CPUC Jul 26 Transcript

1
1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
2 STATE OF COLORADO
3 -------------------------------------------------------
4 DOCKET NO. 09A-324E VOLUME 9
5 -------------------------------------------------------
6 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TRI-STATE

GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION, INC., (A) FOR
7 A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR
THE SAN LUIS VALLEY-CALUMET-COMANCHE TRANSMISSION
8 PROJECT, (B) FOR SPECIFIC FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EMF
AND NOISE, AND (C) FOR APPROVAL OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST
9 TRANSFER AS NEEDED WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
-------------------------------------------------------
10 DOCKET NO. 09A-325E
11 -------------------------------------------------------
12 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE

COMPANY OF COLORADO (A) FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
13 CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE SAN LUIS VALLEY TO
CALUMET TO COMANCHE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, (B) FOR
14 SPECIFIC FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EMF AND NOISE, AND
(C) FOR APPROVAL OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST TRANSFER AS
15 NEEDED WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
-------------------------------------------------------
16
17 PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in
18 interest, the above-entitled matter came on for hearing
19 before MANA L. JENNINGS-FADER, Administrative Law Judge
20 of the Public Utilities Commission, on July 26, 2010;
21 said proceedings having been reported in shorthand by
22 James L. Midyett, Michele Koss, and Harriet S.
23 Weisenthal, Certified Shorthand Reporters.
24 WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were
25 had:
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 (AS NOTED OF RECORD.)
3 INDEX
4 WITNESS PAGE
5 KAREN T. HYDE 15
Direct Examination by Mr. McGann 15
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Douglas 42
Cross Examination by Ms. Mandell 179
7 Redirect Examination by Mr. McGann 181
JAMES R. DAUPHINAIS
8 Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Sopkin 210
Direct Examination Con't by Mr. Douglas 220
9 Cross Examination by Mr. Nelson 257
Cross Examination by Mr. Sopkin 262
10
11 EXHIBITS
12 NUMBER MARKED ADMITTED
13 Exhibit No. 132 3 16

Exhibit No. 133 3
14 Exhibit No. 134 3
Exhibit No. 135 3
15 Exhibit No. 135-A 3
Exhibit No. 136 3
16 Exhibit No. 137 54 68
Exhibit No. 138 68 73
17 Exhibit No. 139 91 92
Exhibit No. 140 91 101
18 Exhibit No. 141 120 121
Exhibit No. 142 157
19 Exhibit No. 143 275
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (Whereupon, Exhibit Nos.
3 132 through 135, 135 A and 136 marked for
4 identification).
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning,
6 everyone.
7 This is a continuation of the hearing in
8 Dockets No. 0A-324-E, and Docket No. 09A-325E -- I'm
9 not going to read the titles, they are previously read
10 numerous times into the record.
11 This is continuation of the hearing and a
12 reopened evidentiary hearing held pursuant to Decision
13 No. R10-0486-I.
14 My name is it Mana Jennings-Fader. I'm
15 the Administrative Law Judge assigned by the Commission
16 to hear this case.
17 And I would like to begin this morning by
18 taking appearances beginning with the applicants.
19 MR. DOUGHERTY: Good morning, Your Honor.
20 Tom Dougherty on behalf of Tri-State
21 Generation & Transmission Association.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning.
23 MR. SOPKIN: Good morning, Your Honor.
24 Greg Sopkin on behalf of Public Service
25 Company of Colorado.
4
2 MR. McGANN: Good morning.
3 David McGann on behalf of Public Service
4 Company of Colorado.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you and
6 good morning.
7 MR. SANTISI: Good morning, Your Honor.
8 Michael Santisi, Assistant Attorney
9 General, appearing on behalf of staff of the PUC.
11 good morning.
12 MR. SCHLESINGER: Good morning.
13 Assistant Attorney General Jake
14 Schlesinger, appearing on behalf of the Office of
15 Consumer Counsel. And with me today is First Assistant
16 Attorney General Stephen Southwick, as well.
18 MR. FLANAGAN: Top of the morning to you
19 Your Honor.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Top of the
21 morning to you.
22 MR. FLANAGAN: Tim Flanagan along with
23 Matt Douglas and Tim Macdonald for Trinchera.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you.
25 Any other counsel.

5
1 MR. NELSON: Thor Nelson, appearing on
2 behalf of Pole Canyon.
4 MS. MANDELL: Good morning, Your Honor.
5 Victoria Mandell on behalf of Western
6 Resource Advocates. And I have with me today Kristin
7 Charipar -- and I'll get you that spelling in a second.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Other counsel
9 present?
10 MS. HICKEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
12 MS. HICKEY: Good morning.
13 Lisa Tormoen Hickey of the law firm
14 Alpern Meyer Stuart, representing Interwest Energy
15 Alliance.
17 good morning.
18 Other counsel?
19 (No response.)
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will not read
21 the folks who have not sent their counsel today as they
22 have not entered their appearance, I'll presume they
23 are not present.
24 I have a few preliminary matters before
25 we get started this morning. The first is, pursuant to

6
1 Commission policy and procedure, this proceeding is
2 being webcast. I ask whether any party present has an
3 objection.
4 (No response.)
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Seeing none, we
6 shall continue.
7 I would like to remind the parties about
8 the procedures that we have this morning -- or for
9 today and for Friday -- hopefully not for Saturday; and
10 that is that we'll take a ten-minute break this
11 morning, we'll take a 45-minute break for lunch, and
12 we'll take a 15-minute break this afternoon. If
13 necessary -- again, I hope not, we will continue until
14 7 this evening.
15 We have arranged for court reporters
16 through that time period.
17 I would like to remind the parties that
18 Public Service and Tri-State have a right if they wish
19 to do so to offer oral rebuttal at the conclusion of
20 the presentations today -- excuse me, this week.
21 I would like to direct -- request Public
22 Service and also to Tri-State, would you all -- either
23 or both of you be prepared to identify whether you
24 intend at least to offer oral rebuttal at the end of
25 Mr. Dauphinais's testimony -- with respect to his

7
1 testimony, obviously not with respect to
2 Dr. Shefferin -- Shefferin; is that correct?
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, Your Honor.
5 (Pause.)
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Principally this
7 is for planning purposes; so if you could put that in
8 the back of your mind and maybe tell us after lunch
9 that would be fine.
10 MR. SOPKIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 (Pause.)
12 MR. SOPKIN: Clarification, Your Honor
13 you are not suggesting that we would put on rebuttal
14 testimony to Mr. Dauphinais prior to Dr. Shefferin.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: No. I mean, if
16 you would be so kind, if you are inclined, only to
17 inform me and the parties whether or not you intend to
18 offer rebuttal to Mr. Dauphinais, then holding
19 Dr. Shefferin -- obviously no one can know about her
20 testimony until it's given.
21 MR. SOPKIN: Okay, we'll get back to you
22 on that.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That's fine.
24 Thank you very much.
25 We have pending a motion filed by

8
1 Trinichera Ranch to take administrative notice which
2 we'll take up as a preliminary matter. I am aware of
3 no other pending motions.
4 Is a party aware of a pending motion of
5 another -- another pending motion as to which no ruling
6 has been made?
7 (No response.)
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Holding
9 the motion for administrative notice for oral argument
10 in a few moments, has any party any other preliminary
11 matters?
12 MR. NELSON: Yes, I have a short
13 preliminary matter.
14 I passed out to the parties a letter that
15 was submitted to the Commission by the Board of County
16 Commissioners of Heurfano County, sent on June 16,
17 2010. And I just wanted to confirm this morning, as a
18 preliminary matter, that Your Honor is aware of the
19 letter and that the letter is going to be considered as
20 public comment in this proceeding along with other
21 public comment that was made previously in the docket.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you,
23 Mr. Nelson.
24 Let me clarify for the party what's going
25 on with written public comment that has been filed in

9
1 this proceeding. Not only did Heurfano -- the County
2 Commissioners of Huerfano County file two separate
3 letters, I think one in March and one in June with
4 respect to this matter, there have been a number of
5 other written comments received by the Commission, some
6 by folks who also testified at the two public hearings
7 and also some by folks who did not.
8 It is the Commission's practice to
9 consider, to the extent the Commission considers it
10 prudent, those written public comments. They are
11 technically not in the evidentiary record in this
12 proceeding, unlike the formal statements which were
13 given under oath during the two public hearings to take
14 public comment that were held in this matter; but
15 nonetheless, the Commission does consider them and does
16 give them some weight. What that weight is will be at
17 the discretion of the Commission.
18 MR. NELSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Certainly.
20 Anything else?
21 (No response.)
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: With that, I
23 would like to turn to and start this morning by taking
24 oral argument to the motion for administrative notice.
25 Public Service, insofar as -- and --

10
1 excuse me, and Tri-State, insofar as I'm aware have not
2 filed written responses; am I correct?
3 MR. SOPKIN: Yes, Your Honor. And if I
4 may, they did not see a request for shortened response
5 time so.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Let me start by
7 saying, there was no request for shortened response
8 time. No one was required to file a written response.
9 I just wish to be sure that I have not somehow missed a
10 filing which was made. So did Public Service file a
11 written response?
12 MR. SOPKIN: No.
13 And if I may continue, we did intend on
14 filing a written response. It was our understanding
15 that since no shortened response time was requested
16 that Trinichera Ranch was not requesting to put in
17 evidence in this proceeding those matters for which it
18 seeks administrative notice; that I'm guessing they
19 probably want to put it in their closing statement of
20 position in this case. So we were intending on
21 responding in writing.
22 That said, if you do want to address it
23 this morning, we're prepared to do so. But our initial
24 inclination was to say that we are going to file a
25 written response opposing it.

11
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Dougherty?
2 MR. DOUGHERTY: That's consistent with
3 Tri-State's understanding as well.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, I would
5 really rather get this resolved sooner rather than
6 later simply because I think it would confuse the
7 record immensely to have something come in after the
8 evidentiary hearing by way of administrative notice
9 which then is evidence to which the other parties have
10 not had an opportunity to respond, assuming the motion
11 is granted.
12 So I would like to proceed if you all are
13 prepared to do so. If not, I will -- I can hold the
14 oral argument until Friday and hear it on Friday, if --
15 I'm also amenable to that.
16 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, we would in fact
17 prefer discussing that on Friday.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: With the
19 understanding that if the motion is granted, then
20 you-all would present whatever response you have to
21 present orally; is that correct -- I mean, any evidence
22 in response you would present that orally?
23 MR. SOPKIN: Yes, Your Honor. I would
24 say that because we did not think this was going to be
25 an issue in this proceeding that we have not discussed

12
1 what witnesses we'll need available but we will
2 certainly take that up in the next couple of days.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Ms. Mandell --
4 and because we're webcasting, I apologize, I'm going to
5 have to ask you to come to the front so the folks can
6 hear -- assuming our best listening audience would like
7 to hear your audience.
8 Yes, ma'am?
9 MS. MANDELL: Your Honor, WRA may also
10 have oral argument on Friday with regard to the motion.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay, thank you.
12 MS. MANDELL: Thank you.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So, folks, we
14 will hold over the motion for administrative notice
15 until Friday.
16 Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Macdonald,
17 to whom am I to address my next question which was
18 whether you all intended to examine as to those
19 documents, the Public Service's witness?
20 MR. DOUGLAS: I can answer that, Your
21 Honor; and the answer is, no, I did not intend to
22 question Public Service's witness about those
23 documents.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay, good. We
25 won't be facing that issue. Thank you very much for

13
1 that heads up.
2 All right, so that will be the first
3 order of business on Friday, will be the oral
4 argument -- or the option is you may file something in
5 writing if you wish to do so and I'll decide it on the
6 written pleadings. So --
7 MR. SOPKIN: Thank you.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: -- to me it's
9 not -- as long as it's not 5:00 on Thursday.
10 MR. SOPKIN: Right.
12 I think that takes care of all of those.
13 We'll get the preliminary matters -- excuse me, I have
14 been getting over something and I will apologize in
15 advance for clearing my throat repeatedly during the
16 proceedings.
17 Public Service, are you prepared to
18 proceed?
19 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, we did have one
20 preliminary matter we wanted to address.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay.
22 MR. SOPKIN: I'm sorry.
23 Just briefly, Your Honor, we did receive
24 your Decision No. R 10-046-I which ruled on Public
25 Service's two motions in limine with some other rulings

14
1 in that as well. And we just wanted to, sort of as a
2 heads up, it's our understanding that Public Service
3 can still object on a case-by-case basis in this
4 proceeding if it believes that the matters that are
5 being raised are more properly addressed in other
6 dockets, such as the -- such as resource planning or
7 RES compliance dockets or the application to amend 2007
8 Resource Plan Docket No. 10A-377E; also, if it's
9 otherwise outside the scope of the reopened record, and
10 also if Public Service did not raise the issue in its
11 direct case, for example, reliability issues.
12 So we just wanted to raise that as a
13 heads up because we're guessing there will be
14 objections during this proceeding and we do not wish to
15 try Your Honor's patience in that regard.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: As to each of the
17 three areas, one -- anyone may object as to any of
18 those areas --
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: -- on a case --
21 question-by-question basis.
22 So counsel?
23 MR. McGANN: We are prepared, Your Honor.
24 We call Karen Hyde.

15
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 KAREN T. HYDE,
3 having been called as a witness, being first duly
4 sworn, testified as follows:
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you very
6 much.
7 I would like you to have a seat,
8 Ms. Hyde; and if you could be sure the microphone is
9 on.
10 THE WITNESS: It is.
12 And also, counsel, if you have anything
13 to say or objections or whatever, please be sure the
14 mike is on so it will be broadcast.
15 Thank you.
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. McGANN:
18 Q Good morning --
19 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, actually I had
20 one preliminary question. Ms. Hyde has already been a
21 witness in this case; may I dispense with preliminaries
22 in terms of her job duties, to move the proceedings
23 along as well?
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I think so, yes,
25 unless they have changed.

16
1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 MR. McGANN: I don't believe they have.
3 BY MR. McGANN:
4 Q Ms. Hyde, could you please take a look at
5 what has been marked for identification as Hearing
6 Exhibit 132 which should be in front of you.
7 A Yes, I have it.
8 Q And can you tell me what that document
9 is?
10 A It is House Bill 10-1001 from this last
11 legislative session.
12 Q Was that the bill that was signed by the
13 Governor?
14 A Yes.
15 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I move for the
16 admission of Exhibit 132 into the record.
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Exhibit 132 for
18 identification has been offered. Voir dire or
19 objection?
20 MR. DOUGLAS: No objection, Your Honor.
22 132 is admitted.
23 BY MR. McGANN:
24 Q Ms. Hyde, I would like to take the next
25 four exhibits together if I could. So if you could

17
1 take a look at what has been marked for identification
2 as Exhibits 133 through 135-A.
3 A I have them.
4 Q Okay. And can you please describe for
5 me, what is Exhibit 133?
6 A It's our application to amend the 2007
7 Resource Plan.
8 Q And what is Exhibit 134?
9 A It's direct testimony and exhibits of
10 Jim -- of James F. Hill.
11 Q Is that -- is it the testimony that
12 supports that application?
13 A It is.
14 Q And what is Exhibit 135?
15 A It is separately marked Exhibit JFH-1
16 that was also part of the application and one of the
17 exhibits to Hill's testimony.
18 Q And can you tell me what is Exhibit
19 135-A?
20 A It is the confidential version of that
21 exhibit.
22 Q Can you tell me, referring specifically
23 to page 6 of the application which was Exhibit 133 --
24 and when you are there, let me know.
25 A Yes, I'm there.

18
1 Q Can you tell me in general what relief
2 Public Service sought from -- is seeking from the
3 Commission in its application to amend the 2007
4 Resource Plan?
5 A We sought to have them amend their
6 decision for us to acquire approximately 355 megawatts
7 of solar to instead acquire either 60 megawatts, 90
8 megawatts or 185 megawatts. And we sought relief from
9 the 200 megawatts solar thermal with storage set-aside.
10 Q And referring back to now Exhibits 133
11 through 135-A, are those true and correct copies of the
12 documents Public Service filed with the Commission to
13 seek approval to an amendment to its 2007 Resource
14 Plan?
15 A Yes, they are.
16 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I move for the
17 admission of Exhibits 133 through 135-A.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm going to take
19 them seriatim: Exhibit 133 for identification, which
20 is the application which opened Docket 10A-377E, is
21 offered. Voir dire or objection?
22 MR. DOUGLAS: No objection.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: The application
24 is admitted -- Exhibit 133 is admitted.
25 MR. FLANAGAN: Your Honor, while we don't

19
1 object to that exhibit, we don't want it to constitute
2 a waiver of the position that that docket can't be
3 opened as long as there is judicial review of the
4 underlying case.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And I appreciate
6 that. That is a matter which, to the best of my
7 knowledge is now pending, has been briefed and is
8 pending in front of the Commission in Docket 10A-377E;
9 and we will proceed here as if the Commission proceeds
10 with that application and we'll have to take up what
11 happens if that application does not go forward. We'll
12 act as if that issue is not in this docket because the
13 Commission will not have taken up amending the Phase 2
14 decision. Okay.
15 MR. FLANAGAN: I just --
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I just want that
17 to be clear to everybody.
18 MR. FLANAGAN: We didn't want to be in a
19 position of waiving that.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Nothing done here
21 can or will constitute a waiver of anything in another
22 docket, insofar as I'm concerned.
23 Now, Exhibit 134 for identification is
24 the direct testimony and exhibits of Mr. Hill, prefiled
25 in Exhibit -- excuse me, in Docket 377E.

20
1 Objections or voir?
2 MR. DOUGLAS: No objection.
3 MR. McGANN: If I may, just one
4 clarification, Your Honor on Exhibit 134, it -- Exhibit
5 134 is actually Mr. Hill's testimony. His exhibit was
6 actually separately labeled as Exhibit 135.
8 Counsel, I have a question --
9 MR. McGANN: Yes.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: -- about 134. My
11 ruling in this case I believe -- I hope was clear that
12 we are not getting into the underlying specifics of
13 what drove -- excuse me, the -- we are looking at
14 potentially the -- no, we're looking at the effects of
15 granting the application, but we are not examining in
16 this proceeding what drove the company to file the
17 application beyond the scope of what Ms. Hyde has
18 identified in her prefiled statement.
19 My concern about admitting Exhibit 134 is
20 that it opens the door for examination on precisely
21 those areas about which I have already said we will not
22 take testimony.
23 Can you help me out?
24 MR. McGANN: I appreciate your caution,
25 Your Honor. First of all -- and I agree with your

21
1 prior ruling. And our intent in introducing Mr. Hill's
2 testimony was not to somehow do anything to contradict
3 that ruling. To the extent that -- we simply are
4 referring the exhibit and Mr. Hill's testimony for
5 completeness sake. Quite frankly, if you wanted to
6 understand simply the relief we've sought, you could
7 get that from the application which is Exhibit 133 and
8 you do not need Exhibits 134, 135 or 135-A.
9 And to your point, Your Honor, we would
10 agree to simply introduce the application as Exhibit
11 133 because our intent is not to open up the hearing to
12 the issues you have identified.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And if I could
14 complete the thought there, do you agree with me that
15 if this were to come in as evidence that potentially
16 opens the door to examination on the evidence -- on
17 that evidence?
18 MR. McGANN: I wouldn't, although I think
19 to avoid the issue we should not introduce Exhibit 134,
20 if that would be the -- if that would be Your Honor's
21 understanding of the result if we were to introduce
22 Exhibit 134.
23 I was actually -- when Mr. Sopkin
24 clarified what our position would be with respect to
25 objections during the course of this proceeding,

22
1 notwithstanding the introduction of these exhibits, we
2 fully intended to object to questions concerning the
3 very issues that you have pointed out.
4 Now, again, to avoid that issue entirely,
5 we have no -- absolutely no objection to and would
6 actually encourage, given your statements here this
7 morning, we would actually at this point proceed and
8 just admit Exhibit 133 and not Exhibits 134, 135 or
9 135-A if there is any suggestion that doing so
10 introduces or somehow opens this proceeding to examine
11 the issues that you have identified.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I would like you
13 to take a moment and consider the question and tell me
14 whether you intend to withdraw the identified exhibits.
15 MR. McGANN: May I consult with my
16 co-counsel?
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may.
19 MR. McGANN: I believe we have an answer
20 and a further request.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, the answer
22 first and then let's see about the request.
23 MR. McGANN: The answer would be we would
24 intend to withdraw at the very least Exhibits 134, 135
25 and 135-A.
23
1 My request then becomes, if the
2 application, which is Exhibit 133, if all we need to
3 know here is exactly the relief that we have sought in
4 the amended application and Ms. Hyde has already
5 testified to that orally; and if the introduction of
6 the application would get into the issues that Your
7 Honor has identified this morning, we would withdraw
8 Exhibit 133.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay, let me
10 start by cleaning up the record.
11 Exhibit 134 for identification, Exhibit
12 135 for identification, and Exhibit 135-A for
13 identification are withdrawn.
14 Now, as to 133, which is the verified
15 application, I will admit -- I will proceed with 133 in
16 the record simply because it states quite succinctly
17 what the options are that are pending before the
18 Commission and lays the groundwork for the three -- the
19 185, 90, and 60 megawatts, which were the lower limit
20 of what we're talking about in this -- in the current
21 proceeding, and leave it to counsel to do a
22 question-by-question objection. But I can -- I think
23 the application is important to understand the issues
24 in the reopened proceeding.
25 MR. McGANN: Thank you, Your Honor.

