
2:11:54provide more money to EOCC. Isn't that
2:11:56right?
2:11:57>> I wouldn't say every single um I think
2:12:00it's like maybe every other the check
2:12:02off box on the bottom is on there. And
2:12:05it's if you get a digital bill, you have
2:12:08to go through your email, click a link,
2:12:10then click a link for that month's
2:12:13inserts or onserts, and then you can
2:12:16click another link in there to open up
2:12:18that document. And then you can either I
2:12:21think you can print that in and send it
2:12:22out or you can call. So it's
2:12:26a little technicality. It's not
2:12:27technically on every bill, but there is
2:12:29a way to get to it and it's not
2:12:31necessarily on every single bill either.
2:12:33>> Sure. Uh, could we please pull up what
2:12:35is in staff's box? It's hearings exhibit
2:12:38414.
2:12:40And I would like to represent to you
2:12:41that this is my most recent electric
2:12:43bill.
2:12:50And if we could turn to page two, and
2:12:52I'd like to look at the very bottom of
2:12:54page two.
2:13:01Is this essentially an opportunity for
2:13:04individuals to contribute to Energy
2:13:06Outreach Colorado on their electric
2:13:07bill?
2:13:08>> Yes.
2:13:09>> Okay. And this is in addition to the
2:13:12assistance charge as well. And you can
2:13:15see that that's also on my bill just
2:13:17above there, the 83 cents.
2:13:19>> Yes.
2:13:20>> Okay. And this is just a demonstrative.
2:13:22So, we can go ahead and take this
2:13:23exhibit down. Thank you.
2:13:26EOC intervened in PiSco's renewable
2:13:29energy compliance plan. It was preceding
2:13:3125A 0194E,
2:13:34right?
2:13:35>> I'm sorry, it you said 21A.
2:13:38>> 25A. I apologize if I spoke.
2:13:40>> Okay. The numbers sound about right. So,
2:13:42yes. [laughter]
2:13:43>> And there's so many different 25s and
2:13:46fours and nines floating around. I
2:13:47understand.
2:13:49>> And you filed answer testimony in that
2:13:50proceeding, correct?
2:13:52>> Yes. And in your testimony in the RES
2:13:55proceeding, you recommended that the
2:13:57commission authorized $25 million of
2:14:00overcolcted RISA funds to be
2:14:02redistributed to EOC. Right.
2:14:05>> Yes. I suggested a 5 million over
2:14:07five-year refund to income qualified
2:14:10customers. Yes.
2:14:11>> Right. And parties in the res
2:14:13proceeding, they filed a settlement
2:14:15agreement. Correct.
2:14:16>> I'm sorry. You kind of broke up for me.
2:14:18>> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh my question was
2:14:21parties in the res proceeding they filed
2:14:23a settlement agreement. Isn't that
2:14:24right?
2:14:26>> The other parties EOCC did not join the
2:14:28settlement.
2:14:29>> Okay. And the settlement agreement did
2:14:31not include a provision allocating $25
2:14:34million or any funds to EOC. Isn't that
2:14:36right?
2:14:37>> Correct.
2:14:39>> And the commission ultimately approved
2:14:40the settlement agreement. Correct.
2:14:41>> It did.
2:14:45And the commission did not make any
2:14:46modification to the settlement agreement
2:14:48in its final decision, did it?
2:14:51>> Not that I recall.
2:14:52>> Okay. And you filed answer testimony in
2:14:55this proceeding as well as opposition
2:14:57testimony, right?
2:14:59>> Yes. And cross answer as well.
2:15:01>> And cross answer. That's right. And in
2:15:03your testimony here, you renewed your
2:15:06request for the commission to authorize
2:15:08$25 million of RISA funds as a
2:15:11contribution to EOC. Correct.
2:15:12>> Correct.
2:15:14And is it fair to say that one of the
2:15:15main reasons that EOC did not join the
2:15:18settlement is because the lack of RA
2:15:20funds allocation to EOC?
2:15:24>> I I just want to be careful because I
2:15:26don't want to like pierce the veil here.
2:15:30Um
2:15:32so I I would say that no the settlement
2:15:35agreement does not contain
2:15:39any mention or provision of the
2:15:41suggestion that EOC made. Um I I think
2:15:45the
2:15:47specifics wise uh
2:15:51I think are somewhat venturing into some
2:15:54of some stuff that might be protected by
2:15:55408. Um, I will say we were not
2:16:01at at a certain point we were left out
2:16:03of negotiations, so we weren't part of
2:16:06the final negotiations.
2:16:09>> In your questions with Mr. Zilmer just a
2:16:11few minutes ago, you ran through a bunch
2:16:14of the settlement agreements EAP
2:16:17provisions and you'd agree with me that
2:16:19EOC would agree with most of those.
2:16:21Correct.
2:16:22>> As reflected in the stipulation that we
2:16:24put forward. Yes.
2:16:25>> Okay. and the EIP provisions and the
2:16:28reset allocations. Those were two of the
2:16:31main provisions that EOCC brought up in
2:16:34this rate case, right?
2:16:36>> Yeah. Uh in addition to request by Dr.
2:16:39News Bomber regarding uh shape files.
2:16:41Yes.
2:16:42>> And the Resa funds was not included in
2:16:44the settlement agreement filed by the
2:16:46parties in this case.
2:16:47>> Correct.
2:16:48>> Okay. Is EOCC proposing that it would be
2:16:52an implementer of a commissionapproved
2:16:55PESCO retail program if it were to
2:16:57receive these funds?
2:17:02>> Maybe there's like some technicalities
2:17:04in the words that you're using there on
2:17:06like on that. Um I I think our proposal
2:17:09was that you know because the RISA is so
2:17:13severely overcolcted out of the 22 to25
2:17:17RES plan basically nothing was done for
2:17:20income qualified customers and yet the
2:17:22entire time income qualified customers
2:17:24were being asked to pay into the RISA
2:17:27and the benefits that they were
2:17:29anticipating getting out weren't
2:17:30realized. we are asking for a refund of
2:17:33that of a portion of that money similar
2:17:36to some anticipated benefits that they
2:17:38would have gotten. So rather than doing
2:17:43um like in the Black Hills where they
2:17:44proposed a negative GRSA to kind of
2:17:47spread out this dollar amount, we're
2:17:49suggesting a smaller pool of money, you
2:17:52know, 25 million as opposed to that 141
2:17:55million and saying that over time, over
2:17:58those five years, we should refund $5
2:18:00million. And the way to do that and to
2:18:02effectuate that refund to income
2:18:05qualified customers would be through
2:18:08energy assistance via EOC.