24
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I think we're at
2 136.
3 MR. McGANN: Exactly.
4 BY MR. McGANN:
5 Q Now, Ms. Hyde, if you could, take a look
6 at what has been marked as Exhibit 136 for
7 identification.
8 A I have it.
9 MR. McGANN: May I have a moment, Your
10 Honor?
12 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, because we have
13 not offered -- or we have withdrawn our request to
14 submit the testimony of Mr. Hill, I actually see no
15 reason to move forward with Exhibit 136.
17 MR. McGANN: So I would proceed with my
18 examination of Ms. Hyde.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay, let me
20 just -- excuse me while I try to figure out what I have
21 done with all my exhibits.
22 Thank you. You may proceed.
23 BY MR. McGANN:
24 Q Now Ms. Hyde, just so, frankly, I have it
25 straight what's in the record, could you place before

25
1 you Exhibit 132, which is House Bill 10-1001 as signed
2 by the Governor?
3 A Uh-huh.
4 Q Do you have that in front of you.
5 A I do.
6 Q And could you also place in front of you
7 Exhibit 133 which is the application to amend the
8 Resource Plan?
9 A I have it.
10 Q And can you tell me, does the Renewable
11 Energy Standard amendment enacted in House Bill 10-1001
12 or the application to amend the 2007 Resource Plan
13 impact Public Service's participation in the project?
14 A No. Our plans have not changed. We
15 still want to build the line.
16 Q Now, let's take the Renewable Energy
17 Standard amendment first that was enacted in House Bill
18 10-1001, which was Exhibit 132. Why do you say that
19 the amendment to the Renewable Energy Standard does not
20 change the company's plans?
21 A Well, because although it changes the
22 standard, it doesn't change the basis for the standard
23 and the important parts that were driving our plans in
24 this case. In other words, it did not change the
25 legislative declaration of wanting to increase

26
1 renewable energy to the maximum practicable extent; and
2 it also didn't change the drive to utilize the 2
3 percent retail rate proceeds to acquire renewable
4 energy.
5 Q Now, you mentioned the 2 percent rate cap
6 in your prior answer. Were there any changes in the
7 new legislation that affected that 2 percent retail
8 rate cap?
9 A Yes, there were a few. We're allowed now
10 to apply interest on the RESA balances and it's clear
11 that we can borrow forward the money that could be
12 acquired in future years. We also have the ability to
13 seek reduction to the 3 percent distributed generation
14 provision if we need to. We can also seek reduction in
15 the standard rebate offer if we need to to make it less
16 than $2 and we can continue to acquire from customers
17 who installed distributed generation, we can continue
18 to acquire money into the RESA on kind of a fair share
19 basis.
20 Q When you say that you can continue to
21 collect moneys from distributed generation customers,
22 how was money collected from distributed generation
23 customers prior to the enactment of this amendment?
24 A It was based on the total bill. So 2
25 percent of the total bill. So when a customer

27
1 installed solar generation, their bill became smaller
2 and they contributed less money to the RESA.
3 Q And what does the amendment allow the
4 company -- what does the amendment do in terms of
5 assessing that charge to those customers?
6 A It lets us collect money that would be
7 the fair share even if it's in excess of 2 percent of
8 their bill.
9 Q Now moving on to the amended Renewable
10 Energy Standard that's set forth in the amendment, does
11 the company need to construct the line in order to meet
12 the minimum standards set forth in the amended RES for
13 the year 2020?
14 A No.
15 Q Then why has the company asked for
16 permission to construct the line?
17 A Well, first of all, we consider this to
18 be a timing issue. We still want to acquire the
19 additional solar so we need the line in order to
20 acquire that solar in our next acquisition. And we
21 need to acquire additional solar both because it's the
22 public policy in Colorado and also to use the 2 percent
23 rate cap.
24 Q With respect to the construction of
25 transmission lines, is there anything unique about

28
1 transmitting energy from facilities that generate their
2 power from solar as opposed to other fuels that affect
3 the construction of those lines?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And what is that?
6 A Well, the solar energy falls on the
7 ground in certain places, so you have to build the
8 solar resources where those solar resources are -- you
9 have to build the solar generation where the solar
10 resources are; and in this case, the best resources in
11 the state are in the San Luis Valley. Other plants,
12 say a gas-fired plant or coal-fired plant, you have
13 more flexibility because you can bring the gas and
14 transmission to wherever you want so site those plants.
15 Q Why is the company specifically trying to
16 access solar resources in the San Luis Valley?
17 A Because it's the best solar resource for
18 both PV and solar thermal in Colorado. It's got the
19 best quality of resource. It has developers who are
20 willing to develop projects in that area. And the
21 company is willing to buy those -- to expand our
22 portfolio of solar resources.
23 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I want to
24 object and move to strike. I think we're being
25 cumulative now of the hearing and I don't believe that

29
1 last answer related in any way to the issues presented
2 in the reopened hearing.
3 MR. McGANN: I believe the testimony went
4 to my -- my question was -- this whole line of
5 questioning began with why is it the amendment doesn't
6 change our desire for the line? And I think what
7 Ms. Hyde has said and I think what Mr. Douglas has
8 identified is that our reasons haven't changed; the
9 same reasons that we had in the initial hearings are
10 the same reasons that we have today. So to
11 Mr. Douglas' point, is it going to be a reiteration of
12 what we had before, it absolutely will; but I think it
13 has to be stated for this reopened record.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will overrule
15 the objection.
16 Counsel, if you could be careful in
17 phrasing the question so we can be careful about, does
18 the amendment change whatever, you know, so that we're
19 focused on events which have occurred since the close
20 of the last record.
21 MR. McGANN: I will, Your Honor.
22 Thank you.
23 BY MR. McGANN:
24 Q Ms. Hyde, would you agree with me that as
25 a foundational matter that the company favors and the

30
1 company established in the first round of hearings that
2 the company favors concentrating solar power facilities
3 over other renewable resources?
4 A In the future, yes, we believe that those
5 will form a good part of our acquisitions.
6 Q Has anything in the amendment changed
7 that from the company's perspective?
8 A No.
9 Q Moving on to the application to amend the
10 Resource Plan, if the Commission were to amend the
11 Resource Plan and set the solar resource acquisition
12 level of 60, 90, or 185 megawatts, would that impact
13 Public Service's participation in the project?
14 A No.
15 Q Why not?
16 A Because none of the issues identified in
17 the reopening have changed our plans. We still want to
18 build the transmission line. We just had to delay the
19 acquisition of those solar resources because we
20 couldn't get the line approved in time; and so we
21 scaled back our acquisition right now, but it's just a
22 matter of timing. We still want to add additional
23 solar thermal and that's why we would continue to push
24 for the approval of the project.
25 Q Would you agree with me that there are a

31
1 number of things that are uncertain about the future?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you have an opinion as to what is
4 certain -- what is certain to occur if the certificate
5 for this transmission line is denied?
6 A If the CPCN is denied, we'll severely
7 curtail the amount of solar resources that we can add
8 in the San Luis Valley, in the future.
9 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, may have a
10 moment?
12 MR. McGANN: I have nothing further, Your
13 Honor.
15 counsel.
16 Let's do it an odd way, does anyone other
17 than Trinichera Ranch have any questions?
18 MS. MANDELL: No, thank you, Your Honor.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you all.
20 Mr. Douglas.
21 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 (Pause.)
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And not to slight
24 Blanca Ranch, I'm including them -- or it in the
25 Trinichera Ranch reference.

32
1 MR. FLANAGAN: That's a conservation
2 easement.
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, before I start
4 into the actual questioning of Ms. Hyde, we had some
5 discussion -- or you and Mr. McGann had some discussion
6 about the exhibits that Public Service had marked but
7 not offered.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: They were
9 withdrawn, yes.
10 MR. DOUGLAS: Some of them, yes, were
11 offered and then withdrawn.
12 And, Your Honor, I would like to at this
13 time offer those exhibits into the record. I do not
14 believe that we can have a complete record with respect
15 to the reopened hearing issue relating to the
16 application to amend without those exhibits. There is
17 a significant level of detail in the testimony of
18 Mr. Hill and in the -- and Exhibit 135 is the amendment
19 to 2007 Colorado Resource Plan, itself, that is not
20 contained in the application that I believe
21 specifically relates to some of the issues that in Your
22 Honor's ruling you have allowed questioning into.
23 And I agree with you that there is
24 overlap between -- in those exhibits between what
25 issues you have allowed and what issues you have

33
1 excluded from consideration in the reopened hearing.
2 And we -- as you may know, we respectfully disagree
3 with some of the -- with the issues that have been
4 excluded; however I believe that in order to explore
5 the issues that Your Honor has opened the record to, it
6 is important that these exhibits be admitted into the
7 record.
8 So with that I would offer -- I believe
9 the foundation was laid by Mr. McGann -- 133, 134, 135,
10 and Exhibit 136 into the record.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. McGann?
12 MR. McGANN: If I may respond, Your
13 Honor, we offered the exhibits -- well, actually let me
14 go back to Mr. Sopkin's preliminary statement which was
15 that based upon the rulings that have been made so far
16 on our motions in limine, to a certain extent we were
17 uncertain as to what the scope of the hearing would be.
18 We certainly agree with Your Honor's ruling that
19 matters that have to be addressed in the Resource Plan
20 or the amendment to address the Resource Plan, Resource
21 Planning dockets, as well as RES Compliance Plan
22 dockets have to be addressed in those particular
23 proceedings.
24 Our offering of the attachments to the
25 application to amend the 2007 Resource Plan was simply

34
1 for administrative convenience to the extent Your Honor
2 wanted those in the record.
3 For example, when we tendered the
4 disclosure from Ms. Hyde's testimony, we included the
5 entire filing in the tendering of the witness
6 disclosure.
7 Your Honor has pointed out -- and we
8 agree -- that by doing that we run the danger of
9 expanding the scope of this proceeding. And I
10 appreciate Your Honor's caution and we absolutely agree
11 with Your Honor's ruling. And it's pretty clear from
12 Mr. Dougla's offering of those exhibits that that's
13 exactly what Mr. Douglas wants to do.
14 I accepted your ruling, Your Honor, and
15 agree that the scope of this hearing is what is the
16 impact on the line, to the extent that the Commission
17 reduces the amount of solar that the company is ordered
18 to acquire pursuant to the 2007 Resource Plan?
19 That's all. And I agree with Your
20 Honor's ruling that to really tighten the hearing up
21 and make sure we didn't get into extraneous issues,
22 simply introducing the application which gives that
23 lower limit, is all that is needed in order to
24 sufficiently limit the scope of this hearing.
25 So I agree with Your Honor's ruling and

35
1 we oppose Mr. Douglas' motion to introduce these other
2 exhibits into the record.
3 I want to be clear that our offering was
4 not that we thought that these -- that we were going to
5 rely on these documents or that these documents were
6 relevant to this particular proceeding; it was simply
7 out for administrative convenience that we offered
8 those exhibits. Your Honor has made a ruling that they
9 are not to be admitted and we agree with that ruling.
10 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may respond,
12 Mr. Douglas, and then I have a question.
13 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay, Your Honor, I'm not
14 intending to offer those exhibits to expand the issues
15 in the hearing as Mr. McGann argues or to say that
16 offering those exhibits -- or admitting those exhibits
17 into evidence would change your prior rulings on the
18 motion in limine which gave us direction on the topics
19 that you believe are on -- are within limits and off
20 limits.
21 I'm simply saying that there is relevant
22 and admissible information in those exhibits that
23 relates specifically to the areas of testimony that you
24 have allowed in your rulings in this proceeding and
25 that we cannot have a complete record without them.

36
1 And the fact that there may be other details in there
2 that relate to areas you consider off limits is not a
3 reason to refuse admission of the documents.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: In your opinion.
5 MR. DOUGLAS: In my opinion.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas, let
7 me ask you two questions: The first is, can you help
8 me to understand why you would need the -- what I'm
9 going to refer to as the reliance documents, that is
10 the testimony of Mr. Hill and the specifics of the
11 underlying information supporting the application to
12 amend the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan in order to --
13 why do you need that information in order to examine
14 Ms. Hyde on the following issue which is -- which is
15 the issue in this docket, quote -- excuse me, in this
16 proceeding with respect to the amendment and that issue
17 is the impact, if any, on the need for the project in
18 the event the Commission grants the application to
19 amend the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan and sets the
20 solar resource acquisition level at 185 megawatts, at
21 90 megawatts or at 60 megawatts period, unquote.
22 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, the answer to
23 that is that Public Service in this case has discussed
24 or put forth as its stated need for the line both
25 short-term solar resource acquisitions which have now

37
1 dropped to either 60, 90, or 185 in their view and also
2 longer term solar resource acquisitions identified as
3 three solar thermal placeholders totaling 250 megawatts
4 in the years 2016 through 2018.
5 The portions of -- specific portions of
6 both the Hill testimony and the actual amendment,
7 Exhibit 135 to the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan,
8 specifically address issues that were discussed by
9 Ms. Hyde and other witnesses regarding those future
10 solar resource acquisitions which Public Service is
11 relying on at least in part for the need for the line
12 and whether the likelihood of acquisition of those
13 resources has changed in light of the information
14 contained in the amendment, specifically; and that's
15 relevant and that's something that Your Honor had ruled
16 is relevant. And those documents are needed to fully
17 explore that issue.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Now I have yet
19 another question.
20 MR. DOUGLAS: All right.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Where is the
22 reference in -- I assume you are talking about the most
23 recent ruling, the most recent decision.
24 MR. DOUGLAS: Uh-huh. Yes, Your Honor.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: R10-0746-I.

38
2 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So where did I
3 say that? I know I address it. I just want the
4 reference.
5 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, in paragraphs
6 52 of that order and also --
7 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Right, discussing
8 Mr. Dauphinais' testimony.
9 MR. DOUGLAS: Right. Specifically, Mr.
10 Dauphinais' testimony specifically referred to the
11 three 250-megawatt solar thermal placeholder resources
12 and then the change of economic circumstances and the
13 amendment that relate to the likelihood of those being
14 developed.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you for
16 identifying that reference.
17 Now to my second question, can you
18 explain to me why you need the documents -- the
19 withdrawn exhibits for identification 134, 135, 135-A,
20 in order to cross-examine Ms. Hyde with respect to the
21 issue of the three solar thermal placeholders?
22 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, specifically
23 those changed economic circumstances that are
24 referenced in Your Honor's ruling are detailed in those
25 specific documents. And what they are -- and then

39
1 taking those details and asking Ms. Hyde her opinion
2 about whether that affects the likelihood of those
3 resources is something that I can't do without the
4 documents.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You can't do
6 without the documents? I'm unclear as to how you
7 can -- my question is this: Can you not refer to the
8 document or ask questions about the documents whether
9 or not they are in evidence?
10 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, in questioning
11 Ms. Hyde, we could proceed with some of that. There is
12 a lot of detail in the exhibits; whether I cover it
13 all, there is also an opportunity in statements of
14 position to bring together the evidence and we may also
15 be asking Mr. Dauphinais or Dr. Shefferin to comment on
16 those.
17 It's my position that there is a lot of
18 information in those documents that is specifically
19 relevant to these issues and it's otherwise admissible
20 and should be in the record in order for us to not only
21 examine Ms. Hyde but also make the record complete with
22 that evidence that's relevant.
23 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, may I respond?
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I have a -- one
25 more question -- and one more question, Mr. Douglas,

40
1 did Mr. Dauphinais and/or Dr. Shefferin rely on any of
2 these documents in their summary of testimony?
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, they did, Your Honor.
5 Mr. McGann.
6 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I think the way
7 you have explained the scope of this proceeding is
8 certainly our understanding of the scope and that is
9 very simply that we are to assume that the
10 Commission -- that the Commission will establish the
11 lower end of the company's solar acquisitions in the
12 amended Resource Plan docket; and the question here is
13 how does that impact the need for the line? And
14 that's, quite frankly, a very simple question. And we
15 have had actually Ms. Hyde answer that question without
16 reference to any of the documents that Mr. Douglas has
17 referred to.
18 I think the only reason Mr. Douglas would
19 want to get into those documents is to get behind the
20 reasoning that either Public Service had for seeking
21 the amendment or that the Commission might have for
22 reaching any one of those conclusions or perhaps
23 another conclusion. And I think Your Honor has already
24 stated that that is beyond the scope of this particular
25 proceeding so I see no need for Mr. Douglas to

41
1 introduce these exhibits for the cross-examination of
2 Ms. Hyde.
3 Now, it's another matter, to the extent
4 that Mr. Douglas, when he's examining Dr. Shefferin or
5 Mr. Dauphinais to try to get those exhibits into the
6 record through either of those witnesses. We'll take
7 that up by objection when those witnesses hit the
8 stand; but in terms of our case and Ms. Hyde's direct
9 testimony, I think Your Honor's ruling is well taken
10 and should stand. And Mr. Douglas's efforts to get
11 these exhibits into the record should be denied.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You have the last
13 word if you wish to add anything. And this will be the
14 last word except of course for my ruling.
15 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, if I asked
16 questions about these documents to go into an area that
17 has been ruled out, I'm sure Mr. McGann will object.
18 Also, Ms. Hyde answered a very broad
19 question at the end of her testimony about whether
20 anything in the amendment changes the plans of Public
21 Service. And I believe they have opened the door to
22 questions about looking at the specifics and saying,
23 so, wait, this doesn't change your plans, and exploring
24 those in detail. That's all fair game.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And I agree with

42
1 you, counsel; but I think you can do that by
2 cross-examination and I do not believe you need the
3 documents in evidence in order to do that.
4 So to that extent, your motion to admit
5 Exhibits 134, 135, and 135-A, at least at this time and
6 through this witness is denied. And I appreciate that
7 that may lengthen the cross-examination.
8 MR. DOUGLAS: All right, may I proceed
9 Your Honor?
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You certainly
11 may.
12
13 CROSS-EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
15 Q Good morning, Ms. Hyde.
16 A Good morning.
17 Q Ms. Hyde, you testified about House Bill
18 10-1001 and I want to go into a little more detail
19 about that statute and what it did, in your
20 understanding. So first of all, House Bill 10-1001
21 requires 30 percent of electric utility sales by 2020
22 to be supplied by renewable energy including banking of
23 credits and in-state bonuses and that sort of thing; is
24 that correct?
25 A It requires you to have Renewable Energy

43
1 Credits that are equal to 30 percent of your retail
2 sales.
3 Q And Renewable Energy Credits can be from
4 the generation of renewable energy from banked credits,
5 in-state bonuses, those things?
6 A Or purchased credits, yeah.
7 Q Okay. But the bottom line is 30 percent
8 by 2020?
9 A 30 percent Renewable Energy Credits.
10 Q And is it correct a banked Renewable
11 Energy Credit or REC is credit for renewable generation
12 that was generated in a previous year but not used in
13 that year to satisfy the RES requirements and therefore
14 carries over to a future year?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. And the prior Renewable Energy
17 Standard or RES statute required 20 percent credits by
18 Renewable Energy Credits by 2020, including the similar
19 banking and in-state bonuses, correct?
20 A As a minimum, yes.
21 Q And that's a significant increase from 20
22 percent to 30 percent, correct?
23 A Um, our plans that we had in place with
24 the 20 percent satisfies the 30 percent; so the number
25 changed, but it really doesn't change our plans.

44
1 Q Okay. House Bill 10-1001 also requires 3
2 percent of electric utility sales in 2020 to be
3 supplied by distributed generation; that is correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And that 3 percent also -- the 30 percent
6 represent minimum requirements, correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q You can exceed those if you can fit
9 additional resources that would exceed those minimums
10 within the 2 percent retail rate-impact cap.
11 A Yes.
12 Q Of that 3 percent requirement of
13 distributed generation, at least half must be generated
14 by retail distributed generation as defined in the
15 statute; that is correct?
16 MR. McGANN: I object to the form of the
17 question, Your Honor. Actually I also believe it
18 assumes facts not in evidence. The 3 percent standard
19 is subject to Commission change based on an application
20 by the utility. So I think when we are speaking about
21 that 3 percent, we shouldn't be talking about that as
22 an absolute number. It can be changed by the
23 Commission. I just simply believe that to the extent
24 Mr. Douglas is asking a hypothetical, it ought to be
25 asked in that context.

45
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Can I just --
2 before you respond, Mr. Douglas -- and you may -- give
3 me, please, the reference with respect to the change
4 that the Commission -- isn't that, for the record,
5 following December 31, 2014?
6 MR. McGANN: That is correct. And I
7 believe the context of Mr. Dougla's question was up to
8 2020.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: All right. So I
10 wish to be -- that is the provision to which you are
11 referring; is that correct?
12 MR. McGANN: Yes.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you. Then
14 in that context, the objection to the form of the
15 question is sustained; so if you could clarify the
16 question, sir.
18 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
19 Q Ms. Hyde, as the statute is currently in
20 effect -- first of all, let me clarify, I'm asking you
21 right now about the statute as enacted. And you agree
22 there are certain provisions in the statute that may
23 result in changes in the future by the Commission to
24 some of these provisions; is that fair?
25 A Yes.
46
1 Q But the statute as written requires that
2 at least half of the 3 percent distributed generation
3 requirement be what is defined as retail distributed
4 generation; is that correct?
5 A Yes, by 2020, if it hasn't been changed
6 by the Commission.
7 Q Okay. And the prior statute required
8 that at least 2 percent of that prior 20 percent
9 requirement be met with on-site solar generation; is
10 that accurate?
11 A Yes, by 2020.
12 Q Okay. And you agree that there is no
13 requirement in House Bill 10-1001 that any of the
14 requirements of that statute be met by solar
15 generation, correct?
16 A Correct.
17 Q And you agree that essentially House Bill
18 10-1001 increases the amount of on-site distributed
19 generation from 0.4 percent of the total to 1.5 percent
20 now; is that accurate?
21 A By 2020, yes, it increased the minimum
22 standard, subject to all the caveats we've talked
23 about, from .4 percent to 1.5 percent.
24 Q Okay. And that prior renewable energy
25 statute allowed Public Service to count the on-site

47
1 solar distributed generation with that in-state bonus
2 of 1.25 times what was actually generated?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And House Bill 10-1001 removes that in-
5 state bonus for retail distributed generation, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q You agree that House Bill 10-1001
8 reflects a public policy goal in Colorado to increase
9 the amount of distributed generation?
10 A It dramatically changed the definition of
11 distributed generation from the original bill. So I
12 would need more clarification on what you are -- what
13 specifically you are asking about.
14 Q All right, let's take a look at your
15 deposition.
16 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, may I approach?
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may, thank
18 you.
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q Ms. Hyde, do you have in front of you a
21 copy of a deposition you gave in this matter on June
22 25th, 2010?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And if you would, please turn to page 25
25 of that deposition.
48
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Counsel, 25 of
2 the quarter pages --
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, it's page 7 at the
4 very bottom, right; but it's deposition page 25.
6 much.
7 MR. DOUGLAS: On the quarter pages.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thanks.
9 MR. DOUGLAS: You are welcome.
10 Q Are you with me, Ms. Hyde?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Starting on line 16, you were asked, You
13 mentioned public policy and it's clear from House Bill
14 10-1001, itself, that there is a public policy by the
15 Colorado legislature to increase the amount of
16 distributed generation, correct? And your answer was,
17 Yes. Yes, they want to increase distributed
18 generation. Do you see that?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And that was your testimony that day?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Do you agree that House Bill 10-1001
23 substantially increases the amount of retail renewable
24 distributed generation that Public Service must
25 acquire?
49
1 A It increases the minimum amount that we
2 need to acquire. It doesn't substantially increase the
3 amount we were planning to acquire.
4 Q Okay. But it does substantially increase
5 the minimum amount that you are required to acquire.
6 A Yes.
7 Q You agree that with banked renewable
8 energy credits and in-state bonuses, Public Service has
9 enough resources -- renewable resources with what is on
10 line today and what is planned in the 2007 Colorado
11 Resource Plan, as proposed to be amended by Public
12 Service to satisfy the House Bill 10-1001 minimum
13 requirements through 2029; is that correct?
14 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I have an odd
15 objection. I have been letting this questioning go to
16 this point of time. I believe this is friendly cross.
17 We basically said we didn't need the line to meet the
18 minimum standards in the statute. And this entire line
19 of cross has been exploring that issue. We agree. We
20 do not need the line to meet the minimum requirements
21 of the statute. So I object to this as, quite frankly,
22 friendly cross.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And I will say
24 that is an odd objection coming from the opposition in
25 this case.
50
1 Mr. Douglas?
2 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I'm exploring
3 the details of when or how long they will be able to
4 meet the statute.
5 She said we don't need the line to meet
6 the statute and I'm interested in details of when she
7 will need the line. And I think that's perfectly
8 relevant to the issues in this case.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And I will allow
10 it to continue, provided we move to that topic, having
11 laid the foundation.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Objection
14 overruled.
15 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
16 Q So let me repeat the question: Do you
17 agree that with banked renewable credits and in-stated
18 bonuses Public Service has enough resources with what
19 it has on line today and what's planned in the 2007
20 Colorado Resource Plan as you proposed to amend it
21 downward to satisfy the minimum requirements of House
22 Bill 10-1001 through 2029?
23 A The full amount of the standard?
24 Q The minimum requirements of House Bill
25 10-1001.
51
1 A No, we're a little short on the retail
2 distributed.
3 Q All right, let's go to what I believe in
4 the documents you produced -- and we'll get there --
5 that Public Service describes as the non-DG
6 requirements, or non-distributed generation
7 requirements of House Bill 10-1001 which is essentially
8 27 percent as opposed to 30 percent; is that fair?
9 A Right. That's how -- the part that
10 doesn't have to be met by distributed.
11 Q Right. Okay, so as to that part does not
12 have to be met by distributed generation; you agree
13 that Public Service has enough resources, enough
14 renewable resources with what's on line today and
15 what's planned in the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan as
16 you proposed to amend it to satisfy the minimum
17 standard of House Bill 10-1001 through 2029?
18 A It meets the minimum REC standard. It
19 doesn't utilize the 2 percent.
20 Q As far as the 27 percent minimum
21 requirement, you can meet that through 2029 without
22 adding additional resources, right?
23 A Yes, it meets the minimum REC
24 requirements.
25 Q And you can only add resources beyond

52
1 those requirements if you can fit those resources
2 within the 2 percent retail rate-impact cap, correct?
3 A No, we could also add them if they were
4 Section 123 resources.
5 Q That's a good clarification. Let's try
6 that one again.
7 You could only add renewable resources
8 beyond that minimum requirements that you said you can
9 meet through 2029 if they are either Section 123
10 resources or you can fit them within the 2 percent
11 retail rate-impact cap, right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And so you agree that Public Service can
14 meet that minimum requirement of 27 percent through
15 2029 without acquiring any of the three 250-megawatt
16 solar thermal placeholders that are described in the
17 2010 Public Service RES Compliance Plan, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 MR. McGANN: I object at this point in
20 time, Your Honor. The statute says we can meet a
21 standard through 2020. Mr. Douglas is now asking about
22 through 2029. I fail to see the relevance of this line
23 of questioning. I also think it's quite frankly
24 friendly cross.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, as to the

53
1 friendly cross, I'll overrule the objection because
2 he's moving to the area of the three -- at least as I
3 heard the question, the three 250-megawatt placeholder
4 units that were discussed in the February hearing.
5 So -- but as to the other point with
6 respect to going past 2020 --
7 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I could ask
8 Ms. Hyde a clarification question but I don't believe
9 the requirements of the statute end in 2020. I believe
10 it's a continuing obligation at this point to have
11 those credits beyond 2020.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I believe that
13 the statute specifically says for the years 2020 and
14 thereafter. So the objection on both grounds is
15 overruled. You may continue -- excuse me, Ms. Hyde,
16 you may answer the question.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't remember what it
18 was.
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q All right. Let me just repeat it rather
21 than have it read back because I think I have it.
22 Do you agree that Public Service can meet
23 the minimum REC requirements of House Bill 10-1001, the
24 non-DG, 27 percent, that we discussed through 2029
25 without acquiring any of the three 250-megawatt solar

54
1 thermal placeholders that were described in the 2010
2 RES Compliance Plan?
3 A Yes.
4 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 137 marked for
5 identification.)
6 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
7 Q Ms. Hyde, do you have in front of you
8 what's been marked as Exhibit 137?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And have you seen this document before?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Is this a document that was prepared by
13 Public Service Company of Colorado?
14 A By -- yes, by Kari Clark.
15 Q Karen?
16 A Kari.
17 Q Kari Clark, thank you.
18 And is it correct that this document is
19 the -- what I would call the modeling or the
20 calculation of how Public Service will comply with
21 House Bill 10-1001 through 2030?
22 A I wouldn't say that. I would say that
23 this was a scenario that Kari ran to see what our
24 current plans would accomplish relative to House Bill
25 10-1001.
55
1 Q And by current plans, you mean what
2 Public Service currently has on line, plus the
3 resources in the 2007 Resource Plan as you propose to
4 amend it?
5 A Yes.
6 Q So, for example, it counts 125 megawatts
7 of solar thermal resources in the San Luis Valley and
8 nothing beyond that?
9 A You said 125 megawatts in the San Luis
10 Valley?
11 Q Yes.
12 A No, it has more than that of generation
13 in the San Luis Valley.
14 Q Well, I was hoping to avoid getting --
15 you are talking about page 2?
16 A Well, I'm trying to see page 2. I have a
17 lot of trouble with this spreadsheet.
18 Q I do have some bigger blow-ups if that
19 would help.
20 A I tried the magnifying glass, doesn't
21 work -- not enough.
22 Q Let me see if I can get us to agree
23 without getting into the details, it's the 125
24 megawatts of solar thermal, plus 60 of PV in the 2007
25 Resource Plan; is that correct?

56
1 A No, because it also has the Greater Sand
2 Hill and SunE Alamosa.
3 Q Okay, I think we are actually on the same
4 page, so let me just make sure we have this clear. In
5 Exhibit 137, Public Service has done a forecast of its
6 compliance with House Bill 10-1001 through 2030 that
7 includes the resources that are on line on today and
8 then specific to the San Luis Valley, the Alamosa and
9 Greater Sand Hill PV plants, plus the 185 megawatt
10 option that you proposed in the 2007 Resource Plan; is
11 that correct?
12 A I believe that's what's in here. I can't
13 actually see it to verify, but I believe that's in
14 here.
15 Q Well, we can get a magnifying glass or I
16 have a better copy if you want to take issue with it.
17 A A bigger copy, if you want me to verify
18 it; but if you can tell in here, I'm fine; because I
19 believe when I checked, that was what was in here.
20 Q Okay.
21 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I would offer
22 Exhibit 137 into evidence.
24 identification has been offered. Voir dire objection?
25 MR. McGANN: Well, Your Honor, I suppose

57
1 I have an objection. First of all, this isn't a
2 document this witness prepared. Also, this witness was
3 having a difficult time reading the document.
4 Again, I still keep coming back to the
5 fact that this is cumulative of what has already been
6 testified to. So I'm not sure that the facts that Mr.
7 Douglas has elicited through this exhibit are in
8 controversy at this point.
9 So I object to the admission of the
10 document.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Anyone else
12 before Mr. Douglas responds?
13 (No response.)
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas?
15 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, if I may
16 approach for the witness, I have a -- well --
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, perhaps you
18 can ask one question that starts with: Is this a
19 response to discovery; how did this come into the
20 possession of Trinichera Ranch? Start with that and
21 then show her the big picture.
23 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
24 Q Ms Hyde, do you know whether this
25 document was produced to Trinichera Ranch in discovery

58
1 prior to the reopened hearing issues?
2 A Yes, it was.
3 Q And you said you are familiar with who
4 prepared this?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Who was that?
7 A Kari Clark.
8 Q And --
9 A K-a-r-i.
10 Q And did Ms. Clark prepare this as part of
11 her regular duties at Public Service Company of
12 Colorado?
13 A Yes -- she is not a Public Service
14 Company of Colorado employee.
15 Q By whom is she employed?
16 A Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
17 Q All right.
18 MR. DOUGLAS: If I may approach, Your
19 Honor?
21 THE WITNESS: Oh, that's much more
22 promising.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Counsel, if you
24 wish to look, you certainly may.
25 THE WITNESS: I don't have a printer this

59
1 big.
2 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas, for
3 the record, could you identify -- you have handed her
4 one page of three pages. If you could, identify what's
5 been handed to the witness.
6 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
7 Q Yes, Ms. Hyde, does it appear that what I
8 have just handed you is a large blow-up of page 2 of
9 Exhibit 137?
10 A Yeah, you gave me page 2.
11 Q And I'll represent to you that pages 1
12 and 3 relate to the forecasts of Public Service's
13 compliance with the distributed generation requirements
14 of House Bill 10-1001, and the page about which I
15 intend to ask questions about at the this point is page
16 2, the one I just handed you.
17 A Okay.
19 Honor?
21 may.
22 (Pause.)
23 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, may I address
24 the exhibits -- actually with respect to
25 confidentiality, not with respect to --

60
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Why don't you
2 wait until Mr. Douglas has had an opportunity to
3 consult with his colleagues.
4 (Pause.)
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Are you back with
6 us?
7 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, I am. I apologize,
8 Your Honor.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: No, that's fine.
10 I believe we now have an issue with
11 respect to confidentiality being raised with respect to
12 Exhibit 137 for identification.
13 Yes, Mr. McGann.
14 MR. McGANN: I believe that these
15 exhibits when expanded contain names of bidders and
16 therefore these are confidential. I don't believe we
17 introduced them to Trinichera Ranch as confidential
18 exhibits; however, I, having taken a look at the
19 exhibits and having consulted with Ms. Hyde, I believe
20 they are. So I would ask that these exhibits be marked
21 as confidential.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry, by
23 these exhibits, you are just referring to Exhibit 137
24 for identification?
25 MR. McGANN: That's correct.

61
2 I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.
3 In that event, yes, Exhibit 137, on the
4 representation of Public Service that it contains
5 confidential material, will now be Confidential Exhibit
6 137. We will not -- two things will happen, those who
7 have not signed confidentiality -- nondisclosure
8 agreements, please return whatever you may have
9 received; and secondly, the specifics with respect to
10 the exhibit will be discussed in a confidential session
11 of this proceeding.
12 However, I think for purposes of
13 identifying -- by admitting the document, we can
14 proceed.
15 Mr. Nelson?
16 MR. NELSON: Yes, I could make a request,
17 if I understood Mr. McGann's recommendation that the
18 information that is confidential is the names of the
19 individual parties, I was wondering if it would be
20 possible to request that at some point during this
21 process if this is ultimately admitted if Public
22 Service could produce a version of it that has the
23 confidential information redacted for those parties who
24 don't have -- or have not signed a nondisclosure
25 agreement.
62
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. McGann,
2 perhaps -- Ms. Hyde?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Having looked at
5 what is now Confidential Exhibit 137 for
6 identification, you have identified at least page 2
7 some information which in your opinion is confidential
8 information, correct?
9 THE WITNESS: On page 2 and page 3.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Could you
11 specifically identify for me and for the record what
12 the information is which in your opinion is
13 confidential?
14 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to point it
15 out to you?
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, is it in a
17 particular column; can you -- is there some way to
18 describe it or is it everything -- is it a particular
19 column or is it everything about particular entities
20 all the way across the document, if you understand my
21 question?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand.
23 No, it's very limited information. There
24 would be three pieces of information that would be --
25 that would have to be redacted. Very limited.

63
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And can you at
2 least identify where that information is found on each
3 page of the document, obviously without revealing the
4 information?
5 THE WITNESS: Right -- on page 2?
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: Right up here.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So you are
9 looking at the upper left-hand corner of the document,
10 yes?
11 THE WITNESS: In the first column, under
12 the blue writing.
14 THE WITNESS: That next line.
16 THE WITNESS: That name --
18 THE WITNESS: -- is confidential.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: But not any
20 information which appears proceeding from left to right
21 about that -- about that entity; is that correct? Do
22 you understand my question?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
24 We also haven't officially revealed for
25 that same line the exact number of megawatts. So that

64
1 very next one.
2 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. And that
3 would be -- that's all the information on page 12?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 And on page 3?
7 THE WITNESS: On page 3, similarly look
8 in the first column, about halfway down --
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Yes. I -- the
10 first column on the left, right?
11 THE WITNESS: The first column on the
12 left, about halfway down in the orange, there is the
13 names of two bidders.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. And that's
15 confidential.
16 And any information starting with that
17 name and moving right across the sheet, any other
18 information that would have to be removed as
19 confidential?
20 THE WITNESS: No.
22 That helps me to understand the scope of Mr. Nelson's
23 request. Thank you.
24 Public Service?
25 MR. McGANN: I believe we actually, if I

65
1 can consult for a moment, with my witness.
3 may.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Yes, sir?
6 MR. McGANN: Yes, Your Honor, we should
7 be able to provide a redacted copy of this exhibit.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: In which event,
9 the redacted version will be Exhibit 137 for
10 identification. The confidential version will be
12 Mr. McGann, for the folks who don't have
13 access to the confidential version, when might Public
14 Service be able to provide that in that -- excuse me,
15 the public version?
16 MR. McGANN: Your question, Your Honor,
17 was when?
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: When, yes.
19 MR. McGANN: May I consult?
21 MR. McGANN: We believe we should be able
22 to provide it right after lunch.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Excellent. Thank
24 you.
25 MR. NELSON: Thank you.