2:18:11>> Okay. And we'll we'll break down much of
2:18:13what you said a little bit later, but
2:18:16this would not be a utility program.
2:18:19Correct.
2:18:20>> No, it'd be a refund.
2:18:22>> Okay. And your testimony didn't include
2:18:25a calculation for how you developed the
2:18:27$25 million figure, did it?
2:18:30Uh, I'd have to go back and we talked
2:18:32about this in the REZ plan. So, we were
2:18:35renewing the request from the RESZ plan
2:18:38as directed in that commission
2:18:40commission decision. Um, but it was we
2:18:44what we did is we calculated in that
2:18:46case a rough number of customers that
2:18:49could have been served.
2:18:51um taking the average kilowatt hour
2:18:55subscription or subscription size
2:18:58versus the bill savings that we see and
2:19:01then took that number and came out with
2:19:04a number that was a little bit higher
2:19:05but rounded down.
2:19:06>> Okay. So that was your calculation in
2:19:08the res proceeding and you did not
2:19:11provide any calculation in your
2:19:13testimony in this proceeding.
2:19:15>> No, we renewed our request from the
2:19:17previous one.
2:19:20Did EOC propose to provide a report to
2:19:23the commission detailing how it would
2:19:25spend the $25 million?
2:19:28>> No. What we proposed was to incorporate
2:19:30in the same way that we do the 1105 or
2:19:32the ESBC,
2:19:34which is that fund we were discussing
2:19:36earlier in our annual reports to the
2:19:38legislature, which is part of an audited
2:19:41uh statutory required audit that we
2:19:44submit to the legislature and the
2:19:46legislative committee has oversight over
2:19:47us on that.
2:19:49>> Sure. And in your annual reports, would
2:19:51there be a breakdown of exactly how this
2:19:53$25 million is spent?
2:19:56>> Uh, well, those ones are broken down by
2:19:59utility. They're broken. You have a
2:20:02county allocation. So, like vendors. Um,
2:20:05if you're asking would there be a
2:20:06specific customer by customer? No, we
2:20:09don't give out individual customer
2:20:13um listings of who got what when. Uh,
2:20:17the utility does get that. So when we
2:20:20send weekly energy assistance uh reports
2:20:22over to them, they get, you know, the c
2:20:24all the customer information and how
2:20:25much they got. So the utility is in
2:20:28possession of all of that. But in that
2:20:30report, we don't list out every single
2:20:31customer. One, that's a public document,
2:20:33so I don't think it'd be appropriate to
2:20:34list out every customer.
2:20:36>> And I'm not asking for you to list out
2:20:37every single customer. I'm asking if
2:20:40there's going to be a specific
2:20:42accounting in your annual report
2:20:44detailing how that $25 million
2:20:46specifically is spent.
2:20:48Well, it's an audited report. So, it's a
2:20:50third party auditor that comes in. So,
2:20:52there is an audit of that.
2:20:54>> And would the report itself say in this
2:20:56$25 million, this is how we spent it?
2:21:02>> Yeah, that's all should be broken down
2:21:04and then all the financial documents and
2:21:05again it's all the uh accounting and
2:21:09tracking of that's audited by the
2:21:10auditors. Could any of these funds go to
2:21:13pay for EOCC's overhead costs or
2:21:15administrative costs?
2:21:17>> Uh, in there I did ask for some
2:21:19administrative cost in there that we
2:21:21have to uh administer the dollars.
2:21:24>> And does the commission have any control
2:21:26over what percentage of these funds
2:21:28would go towards bill assistance
2:21:29programs versus other costs?
2:21:31>> I'm sorry, I got like an echo. Could you
2:21:33repeat that one?
2:21:34>> Yeah, absolutely. Um, can is that better
2:21:37now?
2:21:37>> Yeah, I think it was bouncing off
2:21:39somebody else's.
2:21:40>> Yeah. No problem. Um, does the
2:21:43commission have any control of what
2:21:45percentage of these funds would go
2:21:46towards bill assistance programs versus
2:21:49other costs?
2:21:51Uh,
2:21:55I'm just trying to think of like all the
2:21:56other cases because I think generally
2:21:59administrative dollars in every other
2:22:02program that we do is
2:22:05um
2:22:07I'm just trying to think if they're
2:22:08approved in the plan or it's approved in
2:22:10the contracts. I'm thinking DSM.
2:22:13Uh the 1105 funds are treated
2:22:17differently because those have statutory
2:22:18guidelines.
2:22:19>> Mr. Bennett, is there a plan?
2:22:20>> Yeah. No, I'm I'm just trying to think.
2:22:22Um I I guess the commission could set a
2:22:25cap on EOCC admin funds.
2:22:28>> Okay. But is there a contract or a plan
2:22:30here?
2:22:32>> No, there's not a contract here.
2:22:34>> Okay. And you'd agree with me that the
2:22:37RISA is a rider, correct?
2:22:40>> Yes.
2:22:40>> And you'd agree with me that today we're
2:22:42hearing Pasco's electric rate case.
2:22:46>> Correct.
2:22:46>> And this is establishing base rates.
2:22:48Correct.
2:22:50>> And it also has in the settlement
2:22:51document the anticipated additional
2:22:53recent revenue. Correct.
2:22:56>> Okay. And you'd agree with me that base
2:22:57rates are different from a writer.
2:22:59>> Correct.
2:23:00>> Okay. I want to talk to you a little bit
2:23:02more specifically about the RESA and
2:23:04what that money does. You'd agree with
2:23:06me that REIA stands for renewable energy
2:23:09standard adjustment. Correct.
2:23:11>> Correct.
2:23:12>> And you'd agree with me that wind energy
2:23:13is a renewable resource.
2:23:15>> Yes.
2:23:16>> And solar is a renewable resource. Yes.
2:23:19>> Okay. And solar community gardens are
2:23:22also considered a renewable resource.
2:23:23Correct.
2:23:24>> Yes.
2:23:25>> And in fact, isn't it a large portion of
2:23:28the res plan is dedicated to providing
2:23:30community solar garden?
2:23:33>> Yes.
2:23:36And in your proposal,
2:23:38you've stated that this $25 million of
2:23:41RISA funds would go to compensate
2:23:44incomequalified individuals for delayed
2:23:47community solar garden development. Do I
2:23:49have that right?
2:23:50>> Not quite. You you use the word delayed
2:23:53when the number is zero. That's not a
2:23:56delay. That's a failure quite frankly.
2:23:59So there was nothing done so it can't be
2:24:02delayed, right? I think maybe there's a
2:24:05little nuance in there that it's not for
2:24:08delay like gardens that are currently
2:24:10coming online from 2021. Those would be
2:24:13delayed benefits. The 22 to 25 plan
2:24:16where it basically had nothing done for
2:24:18low-inccome qualified. I would not say
2:24:20is delayed benefit. I would say that is
2:24:23a missing. It's not there. It's not
2:24:25delayed.
2:24:27>> Uh Mr. Bennett, but doesn't the
2:24:30community solar garden capacity that was
2:24:32in the 2022 to 2025 RES plan get carried
2:24:36forward under the 2026 to 2027 plan?
2:24:40>> Yes, most of it. I think a small portion
2:24:42didn't, but yes,
2:24:44>> a small portion. Um, could we please
2:24:47pull up in staff's box what has been
2:24:49marked as hearing exhibit 424? And this
2:24:53isn't executable, so it might take a
2:24:54minute.
2:25:05And then if we could make this a little
2:25:07bit bigger. I want to focus on I believe
2:25:09it's lines 23 through 26.
2:25:23Thank you. And Mr. Bennett, do you see
2:25:26kind of the the black box that's in the
2:25:28middle of the page right there that says
2:25:30the 2022 to 2025 rollover to 2026 27 RE
2:25:36plan?
2:25:38>> Yes.
2:25:39>> And do you see where the rollover number
2:25:41is 206 megawatts of capacity?
2:25:45>> Yes.
2:25:45>> Would you consider 206 megawatts of
2:25:48capacity an insignificant amount?
2:25:51>> No. I I think you misheard what I said.
2:25:53I said I think all but a small portion
2:25:56wasn't.
2:25:58So maybe maybe you heard a different
2:26:00answer than I thought you asked or
2:26:02something. But I don't think the number
2:26:04206 is insignificant. But I don't think
2:26:07that was your earlier question.
2:26:09>> But would you and seeing this now would
2:26:11you agree with me that all capacity that
2:26:13was approved in the 2022 to 2025 REZ
2:26:17plan is being rolled over into the 2026
2:26:20to 2027 plan. So it's not disappearing.
2:26:24Correct.
2:26:25>> Correct. And I what I again what I said
2:26:27is I think so I think yeah I was
2:26:29quantifying that
2:26:30>> because if you do look up I think there
2:26:32are some numbers that differ. So
2:26:34>> and absolutely you can you can clarify
2:26:35that later. Um but all of this this 206
2:26:40megawatt of capacity that's rolling over
2:26:42into the next plan. This is in addition
2:26:44to capacity that is also reserved from
2:26:47the 2026 to 2027 plan. Correct.
2:26:50Yes.
2:26:52>> Okay, we can take this exhibit down.
2:26:54Thank you so much.
2:26:57And isn't it true that the capacity
2:26:58that's carried forward and the new
2:27:00capacity in the 2627 plan um that most
2:27:04of it is going to be reserved for IQ
2:27:06customers?
2:27:08>> Reserved. Yes.
2:27:10>> And about 51% according to statute.
2:27:13Correct.
2:27:14>> Yeah. That's going to qualify. It
2:27:16depends. So the ICS gardens where most
2:27:19of it is reserved have a 51% carve out.
2:27:22So gardens could go up but the floor is
2:27:2551%.
2:27:27>> Okay. And I I want to go back to
2:27:32um
2:27:34so the carveout sorry just to follow up
2:27:36on what you said the carveout is 51% but
2:27:40you'd agree that it's at least 51% is
2:27:42going towards IQ customers. It's
2:27:44possible that it could be more,
2:27:47>> right? It could be more.
2:27:48>> Okay. And I want to go back to we talked
2:27:52about this earlier. EOCC provides a
2:27:55couple different types of energy
2:27:57assistance,
2:27:59right?
2:28:00>> Uh
2:28:02maybe clarify your question.
2:28:04>> Yeah, absolutely. So there's a rearage
2:28:07forgiveness, there's bill assistance,
2:28:10there's weatherization. Those are all
2:28:12have nuances of differences in the types
2:28:15of work that EOCC provides.
2:28:18>> Yes. So maybe just clarify because I
2:28:20know it can be confusing with the
2:28:22differences between EOCC LEAP and uh the
2:28:24PIT programs. So EOCC doesn't do a rear
2:28:28forgiveness. We have a program where we
2:28:30only serve customers with a rear. So
2:28:33those are customers that are in the
2:28:34disconnection. Excuse [clears throat]
2:28:36me. One moment.
2:28:41Sorry [clears throat] about that. So, we
2:28:42only help Yeah, we're only able to help
2:28:44customers with energy assistance that
2:28:45have a rearge.
2:28:46>> So, they'd be in the queue for
2:28:48disconnection because once you don't
2:28:49pay, that's where you're at. So, our
2:28:52energy assistance program is to
2:28:53guarantee that customers keep their
2:28:55energy on so they're not disconnected.
2:28:57Uh rear forgiveness, just to
2:28:58differentiate it, that'd be like Excel
2:29:01being able to approve maybe a very large
2:29:04ridge balance because EOCC has program
2:29:05limits depending on utilities and
2:29:07available funds. So sometimes we provide
2:29:09energy assistance to keep it them from
2:29:11being disconnected by making the pledge.
2:29:13Excel can then forgive the balance of
2:29:16that with their rear forgiveness
2:29:18program. So we only go from the negative
2:29:20up to zero. We can't put a positive on
2:29:24the account which is differentiated from
2:29:25LEAP where you don't have to come in
2:29:27with their rearage. Then you just get it
2:29:29and they get a positive benefit. So just
2:29:31to clarify that quickly because I think
2:29:33it's a little a little bit um confusing
2:29:36I think if you're not living in it. And
2:29:37then yes, we do weatherization
2:29:39>> uh through utility funded programs. Uh
2:29:42we also manage part of cos multif family
2:29:45w
2:29:47>> that's really helpful. Um so just so I
2:29:50make sure that I understand with the
2:29:51aarage forgiveness if a Excel customer
2:29:54came to you and they had past due energy
2:29:58bills you would be able to assist them
2:30:00in paying off that aarage. Do I have
2:30:02that right? I wouldn't use the word
2:30:04forgiveness because that that's the
2:30:06utility forgiving the original account.