66
2 We now have two exhibits about which we
3 are discussing, Mr. Douglas; we were trying to admit
4 these exhibits, I believe.
5 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. And I would renew my
6 request at this time to offer Exhibit 137 and
7 Confidential Exhibit 137-A into the record.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Now,
9 Mr. -- all counsel, Exhibit 137 and Exhibit 137-A have
10 been offered, voir dire or objection?
11 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, at this point in
12 time, I would just ask is there any reason to admit the
13 confidential version of the exhibit? Could we simply
14 just go with the public version once we provide it? Is
15 Mr. Douglas intending on going into confidential
16 information?
17 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I do not need
18 to go into confidential information, so it would be
19 fine with me to simply offer the public version of 137.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay, fine. In
21 that event, that's what we shall do.
22 Exhibit 137 will be a-- or is admitted.
23 That puts some counsel at something of a
24 disadvantage at the moment since they don't have access
25 to the document about which we will be asking

67
1 questions.
2 We're going to go off the record for a
3 moment.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: We will take a
6 few minutes -- unspecified few-minute break -- this is
7 not our morning break -- for the purpose of allowing
8 Public Service to redact the exhibit.
9 Mr. McGann, if you all would tell the
10 reporter when you are ready to go.
11 MR. McGANN: We will.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And he'll come
13 get me.
14 MR. McGANN: We will, thank you.
15 (Recess.)
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: We'll be back on
17 the record.
18 Mr. Douglas, how went the attempts with
19 this exhibit?
20 MR. DOUGLAS: It went well, Your Honor.
21 Ms. Hyde and Ms. Kittel redacted the
22 various versions and I think we're all on the same
23 page.
24 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
25 Q And correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Hyde,

68
1 the version of Exhibit 137 you have in front of you is
2 now a public redacted version?
3 A Yes.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Super.
5 All right. Now, Mr. McGann, I think your
6 only question had to do with confidentiality. Are we
7 now good with Exhibit 137 for identification?
8 MR. McGANN: Yes, we are, Your Honor.
10 Exhibit 137 for identification is
11 admitted.
13 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
14 Q And, Ms. Hyde, before I ask you
15 questions -- I do have a couple questions about Exhibit
16 137 -- I want to mark Exhibit 138.
17 MR. DOUGLAS: I do not believe we have
18 any confidentiality issues with this one because if I
19 may speak to Mr. McGann, Mr. McGann, what I have done
20 is pulled only -- one page out of another one of the
21 documents you gave us that I don't believe has any
22 issues but you can verify.

69
1 identification.)
2 (Pause.)
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas?
5 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
6 Q Ms. Hyde, do you have Exhibit 138 in
7 front of you?
8 A Yes, I do.
9 Q Was that a document that to your
10 understanding was introduced to Trinichera Ranch as
11 part of this reopened hearing?
12 A Yes, it was part of an answer to your --
13 one of your discovery questions.
14 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
15 Q And this was a document that was prepared
16 by Public Service?
17 A No, it was prepared by Kari Clark.
18 Q Xcel Energy?
19 A Xcel Energy.
20 Q And is it accurate to describe this as a
21 summary document relating to the forecast of Public
22 Service's compliance with House Bill 10-1001?
23 A I mean, it looks like a summary form. I
24 don't remember what scenario this was.
25 Q Well, if -- just so we make sure we're

70
1 all on the same page, you can compare some of the
2 numbers from Exhibit 138, the 2020 column, to page 2 of
3 Exhibit 137, and see that, for example, at the very top
4 the retail sales figure is the same; and at the very
5 bottom of page 2 of Exhibit 137, the number of
6 Renewable Energy Credits available to meet the
7 requirements of House Bill 10-1001 are identical. Do
8 you agree with that?
9 A I agreed with you on the retail sales.
10 What was the other one you wanted to compare?
11 Q The RECs available to meet the
12 requirements of House Bill 10-1001 which was the very
13 last line, just under the pink on Exhibit 137, page 2;
14 and you can see that in 2020 that number of a little
15 over 39 million matches up to the same number on
16 Exhibit 138, the total RECs available for compliance as
17 of 2020; is that accurate?
18 A I see that those numbers equal, yeah.
19 Q So as far as this document 138, is it a
20 summary -- the same scenario by -- what was the
21 person's name again?
22 A Kari Clark.
23 Q Kari Clark, the scenario run by Kari
24 Clark in Exhibit 137; is that correct?
25 A I'll have to accept your representation

71
1 because I don't know for sure that they are the same.
2 I know you just pointed out numbers that are the same.
3 Q Well, the bottom line, Credits Available
4 for Compliance in these two documents are the same,
5 correct, as of 2020?
6 A Through 2020. We only checked 2020.
7 Q Okay.
8 A But 2020 was the same.
9 Q And Exhibit 138 only goes through 2020,
10 correct?
11 A Right.
12 Q Okay. So do you have any reason to
13 disagree that Exhibit 138 which was prepared by the
14 same person appears to be a summary of the forecast
15 that is set forth in more detail in Exhibit 137?
16 A I can accept your representation. I have
17 no reason to know though whether it's the same. I know
18 she did multiple scenarios.
19 Q Okay.
20 A I don't know if this one is the same as
21 A-4.
22 Q Okay. So the bottom line number on
23 compliance with House Bill 10-1001 is the credits --
24 the total credits available for compliance in a given
25 year, correct?
72
1 A On 137?
2 Q Well, on both of them. The endgame is,
3 do you have enough credits to comply with the statute
4 or how do your total credits look as far as how they
5 compare to the requirements, right? That's the
6 endgame?
7 A Well, that's, I believe, what she was
8 analyzing under different scenarios.
9 Q Okay. And under -- at least as of 2020,
10 which is as far as 138 goes, and then 2020 on Exhibit
11 137, that bottom line number, Total Credits Available
12 for Compliance is identical, right?
13 A Through 2020, yes.
14 Q First of all, you can see --
15 MR. DOUGLAS: Let me stop at this point
16 and offer Exhibit 138 in evidence Your Honor?
19 objection?
20 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I -- two things:
21 I do object. Number one, I think the witness has said
22 she cannot vouch for the summary contained in Exhibit
23 138. Furthermore, during the questioning of Ms. Hyde,
24 I think Mr. Douglas was simply pointing out that 138
25 was a summary of what was in 137. 137 has been

73
1 admitted. Do we really need 138?
2 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I can answer
3 that question.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Any other
5 response before any Mr. Douglas -- any other comment to
6 the -- with respect to the motion?
7 (No response.)
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas.
9 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Exhibit 138
10 contains some information, specifically the nameplate
11 capacity of what was considered in that analysis that
12 Ms. Hyde and I talked a little bit about in her
13 deposition which clarified some of the options in 137
14 that is not actually contained in 137 in that form.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will admit 138
16 and the Commission will give to the exhibit the weight
17 that it deems appropriate.
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q Ms. Hyde, if you would take a look at
21 Exhibit 138, and do you see for the portion of that
22 document talking about the non-DG or non-distributed
23 generation requirements of House Bill 10-1001, there is
24 a section that talks about the nameplate capacity of
25 the resources; do you see that?

74
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. And do you agree that this
3 analysis by Kari Clark, based on the information in
4 that nameplate capacity section, was forecasting solar
5 thermal generation in the San Luis Valley at the
6 125-megawatt level?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And you believe that's also the case in
9 Exhibit 137 that the forecast that was run in that
10 exhibit model, the solar thermal resources in the San
11 Luis Valley was at the 125-megawatt level?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And is it your understanding that the
14 generation level -- the total generation level for the
15 San Luis Valley that was modeled in the forecast that's
16 in Exhibit 137 includes that 125 megawatts of solar
17 thermal, 60 megawatts of additional solar PV, plus the
18 generation from the Greater Sand Hill and Alamosa PV
19 plants?
20 A Yes.
21 Q All right. Now, if you take a look at
22 page 2 of Exhibit 137, which I believe you have a large
23 version of it if you need to refer to that one, do you
24 agree that -- well, let me start over.
25 If you take a look at Exhibit 137, this

75
1 document is the support, if you will, for your
2 statement that no additional resources are needed until
3 after 2029 that you gave earlier; is that correct?
4 A To meet the minimum REC requirements,
5 yes, based on this analysis.
6 Q All right. And starting in 2030, the
7 very far right column, that's the first time there is a
8 deficit identified by Public Service in the available
9 credits to meet those requirements, right?
10 A To meet the non-DG portion, yes.
11 Q All right. And if you look at the top
12 part of that 2030 column, the first fifteen or so
13 entries as it goes orange, that's all relating to wind
14 generation by Public Service; is that correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And the deficit that is set forth in this
17 exhibit, starting in 2030, assumes that nine of those
18 wind contracts -- nine of those fifteen wind contracts
19 that are listed will have expired; is that correct?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And, in fact, starting in 2012, all
22 fifteen of those wind contracts listed there will be on
23 line and in service, correct?
24 A I would say it looks like they are all on
25 line from 2012, but it looks like that doesn't start

76
1 them all being on line because it looks like the next
2 year there is one that's not.
3 Q Yeah, it looks like one of them -- it's a
4 small one, right? It looks like five megawatts expires
5 in 2013, right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. So starting in 2012 and continuing
8 for a number of years after that -- you can refer to
9 Exhibit 138 if you need to, but Public Service will
10 have on line over 1950 megawatts of nameplate wind
12 A Yes.
13 Q And the nine contracts that are assumed
14 to have expired as of this deficit in 2030 make up a
15 significant portion of that wind generation; do you
16 agree with that?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And do you believe that it's likely that
19 at least some of those nine wind contracts will be
20 renewed?
21 A I don't know.
22 Q That would be determined in a future
23 resource docket?
24 A Yeah, I think it will be determined in a
25 future resource docket and the age of the equipment at

77
1 that time.
2 Q All right. But some of them may well be
3 renewed and be generating in 2030 and beyond; correct?
4 A I don't know.
5 Q It's possible, isn't it?
6 A It is possible that they could do some
7 kind of life extension or bid those back in, yes.
8 Q If that would happen, that would reduce
9 the availability of energy resources credits starting
10 in 2030, correct?
11 MR. McGANN: I object, Your Honor. I
12 allowed a few questions. I think we're getting into
13 resource planning issues, In the future you might
14 acquire a certain resource mix; and I think that's
15 beyond the scope of the rehearing.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Other response
17 before Mr. Douglas?
18 (No response.)
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Counsel?
20 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I'm not trying
21 to get into the details of resource mix, but Ms. Hyde
22 talked about a time frame after which they would start
23 to need additional renewables which they are talking
24 about as a future justification for this line. And I'm
25 exploring whether and the extent of deficit they say is

78
1 there -- and I'm pretty close to being done with this
2 area.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'll allow a
4 couple of more questions in this area, then please move
5 on.
6 MR. DOUGLAS: All right, thank you, Your
7 Honor.
8 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
9 Q Ms. Hyde, I believe the last question
10 was, if some of those nine contracts that are listed in
11 this Exhibit 137 as having expired as of 2030, if some
12 of those are renewed, that would reduce the deficit in
13 the Renewable Energy Credits that would be needed as of
14 2030 and beyond, correct?
15 A If we renewed -- if we picked some of
16 these and they produced energy in those years, would it
17 reduce the -- would it give us more RECs to comply?
18 Q Yes.
19 A Yes.
20 Q And Public Service is currently studying
21 the feasibility of adding an additional 1000 megawatts
22 of wind to its system on top of these 15 wind resources
23 that we have been discussing, correct?
24 A No. We're studying the cost to add a
25 thousand megawatts and we're studying the impact of

79
1 cycling on our larger units.
2 Q Okay, you are studying issues relating to
3 whether or not you would be able to add up to an
4 additional thousand megawatts of wind above the
5 resources we have been talking about, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And that study is not yet completed?
8 A No, it's not -- and it's two studies.
9 Q Two studies?
10 A Right.
11 Q And you are not aware of any preliminary
12 results or findings from those studies?
13 A No, I'm not.
14 Q But you agree that at least some -- well,
15 strike that.
16 Is it correct that Exhibit 137 and the
17 Renewable Energy Credits that are forecast there do not
18 include any of that potentially up to a thousand
19 megawatts of wind?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And you agree that at least some of this
22 additional thousand megawatts of wind that's currently
23 being studied by Public Service will be added to the
24 system by 2020, correct?
25 A I think -- I don't know what the result

80
1 of the study will be. I know we would like to be able
2 to try to add more wind to the system. We're concerned
3 about the feasibility and viability of that. Plus we
4 haven't gotten to the level where we add the 700
5 megawatts.
6 Q Sure, but you think it is reasonable --
7 you think that Public Service will probably add some of
8 that additional thousand, right?
9 A Probably add something. I don't know
10 what -- that it's going to be very significant, but
11 some amount.
12 Q Some amount but less than the full
13 thousand?
14 A Much less than the full thousand.
15 Q All right, I want to talk a little bit
16 about the retail rate impact limitation in House Bill
17 10-1001. You mentioned that a little bit in your
18 direct examination. And the old RES statute that was
19 replaced by House Bill 10-1001 included a retail
20 rate-impact cap, right; is that correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q It provided Public Service could add a
23 rider on to ratepayers' bills of up to 2 percent to put
24 money into an account called the RESA account that
25 would pay for the incremental cost of future renewable

81
1 acquisitions, correct?
2 A It doesn't really go into an account;
3 it's tracked as a separate mechanism, but you don't put
4 the money into an account.
5 Q But for accounting purposes, you have a
6 separate bucket that you have designated a RESA fund
7 that is used to -- that's collected from this 2 percent
8 rider that pays for the incremental cost of renewable
9 resource acquisitions.
10 A Yes.
11 Q And under the old statute that was capped
12 at 2 percent of the total electric bill annually for
13 each customer, right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And the new statute maintains that retail
16 rate impact limit and a maximum of 2 percent of the
17 total electric bill annually for each customer,
18 correct?
19 A Not for each customer because it exempted
20 the 2 percent for customers who installed distributed
21 generation.
22 Q The old statute?
23 A The new statute.
24 Q Oh, I see what you are saying. The new
25 statute says the maximum impact of 2 percent of the

82
1 total electric bill annually for each customer except
2 those customers that install retail distributed
3 generation can -- you can get more than 2 percent from
4 those folks?
5 A Yes.
6 Q But you agree, when the legislature last
7 raised the rate impact -- well, strike that.
8 Do you agree that when the Colorado
9 legislature changed the RES requirements from 10
10 percent to 20 percent, they also doubled the retail
11 rate-impact cap from 1 percent to 2 percent?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And in this case, under House Bill
14 10-1001, it went from 20 percent to 30 percent, but the
15 retail rate impact stayed at 2 percent?
16 A Right. Yes.
17 Q The amended statute now allows Public
18 Service to advance funds from year to year to augment
19 the amounts collected from customers under the 2
20 percent retail rate-impact cap; is that correct?
21 A I think we always could advance funds.
22 It just let's us recover our interest rate at the
23 weighted average cost of capital.
24 Q I just want to make sure we all
25 understand what we're talking about.

83
1 So, first of all, before Public Service
2 can advance funds against future RESA collections, it
3 must have Commission approval for that; is that
4 correct?
5 A I need to look at the legislation.
6 Q We can look at that. That's Exhibit 132.
7 If you take a look at page 8.
8 A Yes, under the new rule, we need
9 Commission approval.
10 Q And so under this rule, Public Service
11 cannot collect more than 2 percent from ratepayers
12 other than distributed generation retail customers in
13 any given year, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q But you can spend more than 2 percent or
16 what you collected under that 2 percent in a given year
17 and pay yourself back from future 2 percent collections
18 from customers; is that accurate?
19 A Yes. For the amount that's above the
20 cost effective piece.
21 Q Okay, if you get Commission approval to
22 do so --
23 A To borrow the money forward.
24 Q Right.
25 MR. McGANN: I object, Your Honor.

84
1 Actually there is an existing Commission rule -- we're
2 arguing about rules and statutes. There is an existing
3 rule that provides for borrowing forward and carrying
4 balances up and down. I object to the question, it
5 mischaracterizes the law.
6 MR. DOUGLAS: I'm asking what the statute
7 requires, Your Honor. And I think that's what she
8 answered. I'm not sure what the objection refers to
9 because I think we actually moved on.
10 MR. McGANN: I understood the question to
11 basically ask whether Commission approval was needed to
12 carry forward balances or -- to carry balances or
13 borrow forward or balances. That's not the case.
14 That's not what this statute says. It says you need to
15 seek Commission approval to get the weighted -- my
16 understanding is to get the weighted after-tax cost
17 of -- let me -- let's refer to the part of the statute
18 that Mr. Douglas is referring to.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Page 8?
20 MR. McGANN: I believe it's page 8,
21 right.
22 MR. DOUGLAS: Yeah, under (g)(1)(b), it
23 says, At the request of the qualifying retail utility
24 and upon the Commission's approval, the qualifying
25 retail utility may advance funds from year to year to

85
1 augment the amounts collected from retail customers
2 under this paragraph. And I believe Ms. Hyde confirmed
3 that that's the law.
4 MR. McGANN: And I'm simply suggesting
5 that that's the current Commission rule. The
6 difference is that the weighted after-tax cost of
7 capital can be added to those balances at an interest
8 rate.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: To the extent
10 that you think Ms. Hyde's testimony to date needs
11 clarification, you certainly may address that on
12 redirect.
15 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
16 Q Now, what we're essentially talking
17 about, Ms. Hyde, is that the RESA account which is the
18 dollars available for future renewable resource
19 acquisitions can go into the negative if Public Service
20 spends more in a given year than it's collected under
21 the 2 percent rider; is that accurate?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And if it goes into the negative, Public
24 Service, as you discussed, earns interest on that
25 negative balance at its after-tax weighted average cost

86
1 of capital.
2 A Yes.
3 Q And currently that rate is 7.88 percent?
4 A I don't know what it is at the moment.
5 It changes with our capitalization structure and
6 interest rates.
7 Q Okay. And if that's in a Commission
8 decision, you would have no reason to disagree with
9 that?
10 A I would have no reason to disagree with
11 what was our weighted cost of capital when the decision
12 was rendered. I don't know if it's our weighted cost
13 of capital today.
14 Q If it's not 7.88 today, is it something
15 in that ballpark?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So in other words, Public Service gets a
18 return on a negative RESA balance, correct?
19 A We get interest at the weighted average
20 cost of capital, yes.
21 Q And that interest is passed on to the
22 ratepayers to pay, correct?
23 A I think it's added to the balance to be
24 paid by the ratepayers at some point.
25 Q Right, meaning that that interest on the

87
1 negative balance is additional revenue to Public
2 Service above the actual cost of their renewable
3 resources; is that accurate?
4 A It would be revenue to Public Service at
5 some point in the future when it starts to get repaid.
6 Q Right, revenue above the actual cost of
7 the resources, right?
8 A I guess I'm having trouble -- it's not
9 revenue today because we're negative. It's just an
10 accrual today.
11 Q It may be future revenue, but it's
12 additional revenue to Public Service above the actual
13 cost paid for those resources, right?
14 A Yes, at some point in time it is.
15 Q And you don't believe there is any legal
16 limit on how far into the negative under this statute
17 or any Commission rule that Public Service can go in
18 the RESA account, do you?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q But you do agree that Public Service
21 would not be willing to maintain a negative RESA
22 balance for a period of ten years, right?
23 A I think that ten years is probably too
24 long. I don't know exactly what -- how many years we
25 would be willing to do it.

88
1 Q And I believe you told me before that the
2 maximum time that Public Service would be willing to
3 maintain a negative RESA balance is somewhere between
4 five and ten years, right?
5 A I think I told you it becomes an
6 accounting determination whether that asset is still
7 recoverable, and preliminary discussions with the
8 accounting group said that ten years is probably too
9 long to be able to perfect the regulatory asset. So it
10 really becomes an accounting issue of what the
11 accountants are satisfied with and our auditors.
12 Q And what you told me is your accountants
13 would likely be -- feel it would be too long at ten
14 years, would be acceptable at five years, and the line
15 would be somewhere in between, right?
16 MR. McGANN: I object, Your Honor. I
17 have allowed it to go for a little while. These are
18 RES Compliance Plan issues. If we're going to go to
19 the issue and ask them what they should do with these
20 RESA balances, this is outside the scope of this
21 reopened record.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Response, Mr.
23 Douglas?
24 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Ms. Hyde
25 testified on direct that they would have available for

89
1 RESA dollars to meet that plan to add more solar; and
2 part of the analysis of whether RESA dollars will be
3 available involves this concept of borrowing forward
4 and how far into the negative they are willing to go;
5 and I believe that's relevant to the likelihood of
6 acquisition of future resources. And we're almost
7 done.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: All right, I must
9 say I totally admire the way you always throw that in.
10 I just think that's -- you know, for completeness, I
11 certainly do.
12 I do think we're getting a little far
13 afield.
14 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So I'm going to
16 cut you off before you reach your last couple of
17 questions.
18 MR. DOUGLAS: I'll move on then.
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q Ms. Hyde, I believe you have indicated
21 that you believe that the 2010 Public Service RES
22 Compliance Plan continues to reasonably reflect the
23 solar resources that will be acquired over the next
24 several years.
25 MR. McGANN: I object, Your Honor. That

90
1 mischaracterizes her testimony. She did not testify to
2 that in this proceeding.
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I believe she
4 doesn't specify the 2010 RES Compliance Plan; however
5 she did, in her notice of witness testimony, which we
6 can get out to refresh her recollection. So she has
7 indicated that in the past.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will allow that
9 question because I believe Ms. Hyde's testimony was
10 that as to the amendment to the 2007 Colorado Resource
11 Plan, that nothing in that amendment or proposal has
12 changed Public Service's long-term plan.
13 MR. DOUGLAS: Are --
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Excuse me, and
15 then she described that as the short-term change but
16 not a long-term change.
17 Counsel?
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q Let me rephrase this a little bit: You
21 believe, Ms. Hyde, that the 2010 Public Service RES
22 Compliance Plan is the best place to look for Public
23 Service's longer term acquisition of solar resources;
24 is that accurate?
25 A At this time, yes.