2:30:09We're paying that negative balance up to
2:30:10program limits. So, we're providing
2:30:12energy assistance. We're not forgiving
2:30:14the debt because that's probably more
2:30:16technical accounting and that's also
2:30:18coming out of the PIP or that balance.
2:30:22>> Okay. So, energy assistance is is a
2:30:24better way to
2:30:25>> Right. Just just not to confuse the two
2:30:27different programs.
2:30:28>> Does EOCC's energy assistance program
2:30:31provide renewable energy benefits?
2:30:34So the energy assistance and solar teams
2:30:37are under the same
2:30:39global team at EOCC, but the energy
2:30:42assistance program that's providing rear
2:30:44forgiveness is not No, I mean it doesn't
2:30:48provide solar energy.
2:30:50>> So viewed another way, does helping with
2:30:53a customer's energy bill provide
2:30:55incremental energy reductions similar to
2:30:58investing in renewable energy?
2:31:01Uh, in and of itself, no. But by getting
2:31:04into energy assistance, you are getting
2:31:08um into the queue for the solar program.
2:31:12>> Sure. Um, does EOCC have any programs
2:31:15that develop renewable energy?
2:31:20>> No, we don't develop them ourselves. We
2:31:22work with the developers in partnership.
2:31:24>> Okay. And and that's more an
2:31:26administrative process with EOCC helping
2:31:29individuals subscribe to community solar
2:31:31gardens.
2:31:33>> Correct.
2:31:35>> And it's your position that EOCC's
2:31:38request for the $25 million can be paid
2:31:41out of existing resources under the
2:31:43RISA. Correct.
2:31:46>> Correct. That's what our refund proposal
2:31:48is.
2:31:49And you're saying that the commission
2:31:51can authorize a $25 million payment to
2:31:54EOCC without increasing any RISA
2:31:57collections, right?
2:31:59>> Correct.
2:32:01>> So, if the commission were to approve
2:32:04EOCC's request to pull funds from the
2:32:06RISA, wouldn't they need to reverse
2:32:08their decision in the RES proceeding?
2:32:12>> No, I don't believe so. That
2:32:16I I don't understand. or rather I think
2:32:18you maybe need to clarify why you think
2:32:20you would need to reverse a previous
2:32:22decision to modify
2:32:25uh or to approve our proposal. So maybe
2:32:28I'm just not clear on your question.
2:32:30>> Yeah, absolutely. So I understand that
2:32:34there was an overcolction under the RESA
2:32:36but under the 2026 to 2027 plan it's
2:32:40already been [clears throat] approved by
2:32:40the commission. We we discussed that
2:32:42earlier, right?
2:32:44>> Correct. And the entire plan had a
2:32:47budget. Correct.
2:32:48>> Correct.
2:32:49>> And that budget has been approved.
2:32:51>> Correct.
2:32:52>> So the commission here would have to go
2:32:54in and modify that budget and that
2:32:57proceeding to allocate $25 million CEO.
2:33:00Correct.
2:33:01>> Uh I don't believe so. I I mean in the
2:33:04same way that the commission doesn't
2:33:05need to go back and reo the uh RISA
2:33:08decision. If they were to approve the
2:33:10settlement that staff signed on to that
2:33:12would increase the RIA collections by
2:33:132.25 25 million
2:33:15because if and I mean if that's holding
2:33:18the same thing if you have a change in
2:33:19the reset account so I don't see it
2:33:22needing to go back to modify the
2:33:23decision.
2:33:25>> Okay. Um I have I have two points to
2:33:28follow up with you on that. So you just
2:33:30noted that this case would potentially
2:33:33increase the resa balance.
2:33:35>> Correct. as in the I can't remember
2:33:37which attachment it was. It was showing
2:33:38the uh 225 million plus all the
2:33:42different riders and one of the riders
2:33:44listed was the reset at 2.25 million.
2:33:46>> But your recommendation is to use
2:33:49existing RESA funds,
2:33:52>> right?
2:33:52>> Correct. The overolction
2:33:54>> and rates from this case have not gone
2:33:56into effect, have they?
2:33:57>> No.
2:33:58>> So any amounts that are collected from
2:34:01rate increases in this case do not exist
2:34:04at the moment. and hopefully they don't.
2:34:07>> Okay. And I want to follow up on um
2:34:10something else that you said earlier.
2:34:12Isn't it true that the res settlement
2:34:15agreement which has been approved by
2:34:16this commission anticipates to fully
2:34:19draw down the race of balance over the
2:34:212026 to 2027 plan.
2:34:24>> It fully intends to draw down the
2:34:25balance the same way that the previous
2:34:27plan fully intended to spend down its
2:34:30money. Uh [clears throat] but it didn't.
2:34:36Oh, sorry. Somebody's somebody's phone
2:34:38just popped up. If you don't mind muting
2:34:41whoever you are on the the phone.
2:34:44>> That's me. My computer uh is having
2:34:47problems uh with the interconnect. So,
2:34:51uh I apologize. Keep going.
2:34:53>> That's okay. I apologize, chair. I I
2:34:55just got a little bit confused with what
2:34:58was happening. Thank you.
2:35:01Um,
2:35:03so Mr. Bennett, if the approved 2026 to
2:35:072027 plan has been it anticipates
2:35:12drawing down the entire balance, where
2:35:14is the commission going to find $25
2:35:16million to allocate to EOC?
2:35:21>> Yeah, I think that's a question for the
2:35:23commission. um
2:35:27that settlement and we'd have to go back
2:35:29and look at it. It was wanting to draw
2:35:33down funds. At the same time, there's
2:35:35other funds being collected.
2:35:38I think if you look at prior performance
2:35:40and you look at uh I said 10, but I
2:35:43realized 2015 to 2025 is 11 years. Uh 11
2:35:47years of positive RISA accounts with the
2:35:49lowest number being 40 million. I think
2:35:51it was only three years where they
2:35:53actually spent down budget and over the
2:35:56last three years we've gone from 50 to
2:35:57100 to 141 million. I think the
2:36:00commission could look at that and
2:36:02anticipate that the RISA has not been
2:36:04performing to the same number as
2:36:07anticipated by the plans. So
2:36:11the company will be filing another res
2:36:14plan you know not too distant future and
2:36:17if somehow it was going gang busters and
2:36:20following through you know if they had
2:36:23to adjust the collection which you know
2:36:25is a prospective collection where you
2:36:27just keep collecting 1% no matter how
2:36:29much you do unlike something like the
2:36:31ECA where you go through and you
2:36:32recalculate based on what you actually
2:36:35need. You know, I I think the commission
2:36:37could look at prior performance and make
2:36:39an educated guess that we're already
2:36:42halfway through the first year of this
2:36:44plan by time the um decision was made
2:36:48and that in all likelihood it the res
2:36:52plan continues on the same pathway,
2:36:53we'll have another massive overcolction.