91
1 MR. DOUGLAS: If I may approach, Your
2 Honor?
4 (Whereupon, Exhibit Nos. 139 and 140
5 marked for identification.)
6 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
7 Q Ms. Hyde, you have Exhibits 139 and 140
8 in front of you?
9 A I do.
10 Q And are those copies of -- well, is
11 Exhibit 139 a copy of Volume 1 of the Public Service
12 2010 Renewable Standard Compliance Plan?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And is Exhibit 140 a copy of Volume 2 of
15 Public Service 2010 Energy Standard Compliance Plan,
16 essentially the tables -- supporting tables to Volume
17 1?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And that's in fact the 2010 RES
20 Compliance Plan that you just referred to in your
21 testimony?
22 A Yes.
24 Exhibit 139 and 140 into evidence.

92
2 objection?
3 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, given your prior
4 ruling, I have no objection to Exhibit 139.
5 Exhibit 140, I do know that the tables
6 that are reflected in this exhibit were changed during
7 the course of the proceeding which is actually still
8 ongoing. And I believe those hearing exhibits were
9 changed during the course of the proceeding when it was
10 reopened to actually consider changes to these tables.
11 So I do not believe the tables here are an accurate
12 reflection of the tables that were ultimately
13 introduced into the record in that case.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Let's take
15 Exhibit 139. Seeing no objection, Exhibit 139 for
16 identification is admitted.
17 Now, Mr. McGann, your statements with
18 respect to revised or changed tables have to do with
19 Exhibit 140 for identification; is that correct?
20 MR. McGANN: That is correct, Your Honor.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And do you happen
22 to know, sir -- well, one can inquire of the witness,
23 when it says on Exhibit 140 for identification revised
24 January 27, 2010, do you know whether that includes
25 then the amendments?

93
1 MR. McGANN: It does not. The tables
2 that were revised in the hearing were revised March 19,
3 2010.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you. So
5 the basis of the objection is that the exhibit does not
6 accurately represent the tables contained in the
7 exhibit?
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And ultimately
10 admitted into evidence?
11 MR. McGANN: That's correct. And I'm
12 specifically referring to tables 7-1 through 7-5.
14 Counsel?
15 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, we got this off
16 the Public Service website. It says it's revised
17 1/27/2010. If there were further additions after that
18 point, we had a discovery request in conjunction with
19 this particular proceeding for revised tables,
20 specifically 7-3 and 7-4 that we asked for. We haven't
21 been given those. I believe this is the best
22 information we have as far as what was produced to us
23 by Public Service. If there were substantial changes
24 to the tables -- and I'm specifically going to be
25 talking about Table 7-3 and 7-4 -- that I don't know

94
1 what the revisions he's talking about, whether they
2 substantially affect the numbers we're going to talk
3 about or not. If so, whether they can produce those to
4 us over lunch or we can talk about them it, if Ms. Hyde
5 is coming back for rebuttal -- there may be other
6 opportunities, but this is the information they gave us
7 and I believe I'm entitled to ask the witness about it.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. -- before I
9 ask Mr. McGann -- or give Mr. McGann the opportunity to
10 respond, Mr. Douglas, I understood you to say that
11 Public -- that Trinichera Ranch specifically requested
12 of Public Service in discovery what?
13 MR. DOUGLAS: We will to get -- we can
14 pull that to get the specific language, but we
15 specifically asked for revised tables. If you want
16 me --
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Revised table to
18 Volume 2 of the 2010 Renewable Energy Standard
19 Compliance Plan?
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And to date that
22 response to that has been?
23 MR. DOUGLAS: I believe they said they
24 had not redone the table.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Counsel?

95
1 MR. McGANN: My understanding --
2 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry,
3 Mr. McGann.
4 MR. McGANN: My understanding of the
5 discovery request was, Has the company modeled the
6 affected or revised assumptions described on JFH-1 in
7 the amended Resource Plan on the Renewable Energy
8 Standard adjustment balance in the 2010 RES Compliance
9 Plan? That we have not done.
10 What we did was in the course of the 2010
11 RES Compliance Plan, we amended or corrected these
12 tables. It had nothing to do with JFH-1 and the
13 results of that analysis.
14 So at least that's the discovery. What I
15 understand Mr. Douglas is referring to.
16 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, the discovery
17 request reads --
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry, could
19 you give me a reference, a number so that we all
20 understanding which --
21 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I haven't seen
23 them -- so we all understand what's being discussed?
24 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. I apologize, because
25 it's a little confusing. The requests were renumbered,

96
1 so I'm looking at the renumbered request by Public
2 Service. It's listed Trinichera Ranch Discovery
3 Request 26-8. And it's: If the company has updated
4 the analysis in the 2000 RES Compliance Plan filed in
5 Docket 09A-772E, including but not limited to tables
6 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4 to reflect the
7 revised assumptions in the company's 2007 Colorado
8 Resource Plan, please fully describe the updated
9 analysis and provide the revised tables.
10 MR. McGANN: And again, Your Honor,
11 that's not what those revisions did.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay, by which --
13 could you be more specific? Are you referring to the
14 specific language with respect to the -- that if you
15 have updated it with respect to this particular thing?
16 As I recall that's -- I don't have the language in
17 front of me; but is that your point?
18 MR. McGANN: That's correct. To reflect
19 the specific language in 26-8 is to reflect revised
20 assumptions in the amendments to the 2007 Colorado
21 Resource Plan. These tables were not amended to
22 reflect that amendment.
23 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I would also
24 add, I discussed these tables specifically and this
25 version of the document with Ms. Hyde at her

97
1 deposition. There was a question raised about -- Ms.
2 Hyde was unsure whether they were the most recent
3 tables or not; we went through all the numbers with
4 that understanding, she was not sure. Public Service
5 never, after that time, provided any information or
6 tables to indicate to Trinichera Ranch, prior to just
7 now, that in fact there had been further updates to
8 those tables.
9 MR. McGANN: I can respond, Your Honor,
10 or --
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Yes, thank you.
12 MR. McGANN: There was no obligation to
13 respond to any further requests, Your Honor. I mean,
14 we had a request on the table asking whether or not we
15 had updated these tables for the amended Resource Plan.
16 We had not. Ms. Hyde mentioned during her
17 deposition -- actually I think Mr. Sopkin mentioned he
18 thought the tables had been revised and there was no
19 follow-up from Trinichera Ranch after that point in
20 time.
21 Yes, it is true Mr. Douglas continued to
22 ask Ms. Hyde questions concerning those tables; but the
23 question at that point had already been raised. At
24 that point there was either an obligation to the
25 parties for Trinichera Ranch to ask for updated tables

98
1 or go on the website where they found these tables and
2 find the updated tables from the 2010 RES Compliance
3 Plan.
4 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I believe we
5 did go to the website and this was what -- this was the
6 most recent one that we found. And we did make an
7 attempt to do that and confirmed to our satisfaction
8 that at least that appeared to be the most recent one
9 available on the Public Service website.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, this is
11 awkward in the following respect: First of all, let me
12 say that I agree with Public Service that the discovery
13 request as read into the record was limited to changes
14 made for a particular purpose, that is to reflect the
15 amendments on the 2007 Public Service Colorado Resource
16 Plan. Based on representations of counsel, which I
17 presume one can confirm with the witness, that appears
18 not to be the reason or the basis on which the changes
19 were made to the referenced Table 7-3 and -- 7-3 and
20 7-4 in Hearing Exhibit 140.
21 So I agree with Public Service that there
22 is no obligation, excuse me, to provide the updated
23 pages -- tables, as a discovery issue.
24 So my concern now has to do with
25 admitting Exhibit 140 for identification, knowing that

99
1 the information about which it appears Mr. Douglas
2 intends to inquire is incorrect in terms of the
3 evidence admitted in another proceeding, as the tables
4 admitted in another proceeding. So I -- at this
5 juncture, I will not allow Exhibit 140 for
6 identification to be admitted. And we'll see whether
7 this can be addressed after lunch or at some other
8 time; but at this juncture, there is sufficient
9 question with respect to the accuracy of this exhibit
10 to warrant -- to warrant -- to sustain the objection
11 and not admit the exhibit.
12 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I'll just
13 represent -- we'll come back to this in -- maybe after
14 lunch or at a break, but we've just checked again on
15 the website and this was the most recent version that
16 was available that we could find.
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Perhaps I could
18 ask this, do you know what website was being checked?
19 MR. DOUGLAS: That's the question I just
20 asked whether it was the Public Service website or the
21 Commission docket or both, and we're double-checking
22 that.
24 At this point I will sustain the
25 objection and not admit Exhibit 140 for identification

100
1 in its present form.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas,
4 could we take the official ten-minute break at this
5 juncture to give the court reporter time to do the
6 paper and we'll be back at ten minutes to the hour --
7 ten minutes to the hour.
8 (Recess.)
11 the record.
12 Mr. Douglas.
13 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, we have
14 obtained what are essentially the errata sheets filed
15 in Docket -- I can't remember the number but in the
16 2010 RES compliance docket. In fact the exhibit in
17 that docket is still listed as the January 27, 2010
18 update; but if you click on the document itself, there
19 are some pages that are an errata to that which are the
20 tables to which Mr. McGann is referring. So -- but
21 there is not a completely revised exhibit. So what I
22 would propose is that Exhibit 140 be admitted as is
23 because there are portions of that that are not part of
24 this errata; and then we are still compiling all the
25 copies of what I would propose to mark as Exhibit 141

101
1 which are the revised tables that we have obtained that
2 relate to Exhibit 139.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. -- before --
4 just as a quick clarifying question, then you would
5 presumably not ask questions of Ms. Hyde with respect
6 to the revised variables 7-3 and 7-4 or any other of
7 the revised tables until 141 is admitted?
8 MR. DOUGLAS: That's correct.
10 With that clarification, I will take this
11 as a reoffer of Exhibit 140.
12 Mr. McGann or any other counsel?
14 Honor?
16 MR. McGANN: No objection, Your Honor.
18 Exhibit 140 is admitted and we await
19 Exhibit 141.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you, Mr.
21 Douglas.
22 Thank you, counsel. We'll reserve 141.
23 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Your Honor. And
24 I will proceed with some questions about 139 while
25 we're waiting for the full copies of 141.

102
2 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
3 Q All right, Ms. Hyde, I have handed -- do
4 you have in front of you what's been marked Exhibit
5 139?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And just to orient us all, that's Volume
8 1 of Public Service's 2010 Renewable Energy Standard
9 Compliance Plan?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. And this 2010 plan includes
12 projections through 2020; is that correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q That's ten years out?
15 A It was filed in '9, so maybe 11 years.
16 Q From today it's looking out ten years?
17 A Right.
18 Q Where we are today.
19 And you agree Public Service only plans
20 its system for resource acquisitions within less than
21 ten years, correct?
22 A Correct -- up to ten years --
23 Q Yes.
24 A -- under the resource planning rules.
25 Q Okay. And the resources discussed in

103
1 this Exhibit 139, the 2010 Compliance Plan, that would
2 potentially be located in the San Luis Valley; other
3 than the resources that are part of the 2007 Resource
4 Plan, are three 250-megawatt solar thermal
5 placeholders, correct?
6 A That would specifically be in the San
7 Luis Valley, yes; there are three 250-megawatt solar
8 thermal with storage projects.
9 Q And in fact, the only solar resources
10 beyond the ones contained in the 2007 Resource Plan
11 that have been identified by Public Service through
12 2020 that would potentially be located in the San Luis
13 Valley are those three 250-megawatt facilities,
14 correct?
15 A As I'm sitting here, I don't think so
16 because I think that there's the potential for retail
17 DG in the San Luis Valley, but we didn't specifically
18 identify some segment of the DG that would be in the
19 San Luis Valley.
20 Q Okay. But as far as central solar
21 resources that could be potentially located in the San
22 Luis Valley through 2020, the only resources that have
23 been identified beyond the 2007 plan by Public Service
24 are these three 250-megawatt solar thermal facilities
25 that we've discussed, correct?

104
1 A Yes.
2 Q And you agree that the uncertainty that
3 you testified about previously in February in this case
4 as to how much RESA money will be available for the
5 acquisition of those three 250 solar thermal
6 placeholders that are discussed in the 2010 Compliance
7 Plan that that uncertainty still exists today, correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And you agree that this uncertainty
10 relates at least in part to the fact that the
11 assumptions that Public Service used in modeling what
12 resources could be acquired under the 2 percent cap in
13 this 2010 Compliance Plan, when those assumptions are
14 reevaluated, that could have a significant effect on
15 the amount of RESA dollars available for those
16 250-megawatt resources, correct?
17 A It could have an impact, yes.
18 Q And we know now, as we sit here today,
19 based on Public Service's filing of the application to
20 amend the 2007 Resource Plan that in fact a number of
21 modeling assumptions that were used in this 2010
22 Compliance Plan have changed significantly, correct?
23 A I guess I wouldn't look at it like that.
24 What we said in our amendment is that we have undated
25 some of the assumptions for the purpose of the

105
1 amendment to the Resource Plan and that there was some
2 change in some of the assumptions. We haven't gone
3 back to look at the 2010 Compliance Plan and whether
4 any of those assumptions changed. They are sort of
5 locked in.
6 Q Can you take a look at your deposition,
7 please. Do you still have that in front of you?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And if you look at small page 96 --
10 A Okay.
11 Q -- starting at line 7, I asked you this
12 question: And we know now, based on Public Service's
13 filing of the amendment to the 2007 Resource Plan, that
14 in fact a number of the modeling assumptions that were
15 used in the 2007 Resource Plan which carried over into
16 the 2010 Compliance Plan have as of today changed
17 significantly, correct? And your answer was, Yes. Is
18 that accurate?
19 A Yes, that they have changed as far as the
20 Resource Plan. We don't have them approved yet by the
21 Commission that they agree that they changed, but we've
22 proposed that they be changed.
23 Q But the testimony I just read is
24 accurate?
25 A Yes.
106
1 Q One assumption in the 2010 Compliance
2 Plan upon which the modeling was based was the
3 assumption as to the cost of carbon, correct?
4 A Carbon dioxide, yes.
5 MR. McGANN: Your Honor --
6 MR. DOUGLAS: And that --
7 MR. McGANN: -- I object to any further
8 questions concerning changed assumptions with respect
9 to the 2010 Resource Plan or what may happen in the
10 amended Resource Plan. Again, I think now we're
11 getting into the reasons behind the motivations behind
12 the requests for the amendment as well as what the
13 Commission might do with these changed assumptions.
14 There is nothing we can do in this docket except
15 present to you what we have presented to the
16 Commission. Only the Commission can decide what to do
17 with these various assumptions and we should not spend
18 the rest of the afternoon trying to explore what the
19 Commission might do with those assumptions. So I
20 object to any further questions along this line.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Just so I'm clear
22 here, your concern is that we are getting into
23 questions about what the Commission might do in Docket
24 No. 010 -- excuse me, 10A-377E.

107
2 MR. McGANN: I believe that would be the
3 only purpose behind exploring these assumptions --
4 these economic assumptions and why they have changed.
5 That would be the only purpose in exploring this in
6 this particular proceeding.
8 Mr. Douglas?
9 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I don't believe
10 the question went in any way to the motivation for the
11 amendment, why the carbon assumption changed. What I
12 asked and what I think is relevant specifically to Your
13 Honor's order is that Ms. Hyde gave testimony back in
14 February and reiterated it this morning that she
15 believes they will have money within the 2 percent cap
16 to carry out their plan. She says the plan is the 2010
17 compliance model; and, in fact -- or plan; and, in
18 fact, this modeling with these assumptions that were
19 made is her basis for saying they can fit it within the
20 2 percent cap.
21 The amendment provided information which
22 she has confirmed in her deposition and will confirm
23 shows that some of those assumptions would be different
24 if you were doing it today and that will potentially
25 affect the available RESA dollars for those same future

108
1 solar thermal resources that she has already testified
2 they will have the money for.
3 So I believe we're not getting into the
4 motivation of the amendment at all, we're getting into
5 what the amendment tells us that affects the likelihood
6 that these future resources will actually be able to be
7 acquired.
8 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, the limited
9 scope of this hearing is if the Commission sets the
10 lower end of the solar acquisition at 60, 90, or 185,
11 what effect does that have on the transmission line?
12 That's it. And what Mr. Douglas is getting into now is
13 again the motivations or the reasons behind why that
14 amendment was sought and what the Commission may do
15 with those assumptions, either in -- not only in this
16 amended Resource Plan but in a future Resource Plan.
17 And I believe that's beyond the scope of this reopened
18 hearing.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Well, this is a
20 point of intersection which is uncomfortable but goes
21 like this. I will overrule the objection because in
22 the question in the deposition which Ms. Hyde just
23 affirmed as direct testimony, the question included
24 changes in the -- quote, A number of modeling
25 assumptions that were used in the 2007 Resource Plan,

109
1 which carried over into the 2010 Compliance Plan, has
2 as of today changed significantly, correct, unquote;
3 she said, Yes. She also affirmed that testimony just a
4 moment ago on the stand.
5 As I understand the question, it is not
6 directed to anything underlying the proposed amendment
7 to the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan; rather the question
8 explores whether changes which were -- which may have
9 surfaced as a result of the amendment to the 2007
10 Colorado Resource Plan, whether those changes
11 warrant -- excuse me, whether those changes change in
12 any way -- or presumably a significant way what Ms.
13 Hyde has already testified to that the 2007 -- the 2010
14 Compliance Plan remains the best available information
15 to Public Service with respect to its future resource
16 acquisitions. I think it is appropriate to examine
17 whether changed circumstances change her view with
18 respect to that point. I understand that's where the
19 question is going.
20 Proceed, Mr. Douglas.
22 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
23 Q I can't remember which question I left
24 off at, but I was only about one question in so I'm
25 just going to start from the top if that's all right.

110
1 Ms. Hyde, one assumption in the 2010
2 Compliance Plan modeling was the assumption of -- well,
3 the assumption relating to the cost of carbon, right --
4 I think I did ask that one.
5 A Right, carbon dioxide.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That's where you
7 were.
8 MR. DOUGLAS: All right, great.
9 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
10 Q The assumption in the base case of the
11 2010 Compliance Plan was that carbon legislation would
12 be passed and there would be an additional cost for
13 carbon starting in 2010, correct?
14 A Well, I think we had a carbon proxy cost
15 that started in 2010. And the Commission approved
16 that. I'm not sure that it was necessarily tied to an
17 assumption that legislation would pass in 2010.
18 Q Let's put that aside. The carbon cost
19 that was part of the assumptions in the 2010 Compliance
20 Plan was forecast in that modeling to start in 2010,
21 right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And Public Service's assumption today,
24 based on the information contained in the application
25 to amend and the amendment -- proposed amendment to the

111
1 2007 Resource Plan is if that carbon cost start date
2 would be more accurate for modeling purposes to be a
3 2014 start date, correct?
4 MR. McGANN: If I may object, Your Honor,
5 and it's really to try to shorten things, if I may:
6 The reason I'm having an issue with this line of
7 questioning is that Mr. Douglas has now moved into the
8 amendment to the Resource Plan and he's now said, you
9 have presented certain numbers to the Commission in the
10 amended Resource Plan; does that change the result?
11 And I guess my only point now is that only the
12 Commission can decide whether it does.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I --
14 Mr. McGann --
15 MR. McGANN: We can speculate --
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. McGann, I
17 will allow you to finish your statement.
18 What I understand this questioning to be
19 doing is to say --
20 MR. McGANN: And I will object to the
21 form --
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will sustain an
23 objection to the form of the question that was just
24 asked because that question in fact went to what is
25 going on in another proceeding.