2:36:57>> So, you answered what the commission
2:37:00could potentially do, but what's EOCC's
2:37:02position? Do you think that the
2:37:03commission has the authority to go in
2:37:05and modify a plan that it has already
2:37:08approved?
2:37:09>> I think the commission always has the
2:37:11authority to modify things that
2:37:13>> So, um, if public service is able to
2:37:16connect community solar gardens in IQ
2:37:19and DI communities this year or next
2:37:22year, wouldn't you agree with me that
2:37:24that provides potential benefits to IQ
2:37:26and DI communities?
2:37:29>> Yes. And you know, just to clarify for
2:37:32you too, I think the gardens that would
2:37:34be anticipated to connect this year
2:37:35would be from 2021.
2:37:38So 5 years out. So there's quite a quite
2:37:42a delay anticipated if you're talking
2:37:44about gardens from the 2026 RES plan.
2:37:47Odds are they would not be connected
2:37:48this year,
2:37:49>> okay,
2:37:50>> or next year or the year after. And
2:37:52under the 2026 to 2027 RES plan,
2:37:57would you be okay with reducing the
2:37:59amount of community solar garden
2:38:01capacity that has been rolled over?
2:38:04>> Uh, I think that the amount rolled over
2:38:06was a statutory requirement and it's
2:38:08required to roll over the unused
2:38:09capacity and as I said earlier, the
2:38:11unused capacity is basically all the
2:38:13capacity that was allocated to
2:38:14low-inccome.
2:38:17And so if it's all allocated to didn't
2:38:20EOC have a role in that statute?
2:38:24>> Uh which one are you talking about?
2:38:27>> The statute
2:38:28>> the IC?
2:38:29>> Yeah, the rollover that was required.
2:38:31>> No, we didn't provide any testimony or
2:38:33anything like that at the legislature.
2:38:35And I don't even I can't even remember
2:38:37if we took a position on the bill. I'd
2:38:38have to go look back at old trackers.
2:38:41>> Okay. So, you would not want to reduce
2:38:44any of the capacity for
2:38:47community solar gardens that has been
2:38:49rolled over, but you do want to reduce
2:38:51the budget.
2:38:52>> Well, I don't think you're legally
2:38:53allowed to reduce it because the statute
2:38:55says what you have to roll over,
2:38:57>> but you would be okay with reducing the
2:38:59budget.
2:39:01>> Uh, I think our proposal was reducing
2:39:03the overolction, not the budget. I think
2:39:05there's that they're not the same thing.
2:39:10And you would agree with me that the
2:39:12budget has been approved by the
2:39:14commission and is fully allocated in the
2:39:1626 to 27 RES plan.
2:39:20>> Yes or no answer is
2:39:22>> but but it's not because the word
2:39:23allocation I think if you're using that
2:39:25to mean
2:39:26>> were the numbers developed. Yes, the
2:39:28numbers were developed but developing
2:39:31the numbers does not encumber the
2:39:33numbers. So I think your question seems
2:39:35to imply that the balance has been
2:39:37encumbered. It's only encumbered at such
2:39:40point as like gardens actually are
2:39:41developed under that plan. So it it's
2:39:44not a yes or no. It's the plan budget
2:39:47was developed. Yes. Budget does not
2:39:49encumber the available funds
2:39:54because if that was the case, we
2:39:55wouldn't have $141 million rollover
2:39:57right now.
2:39:59>> But the $141 million rollover has been
2:40:02accounted for in the budget. Yes or no?
2:40:06Yes.
2:40:08>> Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Those are the
2:40:10questions that I have for you today.
2:40:12>> Thank you.
2:40:15>> Uh, Commissioner Plant, quant questions
2:40:17for Mr. Bennett?
2:40:19>> Uh, yeah, I just had a real quick
2:40:21question. Um, or I guess a couple um as
2:40:25it has to do with the the 25 million.
2:40:27It's been uh a while since I looked at
2:40:31the renewable energy standard adjustment
2:40:34uh legislation and I'm just wondering if
2:40:38you can identify any specific statutory
2:40:41authority under either 42124 or
2:40:44somewhere else in the statute that
2:40:46authorizes the use of resa balances for
2:40:49direct bill assistance that are that's
2:40:51unrelated to renewable energy program
2:40:54participation.
2:40:56No, there's not a specific statute that
2:40:58calls that out.
2:41:00>> Is is EOCC proposing that the commission
2:41:02exercise
2:41:04discretion over excess resuba balances
2:41:08or is EOC saying that the statute
2:41:11affirmatively affirmatively authorizes
2:41:14that use?
2:41:16>> I'd say what we're saying is
2:41:19that the commission approved RISA
2:41:21collections to go with various plans.
2:41:25you know, it's been 1%, it's been 2%.
2:41:27And the commission has changed that
2:41:29authorized collection amount in
2:41:31anticipation
2:41:32of previous overcolcted balances,
2:41:35anticipated spend in the new budgets.
2:41:39And even though there have been a lot of
2:41:43budgeted or proposed uh spending out
2:41:46there, it's just not coming to fruition.
2:41:48The programs are not delivering. Um, so
2:41:52while the commission approved, you know,
2:41:54these up to amounts because that writer
2:41:57is described as an up to 2% amount that
2:42:01the the dollars being collected from
2:42:03customers are not actually being used
2:42:06for their intended purposes.
2:42:08>> I get that, but they're they're in a
2:42:10balance right now. They're not being
2:42:12used for something else. And you're
2:42:14proposing to use them for something
2:42:15else. I'm just wondering is there
2:42:19some sort of previously approved use of
2:42:22the renewable energy standard adjustment
2:42:24that's not associated with renewable
2:42:26energy?
2:42:30>> No. And I I think and maybe this is
2:42:32splitting hairs, but I think we're
2:42:33looking at this as a refund to
2:42:35customers, right? You're not using RISA
2:42:38dollars for energy assistance. What
2:42:41you're doing is you're refunding to
2:42:43incomequalified customers money from the
2:42:47RISA for programs that were not
2:42:49developed and realized. And the vector
2:42:51by which you would do that would be
2:42:53through energy assistance rather than um
2:42:57spreading it out over like a small
2:42:58negative percent.