112
1 But the assumption change may be asked as
2 a hypothetical or some other -- I don't know how, but
3 you may ask about an assumption; and if that assumption
4 proved to be true, would that change your opinion, Ms.
5 Hyde, with respect to the 2010 Compliance Plan being,
6 you know, continuing to be -- what's the word --
7 continuing to be an appropriate plan on which the
8 Commission ought to rely on; something along those
9 lines?
10 I understand your concern. The question,
11 Mr. Douglas asked went in fact precisely to that issue,
12 but he started to talk about what was going on in that
13 other proceeding.
14 What I want in this case is if anybody
15 wants to pursue this -- is assume a pre -- an
16 assumption is changed, what impact if any does that
17 have on the document on which Ms. Hyde has testified
18 she relies and she thinks continues to be a valid and
19 reliable document?
20 MR. McGANN: I understand your ruling,
21 Your Honor.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Does that help
23 your -- you may certainly complete your thought, but I
24 just want to try to articulate -- Ms. Mandell, I do see
25 you in the back. So continue because I didn't mean to

113
1 interrupt you making your record and I apologize.
2 MR. McGANN: No, I appreciate your
3 explanation, Your Honor. I think it's -- it really --
4 just to summarize, it seems to me the only issue again
5 that's relevant in this reopened proceeding is where
6 does the Commission end up in terms of the lower of the
7 solar acquisitions; how they get there or what findings
8 they may make are not relevant. What Your Honor
9 suggested is as long as Mr. Douglas doesn't mention the
10 amended Resource Plan but talks about simply
11 generically the assumptions that went into the
12 amendment to the Resource Plan, he's allowed to bring
13 those into this proceeding.
14 At least that was the way I understand
15 your --
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: As they pertain
17 to Ms. Hyde's testimony that the 2010 Public Service
18 Company Compliance Plan continues to be something on --
19 and particularly the three 250-megawatt placeholder
20 solar thermal facilities presumably to be located in
21 the San Luis Valley, I think that summarizes her prior
22 testimony on those three units -- as it pertains to
23 that, right. Yes, I do think that one may inquire into
24 that.

114
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Ms. Mandell --
2 and could you come forward again, sorry.
3 MS. MANDELL: Yes. I don't remember the
4 exact question now, but as to my recollection of the
5 question, I object to the form of the question for two
6 reasons: One is, as the question was phrased, it
7 didn't -- it sort of didn't accurately reflect that the
8 Commission is maybe considering that particular
9 assumption in another docket that's active and ongoing
10 right now; and then the second objection to the form of
11 the question is that the question also inferred that
12 the Commission can go back into the 2010 docket and
13 change the carbon assumption, which there is some
14 complexity to the way the RES -- the RESA is calculated
15 as to the lockdown of resources. So there is some
16 complexity there as to the changing of assumptions in
17 the 2010 plan that the question glossed over to the
18 point that it's not quite accurate.
19 So, thank you.
21 objections as to this question -- pending question, if
22 anyone can remember the pending question?
23 Mr. -- of course we all can, that's a
24 joke.
25 Mr. Douglas?
115
2 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
3 Q Ms. Hyde, I want --
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: No, I need a
5 response to the objection -- now two pending
6 objections.
7 MR. DOUGLAS: Well, Your Honor, at this
8 point we're pretty far removed from that question. I
9 understand your position. I don't intend to get into
10 what the Commission might do in any other docket. I
11 intend to ask Ms. Hyde about the modeling that she said
12 supports her opinion that they will be able to
13 acquire -- to have RESA dollars to acquire these solar
14 thermal placeholders; how those have changed to be --
15 well, she has opinions about what's more accurate
16 today, and her opinions and Public Service's position
17 on inaccuracies or changes that would make that
18 modeling more accurate or relevant to the likelihood of
19 the acquisition of those resources; and what the
20 Commission will ultimately do is not part of the
21 question and not an area I intend to go into.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will sustain
23 the objection as to form and we can reask the question.
25 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
116
1 Q Ms. Hyde, your position is that it would
2 be more accurate today to project the costs of the
3 resources and the RESA -- available RESA dollars using
4 a 2014 carbon assumption -- carbon start date as
5 opposed to the 2010 assumptions that were actually used
6 in the 2010 RES Compliance Plan modeling; is that
7 correct?
8 A No. We proposed that we would -- we
9 thought that that was probably a more realistic number
10 to use, but what we use from the RES Compliance Plan I
11 think is still up for grabs all over the place because
12 before we file the next plan, we won't have had --
13 likely not have any ruling in 377E; and we also will
14 still have the same 447E numbers. So I don't know that
15 it's correct to say that our position is that it's most
16 accurate to use that or best to use that in the 2011 --
17 in the next compliance plan.
18 Q Well, could I ask you to turn to your
19 deposition at page 99, please; starting on line 12, the
20 question I asked was, Right now I'm not asking you
21 about direction from the Commission, I'm asking what
22 your and Public Service's position is. Your position
23 is that it would be more accurate today to project
24 these costs out and the RESA dollars and how it all
25 works using a 2014 carbon assumption than the 2010

117
1 assumption that was actually used in the modeling,
2 right? And your answer was, Yes. Do you see that?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And we were talking then about the
5 modeling in the 2010 Compliance Plan.
6 A I'm not sure. We talked about it for
7 quite some time. I think there are several pages on
8 what it was we were talking about.
9 Q Well, do you believe --
10 A It starts somewhere around page 96.
11 Q But the question and answer I just read,
12 page 99, lines 12 through 19; is that accurate?
13 A Only when considered with the discussion
14 in the pages before it.
15 Q Well, let's look at the page before, page
16 98, starting at line 24; the question is, If you were
17 to take that modeling that was done in -- whenever it
18 was done for that 2010 plan, which used the 2010 carbon
19 assumption, and do that again today, it's your position
20 that it would be more accurate to use the 2014 start
21 for the carbon cost.
22 "ANSWER: It's our position that we think
23 that that's a more accurate representation, that that's
24 more accurate." And then you go on to say that you
25 don't know what the Commission is going to do with

118
1 that; correct?
2 A Right, because ultimately it's the
3 Commission's decision what number we use.
4 Q Right. But it's your position that the
5 2014 start date would be more accurate?
6 A It's our position -- yes, that that's a
7 better number right now; but, you know, the
8 Commission's entitled to use carbon in their
9 considerations and they can pick the number.
10 Q You also agreed that the recalculation of
11 the incremental cost of the renewable resources in the
12 2010 Compliance Plan can be dramatically affected as
13 far as the RESA funds available for the acquisition of
14 renewable resources based on the carbon cost, correct?
15 A Well, I don't think we recalculated 2010
16 Compliance Plan.
17 Q I don't know that that was my question.
18 You agree -- let me phrase it differently. You agree
19 that the recalculation of the incremental cost of
20 renewable resources -- strike that. Let me try again.
21 You agree that the recalculation of the
22 incremental increases, based on a change in the carbon
23 assumption, can dramatically affect the funds available
24 through the RESA for the acquisition of additional
25 renewable resources in later periods, right?

119
1 A I don't think that you recalculate 2010;
2 but obviously the carbon proxy costs has an impact on
3 how much goes through the RESA and how much goes
4 through the ECA.
5 Q And in fact, that can have a dramatic
6 effect, right?
7 A It can have a significant effect, yes.
8 Q Well, maybe -- in fact, in the 2010
9 Compliance Plan, Public Service modeled an alternative
10 case, a sensitivity analysis, that used this changed
11 assumption of a carbon cost start date from 2010 to
12 2014, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I believe
15 that's going to take us to the tables; and I now have,
16 timely -- I now have copies of Exhibit 141, if I may
17 approach.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may. Thank
19 you.)
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Reporter and
22 the parties, on what has been offered -- or marked for
23 identification as Exhibit 141 in this proceeding is a
24 previously stamped "Exhibit 65, Docket No. 09A-772E,
25 March 19, 2010." Please strike through that exhibit

120
1 identification so that for purposes of our record all
2 will know that this is Exhibit 141 for identification
3 in the instant proceeding.
4 Does that help, Mr. Reporter?
6 identification.)
9 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
11 front of you?
12 A I do.
13 Q And is that a copy of the revised tables
14 that supplement the 2010 Public Service RES Compliance
15 Plan tables that are Exhibit 140?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay.
18 MR. DOUGLAS: I would offer 141 into
19 evidence.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. -- before --
21 Ms. Hyde, what is your understanding, are the tables
22 that are shown in Exhibit 141 for identification, to
23 your understanding, to be substituted for the similarly
24 numbered tables that appear in Exhibit 140?
25 THE WITNESS: That's my understanding.

121
2 With that understanding, Exhibit 141 for identification
3 is offered.
4 Voir dire objection.
5 MR. SOPKIN: No objection.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Exhibit 141 is
7 admitted.
9 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
10 Q Ms. Hyde, if you will turn to the second
11 and third pages of Exhibit 141, I just want to get us
12 oriented on this. Is it correct that Table 7.3 models
13 what maybe we could call the base case for the 2010 RES
14 Compliance Plan and the available RESA dollars; and
15 Table 7-4 is this sensitivity analysis that changed the
16 modeling to reflect a carbon cost start date of 2014?
17 A Yes, it also changed the RESA -- the
18 calculation of the RESA.
19 Q The RESA revenue?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And we'll get into that; but just for
22 starters, Table 7.3 was what Public Service forecasted
23 would happen as far as the acquisition of the resources
24 listed in that plan and their effect on RESA dollars
25 and then the rolling balance of the RESA account going

122
1 forward through 2020, right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And then Table 7-4 changed two things
4 from that forecast: One was it changed the carbon
5 start date; and the second thing was it increased the
6 collection of are RESA dollars from ratepayers to be a
7 full 2 percent through 2020; is that correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And in the base case, what you forecasted
10 when you filed this in Table 7-3, Public Service was
11 predicting that it would be able to reduce the 2
12 percent rider on ratepayers to 1 percent, starting in
13 2013; and to zero starting in 2016; is that correct?
14 A I don't know that we actually forecasted
15 that we could reduce the RESA, but our assumption was
16 that we didn't need the full 2 percent to fund the plan
17 that we had proposed.
18 Q Right. You were going to be back in the
19 positive in this RESA account as of 2012 under your
20 base case even though you reduced -- you modeled the
21 reduction of the rider to 1 percent in 2013 and -- or
22 starting in 2016, right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Now, if you take a look at the difference
25 in 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4 on the rolling balance, do you see

123
1 that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And we talked about this hypothetical
4 bucket of RESA dollars that from an accounting
5 standpoint Public Service maintains and draws against
6 when it purchases renewable resources and adds to from
7 these collections -- the 2 percent collection from
8 ratepayers, right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And Column X is a rolling balance,
11 looking out until 2020, of where that hypothetical
12 account, that RESA account stands under your modeling,
13 right?
14 A A hypothetical, yes.
15 Q And so by changing the carbon
16 assumption -- the carbon cost start date from 2020
17 until -- on 7-3 to Table 14 on Table 7-4, that rolling
18 RESA balance, Column X, went from -- if you look at
19 2012, just in that year, it went from a forecasted
20 positive $27 million balance to a forecasted negative
21 $71 million balance, correct?
22 A Yes.
23 Q So that's a difference of essentially a
24 negative $98 million from this change in the carbon
25 assumption, just for that one single year, correct?

124
1 A Yes. In this hypothetical -- in this
2 kind of simple analysis, yes.
3 Q Well, the hypothetical is your prediction
4 of where these costs are going to come out changed to
5 reflect what you now believe is a more accurate
6 assumption, correct?
7 A I think that this was an exercise done,
8 kind of in the early years of this, saying why does
9 that assumption change those numbers? I don't know
10 that it really reflects where we are in 2010, you know,
11 as we're making our way through the year.
12 Q All right. But the purpose of Table 7-4
13 was to look at the impact of this changed carbon
14 assumption, correct?
15 A Yes, using this -- like I said, this
16 simple analysis.
17 Q Okay. You can call it simple if you
18 want, but the purpose of it was to look at what the
19 effect is, right, of the changed carbon assumption?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Okay. And that effect was $98 million
22 just for a -- a negative $98 million just for 2012,
23 right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And that's a pretty big impact, right?

125
1 A Yes.
2 Q Although it's your position, that even
3 though that's big on the negative balance, it's small
4 on a bill, right?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Small on a customer's bill, we mean.
7 A Relatively, yes.
8 Q All right. Let's look at 2013. Now we
9 go on the base case, Table 7-3, from a positive 54
10 million predicted for 2013, to a negative 86 -- well,
11 really 87 million with that changed carbon assumption,
12 correct?
14 question. I believe in 2013 it also reduces the RESA
15 charge, if you take a look at the top right of 7-3; so
16 I think the hypothetical has to include both
17 assumptions.
18 MR. DOUGLAS: Well, he can flesh that
19 out. I think that actually exacerbates the negative
20 impact; but for starters, between -- let's start over.
21 Q 7-3 for 2013 predicted a positive $54
22 million balance in the RESA account, right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And then in Table 7-4, you changed the
25 carbon assumption to 2014, and actually increased the

126
1 revenue you collected from ratepayers for 2013 and
2 still ended up with a negative $87 million balance,
3 correct?
5 question, Your Honor. That's not what these tables
6 show.
7 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
8 Q Is that accurate?
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I --
10 MR. DOUGLAS: I apologize, Your Honor.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I was waiting for
12 the objection.
13 There is an objection -- well, you got
14 the objection. Is there a response to the objection?
15 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I thought I
16 stated it correctly. I believe the witness can correct
17 me if I -- if that's not accurate. My question is, is
18 that accurate? And she's free to answer yes or no.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'll overrule the
20 objection. You may answer whether the question -- you
21 can answer the question, Is it accurate -- is that
22 statement accurate?
23 THE WITNESS: Could you read it again for
24 me.
25 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
127
1 Q Sure. Table 7-3, the base case in the
2 2010 Compliance Plan model forecasted a $54 million
3 surplus in the RESA account as of 2013. And then in
4 7-4, the changed carbon assumption to 2014, coupled
5 with higher revenue collected from ratepayers in the
6 7-4 assumptions still resulted in a negative balance of
7 $87 million; correct?
8 A It's correct that in this projection
9 that's what the numbers are.
10 Q And that's about $140 million difference,
11 according to my calculations; is that accurate?
12 A The total from positive to negative,
13 those two numbers add up to somewhere around there.
14 But I don't think that it's accurate to say that that's
15 really where we expect the RESA balance to be.
16 Q Well, that's where you forecasted the
17 RESA balance to be under the assumptions you used for
18 the 2010 Compliance Plan modeling with the change in
19 the carbon assumption and the revenue that we talked
20 about; right?
21 A It was a simple assumption change, as you
22 said, but it also changes the balances in '10 for
23 example that we don't expect to change with that
24 assumption change. It won't affect the balances in
25 '10.
128
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: When you say ten,
2 you mean 2010.
3 THE WITNESS: Column 2010.
5 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
6 Q Right. 2010, we're starting out with a
7 $26 million negative balance, right?
8 A It looks like 29 --
9 Q Twenty-nine?
10 A -- to me.
11 Q Okay. So the changes in carbon
12 assumption doesn't affect the balance for 2010. That's
13 what you are saying, right?
14 A Right. But it does on 7-4. It doesn't
15 really change it though.
16 Q It's a negative $12 million for 2010,
17 right?
18 A Right. But the change in assumptions
19 won't really impact the 2010 balance.
20 Q You change -- you added a cost for carbon
21 as of 2010 when you modeled what the balance would be
22 in 2010. And now there is no cost for carbon; is that
23 accurate?
24 A No. As far as recovery goes, there is
25 still a cost of carbon, as far as how much dollars go

129
1 through the ECA and how much through the RESA.
2 Q Oh, because the Commission approved your
3 use of the 2010 assumption.
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay, now I understand where you are
6 coming from. And I'm trying to get at questions that
7 don't assume or look into what the Commission might or
8 might not do. All I'm trying to get at here is when
9 you look at these forecasts that you did that looked at
10 the impact of this changed assumption in -- on future
11 available RESA dollars, according to your own modeling
12 we're looking at changes of -- well, really $141
13 million, just looking at 2013, right?
14 A Well, they build on each other. So the
15 change in 2010 in this scenario becomes part of that
16 negative in the future. But really 2010 doesn't
17 change.
18 Q All right, let's take the 12 million out
19 for 2010. We're still talking a $129 million dollar
20 change, right?
21 A Right, but the same thing happens to '11,
22 '12. I don't know where those will end up.
23 Q And when you look at 2011 to 2014
24 together that's about $129 million regular negative
25 impact on the RESA dollars, right?

130
1 A I don't know which numbers you are adding
2 now; but you are good at math, so --
3 Q Well, in any event we're talking about
4 over a hundred million dollars of impact according to
5 your own forecast on the future available RESA dollars
6 just from that one change to the carbon legislation,
7 correct?
8 A I would characterize these as scenarios,
9 not really a forecast, but we'll go in for additional
10 plans in between; but this sensitivity shows that sort
11 of level of difference between the two.
12 Q Now another assumption that Public
13 Service used in its modeling of the 2010 Compliance
14 Plan and available future RESA dollars is the cost of
15 natural gas, correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you believe that a more accurate
18 forecast today versus what was used in the 2010
19 Compliance Plan would be about a 14 percent reduction
20 in those prices, correct?
21 A Well, I believe that both forecasts are
22 wrong and I don't know where the price of gas will go.
23 But according to the way the Commission has us estimate
24 natural gas prices, the estimate in the CRP amendment
25 is more updated than the other one.

131
1 Q All right. And you agree that when --
2 that if all the other modeling assumptions are kept the
3 same, when you lower the average price or the price
4 forecasted for natural gas, it raises the incremental
5 cost of the renewable resources, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And if we wanted to accurately model,
8 today, the amount of RESA funds that would be available
9 for future renewable resource acquisition, that
10 modeling would need to use, in your opinion, revised
11 carbon assumptions, starting in 2015 and the revised
12 natural gas price forecast, correct?
13 A To redo the 2010?
14 Q Well, if you wanted to accurately model
15 that today, that's what you would need to do, right?
16 A I don't know about, "accurate." I just
17 said the forecasts were all wrong. Anyway, I don't
18 know where the price will go. But, I guess I would
19 answer, when we do the 2011 plan, we'll use different
20 assumptions, and we will go back and redo the '10 plan.
21 Q Okay. Let's take a look at your
22 deposition, turning to page 116, starting at line 16.
23 Are you there?
24 A Yes.
25 Q The question is -- there's a little

132
1 preamble, but Your Honor might appreciate it. "Right
2 now, we don't know what the Commission is going to do.
3 I am just trying to get what your position is. That
4 position could be contrary to the Commission rules, and
5 that's another uncertainty, I think. What I am just, I
6 guess, just trying to get, what your position would be.
7 That, if we wanted to accurately model, today, the
8 amount of RESA funds that would be available for future
9 resource acquisitions, we would take the 2010 modeling
10 you did, and we would need to use the revised carbon
11 forecast in the 2007 amendment, right?" "Answer: "In
12 part, yes." And the question: And a revised natural
13 gas assumption, right?" The answer is, "In part, yes."
14 Does that accurately set out the
15 testimony you gave in your deposition?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And using a revised lower natural gas
18 forecast would further move the RESA balance we just
19 looked at, in Table 7-4, into the negative, correct?
20 A In isolation, if you move those, yes.
21 Q And Public Service has not done any
22 modeling, as opposed to the carbon assumption we just
23 looked at, but not done any modeling of the impact of a
24 lower natural gas forecast on how that might affect the
25 predictions in the 2010 RES Compliance Plan; is that

133
1 correct?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And it's your position, today, that both
4 the gas price forecasts and the carbon cost forecasts
5 have gone down, right?
6 A Yes. Our estimate of those numbers have
7 gone down, yes.
8 Q Okay. All right. Let's talk just a
9 little bit about demand and energy forecasts. You
10 agree that, for the last several years, the demand
11 forecasts by Public Service have been revised to
12 reflect reduced growth, correct?
13 A I think, for the last two years,
14 actually, year and a half.
15 Q Since March 2009?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And the growth rate and the energy
18 forecasts that were used in the modeling for the 2010
19 RES Compliance Plan have also gone down since that
20 modeling was done, correct?
21 A Estimates from the 2010 plan?
22 Q What you used for that model, the 2010
23 plan, to predict RESA dollars and collect the energy
24 forecasts, have gone down since that time, right?
25 A Our energy forecast has gone down.