2:43:00>> Gotcha.
2:43:00>> To all customers.
2:43:02>> Thank you. Uh no further questions.
2:43:04Thanks.
2:43:05>> Thank you.
2:43:07>> Commissioner Gilman.
2:43:09>> No questions. Thanks.
2:43:12Uh I don't have anything either. Uh Miss
2:43:16uh Camilo, uh redirect.
2:43:20>> Thank you. Um Mr. Bennett, you got
2:43:23>> Actually, let me just uh let me just ask
2:43:26you how much do you have? Uh because uh
2:43:29maybe it's time for a break.
2:43:31>> Um yeah, I would say less than 10
2:43:33minutes. Happy to come back after the
2:43:35break, but happy to do it now. Um, Miss
2:43:38Ble, uh, we're probably 20 minutes from
2:43:42ending the hearing. Do you want a break
2:43:44or keep going?
2:43:46>> Please keep going.
2:43:48>> All right, [laughter]
2:43:49we got it.
2:43:50>> All right, thank you. Um, so Mr.
2:43:53Bennett, you got some some questions
2:43:55from staff counsel about the energy
2:43:57assistance system benefit charge. Do you
2:43:59recall that?
2:44:00>> Yes.
2:44:02>> Um, and we had that bill pulled up, too,
2:44:03which was um which was fun.
2:44:05[clears throat] Um could you explain how
2:44:07the ESBC funds are are dispersed and on
2:44:10uh you know what if it's a quarterly or
2:44:13monthly basis?
2:44:14>> Sure. So it first it's based off uh a
2:44:18fiscal year starting October 1. So you
2:44:21have the your first collections Q4 and
2:44:24then the next three quarters. And so
2:44:26what happens is each quarter uh those
2:44:29funds are admitted to EOCC and then so
2:44:33we're collecting a year ahead. So right
2:44:36now the funds we're collecting in this
2:44:38fiscal year will be dispersed for next
2:44:40fiscal year. The little bit of a caveat
2:44:42for the energy um for the EEBT or what's
2:44:46federally known as heat need. So, we
2:44:48collect those monies and then
2:44:50concurrently right now we just had the
2:44:52vote for the
2:44:54uh commission on low-inccome energy and
2:44:57water assistance which was the oversight
2:44:59commission established in house bill
2:45:0021105.
2:45:02That commission approves the budget
2:45:04split and it's split between CDHS for
2:45:07the EEBT program where they provide a
2:45:11benefit on SNAP accounts and then that
2:45:14gets them the maximum credit for their
2:45:17SNAP benefits by providing energy
2:45:18assistance to them for that and then
2:45:21there's a cross reference between them
2:45:22and LEAP. The remainder of the budget,
2:45:252% is taken off for outreach and
2:45:28education. And then the remainder of
2:45:31that budget is then allocated between
2:45:33EOC for energy assistance and the
2:45:35Colorado Energy Office to uh fund their
2:45:38weatherization program. And that's a
2:45:42it's been roughly 50/50. Um EOCC can get
2:45:46a maximum of 50%. So in theory, CO could
2:45:51have a larger percent. um in some years.
2:45:54And so then that money for EOC and CO is
2:45:57dispersed on the first, but the money
2:45:59for the EEBT is dispersed in July of the
2:46:05year before it. It's a little
2:46:06complicated, but there's a three-way
2:46:08split. CDHS tells us what their budget
2:46:11is. We have we basically have to prove
2:46:13that and then the remainder is split up.
2:46:16>> Okay. Thanks. Um and um staff council al
2:46:20also um had a discussion with you about
2:46:22the voluntary donations that customers
2:46:24can make on their utility bill. Did you
2:46:26recall that?
2:46:27>> Yes.
2:46:28>> Um and so despite the the ESPC funds
2:46:31that EOCC gets um from certain customers
2:46:34and those voluntary donations um your I
2:46:38think both your answer testimony and
2:46:39your crosswans answer testimony
2:46:40mentioned that EOC is at risk of running
2:46:42out of funds for public service electric
2:46:45customers this summer. Correct.
2:46:48>> Can you expand on that?
2:46:49>> Yeah. So, we
2:46:51even though I think it's been an odd
2:46:53one. I think there's multiple exogenous
2:46:56factors on why you have some economic
2:46:58pressures. Then you have the federally
2:47:01funded LEAP program with some concerns
2:47:04about applying to federal programs have
2:47:07resulted in people maybe not applying as
2:47:09much as they have in other years. So,
2:47:11while EOCC is seeing an increase in
2:47:13request over the winter, um it was
2:47:15something around about 10% increased
2:47:18applications, I think the last time I
2:47:20checked. Um we're seeing a higher demand
2:47:23on our resources. Um
2:47:27and we're anticipating probably, you
2:47:30know, within a month, so like 30 days or
2:47:32so, we'll probably run out of funds for
2:47:34Excel Electric. And our program year
2:47:36runs until the end of September.
2:47:39>> Okay. Um, if we could pull up um, Mr.
2:47:42Bennett's answer testimony, which is
2:47:43hearing exhibit 700, and turn to page
2:47:4548.
2:47:48Um, while this is getting pulled up, uh,
2:47:50do you recall the conversation you had
2:47:51with staff's council about, um, the
2:47:54calculation or the mechanics of EOC's
2:47:56$25 million resistance proposal?
2:48:00>> Yes.
2:48:01Um, and so can you, if we go down and
2:48:04look at table AB2,
2:48:07um, can you explain how some of these
2:48:09loss benefits that you quantified from
2:48:11re planned programming um, supports
2:48:13EOCC's $25 million um, proposal on that
2:48:16amount?
2:48:18>> Yeah. So
2:48:20first if you look at footnotes 74 down
2:48:23at the bottom of the page. So you know
2:48:26taking an average bill savings of $720 a
2:48:29year which is targeting the uh 50% bill
2:48:32credits. And then you look at the number
2:48:35of customers and you had our average um
2:48:41subscription size
2:48:44for the garden size times the number of
2:48:46customers times that average bill
2:48:48savings is how you then get the credits.
2:48:52>> Okay. So, if you had the 8,400
2:48:55customers times the 720,
2:49:00um that's that's where you're getting
2:49:02that number of the bill credits.