134
1 Q Correct?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And that reduced energy forecast will
4 have an effect of reducing the available RESA dollars
5 in the future, all else being equal, correct?
6 A Well, it will reduce the RESA dollars and
7 it will also reduce the RES obligation. It will reduce
8 both.
9 Q That's true. Okay. Public Service
10 recently introduced a two-tier pricing structure; is
11 that correct?
12 A Recently, no. But it's in effect, yes.
13 Q Okay.
14 A We announced it -- well, we proposed it
15 in early 2009.
16 Q But it's now in effect?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And you expect that energy demand will go
19 down because of that new pricing structure?
20 A Slightly. And, ultimately, we think it
21 will go down a little bit.
22 Q Okay. I think you testified you're not
23 sure what period of time, but you estimated it would go
24 down by 75 gigawatt-hours?
25 A Right.
135
1 Q Do you recall -- do you agree that the
2 resource needs of Public Service are determined, among
3 other factors, by the growth in demand for electricity?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And do you agree that, if that growth is
6 stagnant, it would not be prudent for Public Service to
7 add resources earlier than necessary?
8 A No.
10 approach, I don't believe it's necessary to admit this
11 into evidence. I simply want to show it to the
12 witness, if that's okay.
14 may.
15 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
16 Q Ms. Hyde, I have handed you a document.
17 Can you identify that as a copy of Decision No.
18 C09-0323, in the 07A-447E docket?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Is that something you have seen before?
21 A Not in a while but I'm sure I did.
22 Q Okay. If you turn to page 15 -- and I am
23 looking at paragraph 47. If you look at the second to
24 the last sentence, just for context, "The resource
25 needs of Public Service are determined, among other

136
1 factors, by the growth in demand for electricity." And
2 you agreed with that, right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q All right. Then, the next sentence, "If
5 that growth is stagnant, it would not be prudent for
6 Public Service to add resources earlier than
7 necessary." Do you see that?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay. But you disagree with the
10 Commission on that?
11 A Well, I think you're taking that sentence
12 out of context from an entire two-year docket. And I
13 believe what they were saying is that it doesn't make
14 sense for us to acquire resources to fill the
15 500-megawatt drop that we had in our load and resources
16 between the start of the docket and approximately this
17 time. But if you go to their end order, at the end,
18 they did order us to acquire some resources ahead of
19 time, in excess of our need. So, I think you have to
20 take it into context with the whole term -- the whole
21 context of that docket.
22 Q All right.
23 MR. DOUGLAS: One minute of indulgence,
24 Your Honor?
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may, but only

137
1 a minute.
3 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
5 front of you, or can you get that in front of you?
6 A Yes, I have it.
7 Q Okay. And is that a document you've seen
8 before?
9 A Actually, no, but I knew it was going to
10 be a document.
11 Q Okay.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: How prescient of
13 you.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. Actually, I saw it
15 like an hour ago, when you showed it to me the first
16 time.
17 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
18 Q Okay. And this is, in fact, the notice
19 of filing of correction to the Direct Testimony of
20 Mr. James Hill?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And I want to talk about that just a
23 little bit. This is something that we received Friday
24 afternoon, and it included some revised figures, I
25 believe, from the proposed amendment to the 2007

138
1 Resource Plan.
2 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry. Could
3 we stop for a moment. You're looking at Exhibit 136
4 for identification?
5 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: The one that you
7 didn't offer?
8 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Just
10 checking.
11 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, and I thought
12 your preface was for me to discuss it with the witness
13 instead of offering it.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That's fine.
15 MR. DOUGLAS: I am happy to offer it.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I just wanted to
17 be sure that's the one we're talking about.
18 MR. DOUGLAS: Right.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And it is.
20 MR. DOUGLAS: I thought so.
23 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
24 Q I am not sure if I got an answer to that
25 question.
139
1 A What was the question?
2 Q I don't know, but let's try it again.
3 A Okay.
4 Q This document, this correction to the
5 Direct Testimony of Mr. Hill, includes some revised
6 figures for the proposed amendment to the 2007 Resource
7 Plan?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And those figures relate to the analysis
10 by Public Service as to whether Public Service can meet
11 its demands or forecasted demands with the lower levels
12 of solar that are now being proposed for the San Luis
13 Valley in that amendment, correct?
14 A I think, actually, it's an analysis of
15 whether we need to invoke a contingency plan under the
16 resource planning rules.
17 Q Well, let's take a look. According to
18 the contingency plan --
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: According to
20 Figure 4, in Exhibit 136?
21 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
22 Q According to Figure 4 in Exhibit 136, if
23 the Commission approved the 185-megawatt option, in
24 Public Service's application, to amend its 2007
25 Resource Plan, that would lead to a predicted 85

140
1 megawatts of surplus generation resources, as of 2015,
2 on the Public Service system; is that correct?
3 MR. McGANN: Object, Your Honor, to form.
4 I think, consistent with your prior explanation of the
5 scope of this proceeding, this is going beyond it. You
6 will he actually asking her specific questions about
7 the amendment to the Resource Plan, and attempting to
8 bring this into this particular docket. This is not a
9 hypothetical. This is not anything along the lines of
10 what has been suggested before was permissible, so, I
11 object.
13 respond?
15 objection? Thank you.
16 MR. DOUGLAS: I believe the scope of this
17 proceeding includes the implications of the 60-, 90-,
18 and 185-megawatt options, which have never been
19 discussed before, because they are new. And one brief
20 angle on that is, will Public Service need more
21 resources than this, or will they be able to meet their
22 demands, as they forecast them, at these reduced
23 levels, or will they need to add something more.
24 That's the road we're going down now.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I am going to

141
1 sustain the objection. That will be determined by the
2 Commission in Docket No. 10A-337E, which is the docket
3 in which the Commission is considering the proposed
4 amendment to the 2007 Resource Plan.
5 The scope of this proceeding is, assuming
6 the Commission does reduce it to the proposed 185 or 90
7 or 60 megawatts, what if any impact. I think what
8 you're talking about gets us away from that, so, stay
9 focused on those proposed numbers.
10 MR. DOUGLAS: Well, I guess I would
11 wonder how -- if the -- I thought my question did
12 assume that the Commission did pick one of these
13 levels. And then, if so, do they expect that they are
14 going to need to add more resources, which could affect
15 whether those more resources could be in the San Luis
16 Valley. That's where I am going, and it would --
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Why don't you
18 just ask three questions: Assume 185, assume 90, and
19 assume 60, and see what falls out.
20 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
21 Q Ms. Hyde, if the Commission selects or
22 approves the 185-megawatt option proposed in Public
23 Service's application to amend the 2007 Resource Plan,
24 would Public Service, based on what you know or what's
25 been filed, require any additional resources through

142
1 2015, in order to meet its forecasted demand?
2 A No, we would not.
3 Q What about as to the 90-megawatt option
4 in the amendment to the 2007 Resource Plan?
5 A I just want to clarify one thing. In
6 answering that, I assumed that everything else worked
7 out the way, you know, the kinds of load and resources
8 that we got, we got the level of DSM that's included in
9 there, and that all of the other resources did come
10 on-line. Just for clarification,I was looking at that,
11 just that matter in isolation.
12 And, if we had just the 90? I got to
13 calculate that one. I believe, with just the 90, we
14 would be a few megawatts short, maybe around 10
15 megawatts.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Again, Ms. Hyde,
17 through 2015.
18 THE WITNESS: Through 2015 only.
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q And I believe it's accurate that any
21 shortage of that nature could be met by a number of
22 things, including additional available generation
23 capacity at Comanche?
24 A Yeah. We indicated that we didn't need
25 to invoke the contingency plan, because we did have

143
1 some options, if we end up being short by those 10s of
2 megawatts.
3 Q And do those -- well, strike that. Let's
4 go to the 60-megawatt option. Is there a shortage
5 associated with that option, if the Commission selects
6 it?
7 A We would be about 15 -- I mean 40
8 megawatts short, in our projections, by 2015.
9 Q Okay. That's what was revised in this
10 testimony; it went from 50 to 40?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Okay. And that 40-megawatt shortage,
13 again, is something that Public Service believes it has
14 various options to meet?
15 A Right. Because we're sitting pretty far
16 away from that in time.
17 Q In fact, are you aware if those forecasts
18 that you've just talked about include the expected
19 retirement of the Arapahoe 4 plant?
20 A They would show it retiring, I believe,
21 by 2015 by -- by the end of 2015, I think.
22 Q And do you know whether or not all of the
23 scenarios that are being modeled in the Clean Air -
24 Clean Jobs docket include the Arapahoe 4 plan as not
25 being retired?
144
1 MR. McGANN: Objection. Scope.
2 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Ms. Hyde
3 identified small shortages, and we're talking about
4 some of the options, besides more generation in the
5 San Luis Valley, that could be used to meet those
6 shortages.
7 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'll allow it.
8 THE WITNESS: Most, but not all of the
9 plans for Clean Air - Clean Jobs show Arapahoe, well,
10 retiring on coal and continuing to be available on gas,
11 but not all.
12 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
13 Q All right. So, the bottom line is Public
14 Service has various options available, aside from new
15 generation that could potentially be located in the
16 San Luis Valley, to meet these shortages that you have
17 discussed with the 60- and the 90-megawatt options?
18 A Through 2015 only.
19 Q Okay. All right. I want to get back,
20 briefly, to the changes in the assumptions from the
21 2010 Compliance Plan modeling. You agree that those
22 three assumptions that we talked about, carbon cost,
23 natural gas forecasts and energy growth forecast, have
24 all moved in the direction, since that modeling was
25 done, of making it less RESA dollars available for the

145
1 acquisition of future solar thermal resources such as
2 those 250-megawatt placeholders?
3 A In isolation those three make less RESA
4 dollars available. They also make the RESA -- the
5 obligation under the RES lower.
6 Q So, less need to add more renewables and
7 less RESA dollars available?
8 A Yes. Just for those three in isolation.
9 Q And another change in the assumptions,
10 from the 2010 Compliance Plan modeling, would be that
11 the price of the solar thermal resources, or the
12 forecasted price, has gone up, since that was
13 originally bid as part of the RFP process for the 2010
14 Colorado Resource Plan; is that correct?
15 A The one solar project that we have been
16 talking about, the price has gone up. I don't know
17 that I would translate that into the price of solar
18 thermal going up.
19 Q All right. But generally, the modeling
20 that was done in the 2010 Compliance Plan, about the
21 cost of those three placeholder resources, was based on
22 the information that Public Service had from that
23 original 250-megawatt bid, right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Okay. And the price of that 250-megawatt

146
1 bid has gone up, right?
2 A No. Because there's no longer a
3 250-megawatt bid.
4 Q Okay. All right. The price of the solar
5 thermal bid, on a levelized cost basis, a dollar per
6 megawatt-hour, has increased from the original
7 250-megawatt bid to the now 125-megawatt bid, correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And that has gone up, in part, due to the
10 down-sizing of the bid from 250 megawatts to 125
11 megawatts, correct?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And I don't want you to get into the
14 highly confidential information that we discussed at
15 your deposition, because I don't see need a for it.
16 So, assume that my next question does not call for any
17 of that detail.
18 A Okay.
19 Q All right. You agree that the solar
20 thermal bid price, that original 250-megawatt bid
21 price, also increased on a levelized cost basis, when
22 it went to 125 megawatts, because of two additional
23 factors unrelated to the down-sizing of the project,
24 correct?
25 A Yes.
147
1 Q Okay. Now, the original 250-megawatt
2 solar thermal resource, in the approved 2007 Resource
3 Plan, was approved as a Section 123 resource, correct?
4 A Yes. Could I just clarify my last yes?
5 Those two reasons -- actually we did get clearance to
6 say them, and they are somewhat related to down-sizing,
7 because it changed some of the way that they financed
8 the project, the -- other changes.
9 Q Okay.
10 A So, while the two reasons are not
11 directly tied, I think they are still indirectly --
12 Q Well --
13 A -- tied a little bit.
14 Q Well, is it your position that that
15 document that we looked at, at your deposition itself,
16 is no longer highly confidential?
17 A No. The document is still highly
18 confidential, but the bidder did say that we could say
19 the three reasons.
20 Q Okay. Well, while we're on the subject
21 let's take a look at it.
23 MR. DOUGLAS: I'm trying to remember the
24 procedures for the highly confidential documents.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may show it

148
1 to the witness, if you wish to do so. If you wish to
2 offer it as an exhibit, it will be a highly
3 confidential exhibit, in which event it will need to be
4 encased in some sort of a closed envelope. But, right
5 now, you're fine.
6 MR. DOUGLAS: The decision incorporates,
7 in part, what Ms. Hyde says.
8 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
9 Q Is it your testimony that you are
10 comfortable reading into the record the three reasons
11 that were identified by the bidder as to why the price
12 went up?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. Then I will just hand you a copy
15 of this. Ms. Hyde, just to orient us, we're looking at
16 a May 10th, 2010 letter, from a bidder to -- from the
17 original bidder of the 250-megawatt solar thermal
18 facility to Xcel Energy, correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. And what it says, in the second
21 paragraph, is that, subsequent to the bid, the
22 250-megawatt bid, the following events occurred that
23 impacted the original offer, right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Okay. No. 1, transmission out of the

149
1 solar resource area, in the San Luis Valley, was likely
2 to remain constrained at 125 megawatts, right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q We are talking about -- that's the
5 down-sizing we talked about, that you had mentioned?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Then, No. 2: The terms and conditions of
8 the DOE Federal loan guaranty became less favorable
9 than originally assumed, right?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And, No. 3, the rate of return required
12 by tax equity investors increased, right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. All right. I can take that back.
15 A That would be great.
16 Q So, we can keep it secret.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. Now, we were just moving onto the
19 issue of this original bid, for this 250-megawatt solar
20 thermal facility. The original approval was that it
21 would be considered a Section 123 resource, correct?
22 A Yes.
23 Q All right. And that means that the costs
24 of that resource would not be counted against the 2%
25 retail rate impact cap, right?

150
1 A That the portion above the non -- the
2 cost-effective piece wouldn't count against the RESA,
3 yes.
4 Q Right. The incremental cost over --
5 well, let's back up. The way RESA dollars are used to
6 purchase renewable resources is that the incremental
7 cost of the renewable resource, over natural gas
8 generation, is what changes the RESA account; is that
9 right?
10 A I don't -- I am trying to think whether
11 it's resource by resource. I think it's just the pool
12 of resources, compared to a nonrenewable portfolio,
13 forms the split between the ECA and the RES.
14 Q You are right. But the renewable
15 portfolio includes the cost of the renewables. And
16 then the no-RES that it's compared to replaces the
17 renewable resources with natural gas generation,
18 correct?
19 A Right.
20 Q Okay. And, so, your testimony is that,
21 for the Section 123 resource, that original
22 250-megawatt solar thermal plant, the incremental cost
23 of that resource would not have been charged against
24 the RESA account?
25 A Right.
151
1 Q Okay. Will you agree that the increased
2 price for the solar thermal with storage bid, coupled
3 with falling gas prices and the expectation of the
4 carbon legislation won't be enacted for several years,
5 act in concert to erode the economics of solar thermal
6 with storage, relative to combined cycle natural gas
8 A Yes, based on those assumptions.
9 Q And Public Service, during the 447E
10 docket, Resource Plan docket proceedings, represented
11 to the Commission, and the Commission adopted the
12 characterization of Public Service, that the cost of
13 that solar thermal bid was slightly higher than the
14 combined cycle natural gas bids, right?
15 A Yes. I believe the Commissioners asked
16 Mr. Hill that question and that was his answer.
17 Q And you agree that the solar thermal bid
18 price is no longer slightly higher than natural gas,
19 right?
20 A If you adopt the change in assumption, it
21 is more expensive than it was before.
22 Q And, in fact, it's more expensive to the
23 point that Public Service is no longer asserting that
24 that solar thermal bid that's now been changed to the
25 125-megawatt bid is in a reasonable cost range in

152
1 comparison to other combined cycle gas bids, right?
2 A Correct.
3 Q And because of that, Public Service has
4 asked the Commission, in the new docket, to determine
5 whether the 125-megawatt solar thermal plant remains in
6 the public interest, right?
7 A We asked them to see if that changed
8 their Section 123 determination, which considered,
9 among other things, that comparison between the bids
10 and the combined cycle, but it had a lot of other
11 components to it.
12 Q Okay. But you're asking for a
13 determination, by the Commission, as to whether that
14 resource is in the public interest as a Section 123,
15 right?
16 A Right. We are asking if they can affirm
17 their Section 123 determination.
18 Q Okay. And Public Service has no position
19 on whether the costs of the 125-megawatt solar thermal
20 bid that's set forth in that 2007 amendment, whether
21 those costs are reasonable; is that right?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Okay. And you agree that the changed
24 circumstances, regarding the economics of that original
25 bid, that formed the basis for the Commission's

153
1 decision approving that as a Section 123 resource,
2 warrants reconsideration, right?
3 A Because the Commission based, in part,
4 their decision on Jim Hill's testimony, we felt that we
5 should bring it to their attention that he would not
6 testify in the same way, based on the changed
7 economics.
8 Q Okay. But, if there had been no issue of
9 a delay with the transmission line, you personally
10 think that Public Service would have gone forward with
11 the acquisition of the original 250-megawatt solar
12 thermal resource, despite the fact that you can no
13 longer assert that it's in a reasonable cost range?
14 A I think that if we had not had to reduce
15 the overall amounts that we took, we would have been
16 continuing in compliance with the Commission's Phase 2
17 final order, to acquire the resources that they told us
18 to acquire.
19 Q Okay. I'm not sure that answered the
20 question. The question is, do you think you would have
21 gone forward with it, with that original resource, if
22 there had been no issue with delaying the transmission
23 line?
24 A It's hard for me to extract the two,
25 because of part -- you know, the delay in the

154
1 transmission line that made us -- had to -- go down to
2 the 125, but if conditions had not changed, and we were
3 still expecting a line to come in-service in advance of
4 those projects coming in-service, I believe we would
5 have continued along and entered into the contracts
6 that were part of the Commission order.
7 Q And charged all of that to ratepayers,
8 despite the increase in costs you talked about?
9 A Well, I think that we would have -- the
10 contracts would have been entered into in the same --
11 at the same prices, essentially, that the Commission
12 approved. So, the Commission had already determined
13 whether it was prudent to enter into those contracts.
14 So, we would have charged the amount of those
15 contracts.
16 Q Right. But you agree that the changed
17 economics significantly affected the incremental costs
18 of the resource, right?
19 A But we wouldn't change the way we would
20 project to recover those between the different clauses,
21 and the facilities, then, wouldn't have changed the
22 costs. So, we would be doing what the Commission had
23 deemed was prudent.
24 Q Okay. But as we sit here today, Public
25 Service can't assert that the solar thermal resource