2:49:04>> Okay. And while we have this up, um
2:49:06staff council also asked you about the
2:49:08206 megawatts of reserve um capacity
2:49:11that's being carried forward into the
2:49:13current res plan. Do you recall that?
2:49:15>> Yes. Um, is it your understanding
2:49:17there's a different guaranteed um, bill
2:49:19credit or savings for those future ICS
2:49:21gardens?
2:49:23>> Yes, there is. So, on there you see the
2:49:2525% minimum savings. So, under the IC
2:49:28statutes, uh, you have a guarantee of
2:49:3225%. You can get a higher percentage. um
2:49:35that's dependent on meeting certain um
2:49:39guidelines in the program and in the
2:49:41statutes to qualify for specific uh
2:49:44rebates or uh tax credits. And then if
2:49:47you get those tax credits, then you have
2:49:50to guarantee a higher bill savings. Um
2:49:53and all that's still to be worked out in
2:49:55a upcoming IC rule making.
2:49:59>> Okay. But so there could be a IQ
2:50:01customer in the new res plan that's not
2:50:03going to get as big of that $720
2:50:06annual credit that customers that are
2:50:08lucky enough to get into the gardens now
2:50:10are.
2:50:10>> Right. Right. So correct. So EOC when we
2:50:13do our programs we're targeting a 50%
2:50:14bill savings. So and you can kind of see
2:50:18it where you have in that first box the
2:50:2053 megawws times 8,400 customers gets
2:50:23you about 6 million. But then uh 51
2:50:26megawws at 25% you know 8100 customers
2:50:29is 2.9 million. So
2:50:32similarish numbers but you see a
2:50:34significant drop in the potential B
2:50:36credit. So customers enrolled in ICS
2:50:38gardens that do not qualify for the
2:50:40enhanced um benefits or the gardens
2:50:42aren't they don't qualify for it. Those
2:50:45customers will only be guaranteed a 25%
2:50:47bill savings. So much slower. So that
2:50:49206, you know, effectively that 25% is
2:50:52like a 103 if EOC, you know, have the
2:50:5550% bill savings.
2:50:57>> Okay. Um, last two questions. If we
2:51:00could go to page 57 of this um, answer
2:51:02testimony, Mr. Bennett
2:51:07um, and go down to um,
2:51:10yep, permitted use of funds. Um, do you
2:51:12recall being asked staff couns uh by
2:51:14staff counsel about um you know how EOC
2:51:17would be using the the proposed funds
2:51:19it's seeking in this case?
2:51:21>> Yes.
2:51:22>> And um in your answer testimony here you
2:51:25mentioned that the funds would be used
2:51:27for direct bill assistance um and would
2:51:30not be used for administrative or
2:51:31operational expenses.
2:51:34>> Right. Right. So it'd be for the
2:51:36administrative costs to administer
2:51:39um the sending out the funds and stuff
2:51:41like that. So I mean it's there are
2:51:43costs that we incur for managing dollars
2:51:46and sending Yeah.
2:51:47>> And that includes like a the transaction
2:51:49a potential transaction fee associated
2:51:51with dispersing.
2:51:52>> Yeah. I mean and there you know for
2:51:53staff that has to actually do the work
2:51:55and process it. So it it's not
2:51:59administrative or operational expenses.
2:52:00It it wouldn't be covering like my
2:52:03salary or anything like that.
2:52:05Okay. Um, last, could we just pull up
2:52:07hearing exhibit um, attachment AB3 to
2:52:09hearing exhibit uh, 702, which is Mr.
2:52:12Bennett's crosser testimony?
2:52:16And while this is getting pulled up, um,
2:52:18this is EOCC's most recent report to
2:52:21the, um, the Colorado legislature. And
2:52:24if we could turn, um, to page 21.
2:52:30Um, so, Mr. Mr. Do you recall that um
2:52:33you were asked by by staff counsel about
2:52:35you know how EOCC would report um the
2:52:38energy assistance it would disperse
2:52:39under this proposal?
2:52:41>> Yes.
2:52:42>> And um the first line of this um this
2:52:46financial statement that was submitted
2:52:48to the legislature um includes a line
2:52:50item for energy assistance payments.
2:52:53>> Yes. Could you talk about how this type
2:52:56of annual report that USC submits um
2:52:58could include reporting on the RISA
2:53:00energy assistance proposal?
2:53:02>> Yeah, so the second column where we have
2:53:05the HP 1105,
2:53:07we could create a separate column or you
2:53:11know tracking like that. um similar to
2:53:14do the reporting on how those dollars
2:53:15are spent and then
2:53:18I off top of my head I can't remember
2:53:20what page it is on the in our inner
2:53:22report here or the legislative report
2:53:24but we break that down by utility as
2:53:26well and it has the um funds that we use
2:53:30and it has a separate column out for the
2:53:321105 funds and we could additionally
2:53:34separate out that uh potential rea
2:53:40>> okay so in these reports um you're
2:53:42confident that EOC you would be able to,
2:53:43you know, accurately report all of the
2:53:46the energy assistance it would disperse
2:53:48based with the resent money.
2:53:50>> Yes.
2:53:52>> Okay. Um, thank you. That's all I have
2:53:54for redirect.
2:53:57>> Uh, you may be excused, Mr. Bennett.
2:54:00Thank you.
2:54:00>> Thank you.
2:54:03>> Uh, I think that concludes uh the
2:54:06hearing. Uh, any final uh uh matters,
2:54:12Mr. Zmer.
2:54:13>> Yeah. Um the company has two exhibits to
2:54:16move. Uh the revised settlement
2:54:18agreement. We were able to confer with
2:54:20settling parties and get that red line
2:54:22completed and then also the sales
2:54:26forecast comparison uh updated those
2:54:29notes to clarify better uh the different
2:54:31forecast vintages. So we'd like to move
2:54:34those before we close out.
2:54:37>> U Mr. Can you tell me the numbers? I
2:54:40know 155 revision one, but what's the
2:54:42other one?
2:54:43>> It's 163, both PDF and executable.
2:54:48>> Thank you.
2:54:52>> Uh any objections?
2:54:55Hearing none. So moved. Uh any other
2:54:58evidentiary uh issues, Mr. Bunker?
2:55:03>> Uh actually I I do not have an
2:55:05evidentiary issue. We are trying to get
2:55:08the executables uh filed of the
2:55:11documents that uh that uh Commissioner
2:55:16Gilman asked for and hope to have that
2:55:18accomplished yet today.
2:55:21>> Um I think it's okay. Uh uh I guess
2:55:25we'll close the record uh subject to a
2:55:28few uh caveats uh uh uh including that
2:55:34one. Mr. Zmer, did you have something
2:55:36else?
2:55:37>> Yes, Chair Blake. I was wondering if we
2:55:39could just confirm the 1500 series of
2:55:43hearing exhibits that were officially
2:55:45entered.
2:55:48>> Um, can you help me with that? Either
2:55:51council or the legal assistant.
2:55:56>> I have the list of what we presented,
2:55:59like what we have saved in box, but I
2:56:01don't I won't have if they were admitted
2:56:02or just shown.
2:56:06Um,
2:56:08can I gez may have to rely on the
2:56:11transcript uh for that? My notes uh um
2:56:16were uh incomplete. Do you have uh do do
2:56:19you have um accurate notes or do you
2:56:21have a
2:56:23uh
2:56:25a proposed list, Mr. Zmer?
2:56:28>> Uh if you'll give me one second, I will
2:56:30find our list.
2:56:43Sorry, I have to authenticate again if
2:56:44you'll give me a second.
2:56:47>> Yeah, take your time.
2:58:22Okay. Uh we had 1,500
2:58:271510
2:58:30154.
2:58:31>> Can you uh can you c can you uh say
2:58:34what500 is the the spreadsheet with all
2:58:38the exhibits? Yeah, I can I can provide
2:58:41the description. Uh, so 1500 was the
2:58:44exhibit list. 1510 was Howard
2:58:48supplemental from 25 AL0583G.
2:58:54154
2:58:58was the uh equity and energy stakeholder
2:59:02process report.
2:59:061515
2:59:08was the Excel Energy Investor
2:59:10presentation March 2026.
2:59:141517
2:59:17was staff's outage presentation from
2:59:20April 30th, 2025.
2:59:25Uh 1519
2:59:28is rebuttal testimony and attachments
2:59:32from proceeding 24A
2:59:350442E.
2:59:411521
2:59:44is uh Roseek
2:59:47direct testimony from 230536E.
2:59:54Uh 1522
2:59:57is uh attachment three from the TCR
3:00:01filing.
3:00:06TCA sorry uh 1523
3:00:10is uh Excel earning energy earnings
3:00:13presentation Q4 2025.
3:00:171524
3:00:20uh staff uh PESCO customer care
3:00:23presentation from April 30th, 2025.
3:00:271525
3:00:29uh QSP
3:00:31filing from 23A 0356E
3:00:381526.
3:00:40uh PSCO 2026 Q1 or [sighs]
3:00:45Q110Q
3:00:48and 1527
3:00:51S&P securization article March 24th
3:00:542024.
3:00:56>> Uh that that's consistent with my
3:00:59understanding. Uh does anybody have a uh
3:01:03a different view or concerns uh with
3:01:06that list of admitted documents?
3:01:11That sounds right. And thanks uh thanks
3:01:14for doing that, Mr. Zamar. I think I
3:01:16should [laughter]
3:01:17get better track, but uh
3:01:20>> no, thank you for the clarification.
3:01:23>> Uh Mr. Bunker, uh did you have anything
3:01:26else?
3:01:29>> I just wanted to talk about the uh
3:01:31statement of position if we're finished
3:01:33with any of the evidentiary issues.
3:01:36Yeah, just uh let me make sure we're
3:01:38finished with the evidentiary issues and
3:01:40then we'll we'll turn to that.
3:01:45>> All right. Uh I think I propose that uh
3:01:48statements of positions are due July
3:01:5110th uh 2026.
3:01:55And I have a note from council saying uh
3:01:59don't fold on that date. uh we need the
3:02:02time for deliberation and decision
3:02:04making. [laughter]
3:02:06So uh I think uh hopefully that's enough
3:02:10time uh to be uh three or four weeks.
3:02:14>> Uh and and Mr. Chairman, if I could, I
3:02:17was not going to u
3:02:20attempt to modify the July 10th SOP date
3:02:25that we already had in the procedural
3:02:27schedule. But what I would request is on
3:02:30behalf of the UCA a 45page
3:02:34limit as to the SOP. We've got a lot of
3:02:37issues to cover in terms of the case and
3:02:40chief and then uh our our disagreement
3:02:44with the non-unanimous
3:02:46uh agreement.
3:02:48And so I I feel like we need some extra
3:02:51pages to cover uh all the issues we we
3:02:55need to cover.
3:02:58Uh I'm certainly amendable to that. Do
3:03:01uh does any do any of the parties have
3:03:03concerns with a 45 uh uh page limit? Mr.
3:03:07Zmer,
3:03:09>> as long as it's equally applicable to uh
3:03:12everyone, the company has no concerns.
3:03:14>> Yeah.
3:03:18>> Yeah. That was my that was my intention
3:03:20that uh what's good for one is good for
3:03:23all that everyone gets that increased
3:03:24page limit.
3:03:27I think that works. Um, any other uh
3:03:32procedural uh matters
3:03:36hearing? None. If everybody could uh
3:03:38turn on their cameras who's who's ever
3:03:41left council, I just want to thank
3:03:44everybody for uh an engaging and uh rich
3:03:48conversation. uh uh just a lot of issues
3:03:53uh um and appreciate everybody's uh
3:03:57discipline and uh incisive uh approach
3:04:02and uh as always want to thank the
3:04:04council and the legal assistance and the
3:04:06court reporter for uh helping us uh get
3:04:09through this. So uh Commissioner Plant,
3:04:13any final final thoughts?
3:04:16>> Uh no thanks. I just uh echo that.
3:04:18Thanks a lot for everybody's uh hard
3:04:20work on this.
3:04:23>> Uh Commissioner Gman.
3:04:25>> Yeah, agreed. Really appreciate it. Uh
3:04:27thanks so much.
3:04:31>> All right. Uh with that, that concludes
3:04:33the presentation of evidence in this
3:04:35case. The evidentiary record is now
3:04:37closed with the exception of Mr.
3:04:40Bunker's uh revised uh exhibits which
3:04:43hopefully he'll clear by all the
3:04:44parties. Uh and we are adjourned.
3:04:48Thanks. Thanks everybody and enjoy the
3:04:50day uh tomorrow.
3:04:52>> Thank you.
3:04:53>> Thank you. Thank you.
3:04:55>> Thank you.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of YouTube transcript (b8uLfsotJwM) , generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 20,934 words across 3,463 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.