155
1 currently proposed for the valley is even in a
2 reasonable cost range, correct?
3 A Well, I think we never said it was a
4 reasonable cost for solar thermal. We just said that
5 we think that the basis of the Commission's decision
6 may have changed, based on the updated assumptions, and
7 we're seeing if they can still make that determination.
8 Q Okay. But the company can no longer
9 assert, as of today, that the solar thermal with
10 storage bid price is reasonable relative to the
11 combined cycle gas bids, right?
12 A That is true. But we didn't say that
13 it's not unreasonable for solar thermal with energy
14 storage. I believe it is still a reasonable price for
15 solar thermal with energy storage.
16 Q Okay. You just can't say that it's
17 reasonable, given all the alternatives, like natural
18 gas, that are available?
19 A I wouldn't directly compare it to those,
20 but, because of the way that the Commission relied on
21 Mr. Hill's testimony, we wanted to update them on that.
22 Q Okay. So, the Commission did compare it
23 to those.
24 A Yes.
25 Q Okay. Do you agree that the incremental

156
1 cost of wind only minimally impacts the cost of
2 resource portfolios and may lead to RESA savings?
3 A Well, the same things that change the
4 cost for solar thermal will similarly impact the
5 cost-effectiveness of wind going-forward. So, I can't
6 assert that that's true, going-forward.
7 Q Okay. But I didn't ask about -- I'm just
8 asking, generally, if you agree that the incremental
9 cost of wind only minimally impacts the cost of
10 resource portfolios and may actually lead to RESA
11 savings?
12 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I think we're
13 getting into a resource mix/resource planning issue. I
14 think the witness has already given an answer, and, I
15 think, we would should move on. I really do. I think
16 resource planning issues, or the resource mix the
17 company should either recommend or the Commission
18 should approve, are not the subject of this reopened
19 hearing.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Other statements
21 with respect to the question? Mr. Douglas.
22 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, if there are
23 limited RESA dollars available, and no one knows
24 exactly what those are going to be in the future, but
25 they are changing, and we're taking a look at how that

157
1 impacts future resource acquisition that might be
2 located in the San Luis Valley, it's relevant that
3 other resources that may be available generally,
4 without getting into the details of future resource
5 planning and specifically what they want to add or not,
6 but it's relevant that some have less impact on RESA
7 dollars than others.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I will sustain
9 the objection. I do think that's getting too far
10 afield.
11 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
12 Q All right. Ms. Hyde, you agree that the
13 majority of the money that's paid out of the RESA
14 account, today, and has been for the last couple of
15 years, has gone to pay for the distributed generation
16 rebate; is that accurate?
17 A Through the Solar Rewards Program?
18 Q Yes.
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right.
22 (Whereupon Exhibit No. 142 was marked for
23 identification.)
24 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
25 Q Ms. Hyde, you have been handed what has

158
1 been marked as Exhibit 142. Are you familiar with that
2 document?
3 A I don't remember having seen it, but,
4 yes, I am familiar with the -- that we filed such a
5 report.
6 Q Okay. This is actually the first filing
7 of such a report, in the 2008 Renewable Energy Standard
8 Compliance Report; is that correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And the purpose of this report -- correct
11 me if I am wrong -- is to take a look at -- well, the
12 2010 Compliance Plan was a forward-looking forecast,
13 where you think RESA dollars are going to go and how
14 it's all going to play out, right? That's the
15 Compliance Plan?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. And this is a compliance report
18 which looks back at the previous year to see how actual
19 RESA dollars were collected and spent and how that
20 compares to the forecast made, right?
21 A I don't remember if it compares to the
22 forecast, but it definitely shows how we actually
23 performed in the compliance year.
24 Q Okay. Well, if you look at Attachment 6,
25 which is towards the end of that document, does that

159
1 compare what you have forecast, as far as the
2 expenditures and revenues for RESA for 2008 versus
3 actual?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay.
7 142 in evidence.
10 objection?
11 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I object --
12 actually, I'm not sure I see the relevance of the
13 document at this point. I certainly understand it's
14 Public Service's Compliance Plan report. But I'm not
15 sure I understand the relevance of this particular
16 document to this proceeding, since we are talking about
17 the need for this transmission line with respect to
18 Public Service's future resource needs. I'm not sure
19 what to say at this point, other than I fail to see the
20 relevance of this document to this proceeding.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Other objections
22 or voir dire with respect to the document?
23 Mr. Douglas.
24 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, this gets back,
25 again, to Ms. Hyde's testimony, and at the last

160
1 hearing, at this hearing, about the fact that she
2 believes there will be plenty of RESA money to acquire
3 these solar thermal placeholder resources. And looking
4 back at the RESA expenditures, and, in particular, the
5 ones relating to distributed generation, in light of
6 the increased distributed generation required by House
7 Bill 10-1001, is relevant as to when those dollars are
8 really going to be available and therefore the need for
9 the line.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. McGann.
11 MR. McGANN: Well, given that
12 explanation, I do have to say I don't think it's
13 relevant at all. We've got an amended statute that
14 actually gives -- has set forth in it several relief
15 valves in terms of the 2% RESA. So we have got a RESA
16 collection mechanism as well as the costs that hit that
17 RESA, that also can vary greatly, based upon this new
18 legislation.
19 So, I don't think it makes any sense to
20 now go back a couple of years and measure the
21 performance of the RESA account in a 2008 plan and try
22 to somehow suggest that that performance isn't related
23 at all to the performance of the Renewable Energy
24 Standard Adjustment in the future, given the new
25 statute and the relief valves that are set forth in the
161
1 statute. So, given that explanation, I really don't
2 see the relevance.
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, the relief
4 valves were mentioned by Ms. Hyde, and they will be
5 the -- we'll get there in a minute. But, those are
6 things that the Commission has discretion to
7 potentially do.
8 The way things were calculated in '08 and
9 '09 is actually the ways things are still calculated
10 today, and unless the Commission acts. So, at this
11 point, looking back at what has happened over the last
12 couple of years, and then discussing these relief
13 valves, are all part of the discussion of what impact
14 House Bill 10-1001 has on these future RESA dollars.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I am going to not
16 admit Exhibit 142. I think it considers too much, if
17 you will, too much information on too many extraneous
18 topics, given the explanation that counsel has given as
19 to the relevance of the document.
20 I think Mr. Douglas, or any counsel, can
21 achieve the stated purpose by simply asking the witness
22 how the RESA is currently calculated, and use that as a
23 foundation to start the discussion of what the
24 amendment will change.

162
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So, Exhibit 142
2 is not admitted.
3 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
4 Q Ms. Hyde, you, I believe, you agreed that
5 the majority of the money under RESA, over the last
6 several years, has gone to pay for rebates to customers
7 who install retail distributed generation, correct?
8 A Yes. The amounts under the Solar Rewards
9 Program.
10 Q Okay. And as the law stands today, the
11 way those rebates, and the costs pertaining to retail
12 distributed generation are calculated, is the same as
13 it was in those years when it was the majority of the
14 RESA dollars, correct?
15 A The way the -- the way that what you've
16 actually spent is calculated or what you're planning to
17 spend?
18 Q The way you actually pay out money
19 relating to the installation of the retail distributed
20 generation, which resulted in these RESA dollars, over
21 the last couple of years, being paid out, that you
22 discuss, the way that is calculated for someone who
23 installed retail distributed generation today is the
24 same, right?
25 A I don't think so. The way you pay out --

163
1 are you saying between 2008 and 2010 that it's the
2 same?
3 Q Well, let's start there, sure.
4 A I don't think so, because there's been
5 changes to the potential ownership of on-site solar,
6 and that has changed how the money gets paid out. And
7 we've also proposed a transparent, long-term reduction
8 to the REC payments, that changes how you pay out the
9 money under the RESA. They all go to spread the money
10 further than they did before.
11 Q Okay. Well, you agree that, prior to the
12 passage of House Bill 10-1001, and that was still a
13 bill that was being proposed and discussed, that Public
14 Service expressed concerns to the Commission that the
15 increased distributed generation requirement in House
16 Bill 10-1001 could potentially require most, if not
17 all, RESA dollars, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And the reason you had that concern was
20 that, as you've said, the majority of RESA dollars
21 spent had been going to retail distributed generation,
22 right?
23 A I don't think we were concerned that they
24 had -- I mean, that's just the fact, that they had. I
25 think we were concerned that if all of the RESA dollars

164
1 went to the distributed program, that we would miss
2 some opportunities for some other renewable resources.
3 Q Okay. And you were concerned that a
4 significant increase in the required amount of the
5 retail distributed generation could potentially use up
6 all or most of the RESA dollars?
7 A I think we were concerned with several
8 things when the bill was first introduced, that being
9 among them.
10 Q Okay. So that -- I'm sorry. That was
11 one of your concerns?
12 A That was one of our concerns; that the
13 megawatts might be too high.
14 Q All right. And then you mentioned, on
15 your direct exam, that, I believe, two specific
16 provisions in House Bill 10-1001 mitigate the effect of
17 this increased distribution generation requirement, in
18 the sense that you are going to have to pay out or
19 you're hoping to pay out less money to these
20 distributed generation customers; is that accurate?
21 A I think that I said that it gave us
22 additional tools to help manage the RESA balance.
23 Q Okay. And that's why -- I believe you
24 referred to the, what we can call, "the fair-share
25 provision"; is that one of them?

165
1 A Yes.
2 Q And that is something that, if the
3 Commission approves, or depending on how the Commission
4 implements it, will allow you to collect RESA dollars
5 from these retail distributed generation customers,
6 despite the fact that their bill has gone down at about
7 the same level, right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And then the second provision is that the
10 Commission has discretion to lower the standard rebate
11 from $2 a watt, to something less, if it determines
12 that that's appropriate, right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. And it's your opinion that these
15 changed -- let me start over. It's your opinion that
16 these changes in House Bill 10-1001, when implemented,
17 may change the way retail distributed generation costs
18 are incurred by Public Service, and could offset some
19 of the reduction in RESA dollars that we discussed from
20 the changed assumptions; is that accurate?
21 A Subject -- I think that requires me to
22 assume that the RESA -- that the Commission accepts our
23 proposed changes in assumptions.
24 Q Well, let's assume that you re-do the
25 modeling from the 2010 Compliance Plan, using the

166
1 assumptions that we talked about, that you believe
2 today are more accurate, and that the Commission says
3 that's a good way to do it. Let's assume that?
4 MS. MANDELL: I'm sorry. I have to
5 object to the form of the question again.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Sorry,
7 Ms. Mandell. Well, perhaps all of us can hear you.
8 Again, you have to be sensitive to the microphone.
9 MS. MANDELL: I'm sorry to interrupt, but
10 I have to object to the form of the question, as to
11 going back and redoing the assumptions in the 2010
12 docket. That's so unlikely, given the Commission's
13 orders with regard to lockdown of the assumptions, with
14 regard to resource acquisition in these dockets. So, I
15 object to the form of the question.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you. Any
17 other objection to the question before Mr. Douglas
18 responds? Mr. Douglas.
19 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I believe I
20 asked it in the hypothetical, not speaking to what the
21 Commission will do, but if the Commission does approve
22 what Public Service says is, as of today, is more
23 accurate, what effect that might have.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I would overrule
25 the objection, understanding the basis of the

167
1 objection.
2 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
3 Q So, Ms. Hyde, let's just orient ourselves
4 again. Assume, hypothetically, that the 2010
5 Compliance Plan modeling, we have resources that you
6 discussed in that plan, including these 250-megawatt
7 solar thermal placeholders, assume that you revise the
8 modeling to reflect the changed assumptions that we
9 discussed today that you believe are now more accurate,
10 all right?
11 A Okay.
12 Q You believe that these changes in House
13 Bill 10-1001, that could result in change to how the
14 distributed generation expenses are calculated for
15 Public Service, could offset the negative move in RESA
16 dollars that we discussed from those changed
17 assumptions, to some extent; is that accurate?
18 A Yes. In the hypothetical, knowing that
19 they won't re-do the 2010. But I think that we have a
20 whole suite of tools in order to manage those RESA
21 dollars.
22 Q Well, and Public Service has not studied
23 or modeled or tried to quantify the potential positive
24 effect on RESA dollars from these two provisions, the
25 fair-share provision and the potential reduction in

168
1 rebate, have they?
2 A No.
3 Q And, in fact, let's take a look at those,
4 if you would. Look at Exhibit 132, please.
5 A Got it.
6 Q If you look at page 9, what's here as --
7 I guess it's Roman 4B on this page, is that the
8 fair-share provision we've been discussing?
9 A Yeah.
10 Q And that's says, "Notwithstanding
11 subparagraph 1" -- or "i" -- "of this paragraph g, the
12 Commission may ensure that customers who install
13 distributed generation continue to contribute, in a
14 nondiscriminatory fashion, their fair share to their
15 utility's renewable energy program fund or equivalent
16 renewable energy support mechanism, even if such
17 contribution results in a charge that exceeds 2% of
18 such customer's annual electric bills." Did I read
19 that correctly?
20 A Yes.
21 Q So, it's the Commission's determination,
22 within their discretion, to determine how to implement
23 this collection of a fair share from retail distributed
24 generation customers, correct?
25 A Yes.
169
1 Q And is that currently the subject of a
2 rulemaking?
3 A I believe it is.
4 Q So, sitting here today, you don't know
5 what effect that might have, in the future, on RESA
6 dollars? You can't quantify it?
7 A I don't know. I don't think we have
8 gotten a final rule.
9 Q Okay. And we also talked about the
10 potential reduction in the standard rebate. If you
11 look at House Bill10-1001, page 6 -- actually, it
12 starts at the very bottom of page 6. Is that the
13 provision you are talking about, that carries over to
14 page 7?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. And it says, "The amount of
17 standard rebate," and we're talking about standard
18 rebate to customers who install retail distributed
19 generation?
20 A Yes.
21 Q "The amount of standard rebate offer
22 shall be $2 per watt, except that the Commission may
23 set the rebate at a lower amount if the Commission
24 determines, based upon a Qualifying Retail Utility's
25 renewable resource plan or application, that market

170
1 changes support the change." Did I read that
2 accurately?
3 A Yes.
4 Q So, before any change to the rebate could
5 occur, Public Service is required to -- would be
6 required to request or file an application, with the
7 Commission, requesting that a market change supported
8 such a lowering of the rebate, right?
9 A Before you could change that part of the
10 amount that we pay to customers, we would have to file
11 an application, but we've already been reducing the REC
12 payment portion of what we pay to customers.
13 Q But that's on top of the $2 per watt?
14 A Yes.
15 Q So, as far as the reduction in the $2 per
16 watt, the Commission has the discretion to lower it or
17 not lower it, right?
18 A Correct.
19 Q And they will make that decision, at some
20 point, if Public Service files an application
21 requesting a change, right?
22 A Correct.
23 Q And Public Service has not yet filed an
24 application requesting a change, right?
25 A Not for this piece. We have already,

171
1 like I said, reduced the REC payment, yes, REC payment.
2 Q How much is the REC payment?
3 A I don't remember. It started out at, I
4 think, like $2.50 and it's been moving down since then.
5 And we did -- did the last proposal in September of
6 2009, to show it essentially reducing down towards
7 zero, over time. And we did that in cooperation with
8 CoSEIA, which is the solar installers trade industry --
9 trade group, and with the Governor's Energy Office.
10 Q Okay. But as far as this provision of
11 House Bill 10-1001, about reducing the standard rebate,
12 Public Service has not filed an application requesting
13 such a change, correct?
14 A That's true. But I think the resetting
15 of -- the other proposal gives you some indication that
16 the industry is interested in having that money spread
17 around more, to more installations.
18 Q Well, but you're speculating about what
19 the Commission might do, right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Okay.
22 A Actually, I was speculating on how
23 industry would receive it.
24 Q Okay. But whether the Commission reduces
25 the standard rebate, under this provision, to something

172
1 less than $2 per watt, whether they do it at all, and
2 if so, how much, depends on the Commission's finding as
3 to whether market changes would support such a change,
4 correct?
5 A Yes.
6 MR. DOUGLAS: If I could have a minute,
7 Your Honor?
10 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I am noticing
11 the time. I wonder if this would be a good time for a
12 lunch break, and, then, I can see if I have significant
13 additional questions.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I am fine with
15 that. Before we break for lunch, do any parties have
16 any matter we need to address over lunch, except to
17 remind the parties -- excuse me -- Public Service and
18 Tri-State that you were going to consider whether or
19 not -- you would let us know after Mr. Dauphinais'
20 testimony, whether you are going to be offering oral
21 rebuttal, at least to his testimony. But that's, you
22 know, a speak-quietly-among-yourselves kind of
23 discussion. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mandell.
24 MS. MANDELL: After the break, sorry.
25 Right after the break, you asked me whether or not I

173
1 had any questions for Ms. Hyde. And I answered no.
2 But, based on what has transpired since then, I have
3 very limited cross examination for her, once I have an
4 opportunity.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I need to ask
6 you, Ms. Mandell, is this elicited as a result of her
7 Direct Testimony or as a result of the cross
8 examination -- testimony given in response to cross
9 examination?
10 MS. MANDELL: Testimony in response to
11 cross examination.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'll have to
13 think about it. Thank you. OCC, are you --
14 MR. SCHLESINGER: Still no questions.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: We'll take the
16 lunch break and I am going to give everyone 50 minutes
17 for lunch. So, we'll be back at 1:30.
18 (Recess.)
20 the record in the continuation of the hearing,
21 following the lunch break. Mr. Sopkin, I had a note
22 from the reporter. I wish to confirm, on the record,
23 that the confidential version of Exhibit 135 was
24 returned to you.
25 MR. SOPKIN: It was, yes.

174
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Thank you
2 very much. So, in theory, at least, all we have left
3 is the nonconfidential version.
4 MR. McGANN: Right.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: All right. I may
6 have misunderstood the note. Is, Mr. Sopkin, is 135
7 the filing of the amendment, the application
8 amendment -- I'm sorry, or Mr. McGann. My apologies --
9 amendment application?
10 MR. SOPKIN: It is a confidential version
11 of the exhibits to Mr. Hill's testimony.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Right,
13 which was not admitted, so they just gave me the wrong
14 number. It should have been 136 was returned to you,
15 right?
16 MR. SOPKIN: I am showing 135A.
17 MR. McGANN: And 136 was, I believe, the
18 correction to Mr. Hill's testimony that was filed.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: It certainly was.
20 Thank you. It certainly was. Thanks. That was the
21 corrected testimony, right. Okay. Excellent. So we
22 are still correct and that confidential information has
23 been returned to you?
24 MR. SOPKIN: Yes.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: All right. Thank

175
1 you. We'll be off the record for a minute.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you. We'll
4 be back on the record. Mr. Douglas.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Stand at the
7 podium. This won't take but a second. Ms. Mandell, I
8 have not forgotten you. I would address your request
9 after the conclusion of the cross examination.
10 And Tri-State/Public Service, not this
11 minute, I don't want to know absolutely, but will you
12 be in a position to tell us whether or not you will
13 offer a rebuttal witness after Mr. Dauphinais
14 testifies?
15 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, I think we think
16 we'll ask for the opportunity to confirm among
17 ourselves to decide.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Sure. I
19 appreciate that courtesy. Thank you very much.
20 Mr. Douglas.
22 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
23 Q Ms. Hyde, before we broke for lunch, you
24 and I, I believe, were still discussing the standard
25 rebate payment for retail distributed generation. Do

176
1 you recall that discussion?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And do you agree that the costs to Public
4 Service Company incurred in making those standard
5 rebate payments are charged against the RESA account?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Yes. All right. And, then, if you
8 would, please, look at Exhibit 134, and, in particular,
9 page 3 of 134. And I'll identify that, Your Honor. Do
10 you have that in front of you, Ms. Hyde?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Okay. And this is the Direct Testimony
13 and Exhibits -- well, strike that. Exhibit 134 is the
14 Direct Testimony of James F. Hill, correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q All right. If you look at page 3, lines
17 7 through 11, Mr. Hill testifies that, "In addition,
18 the company is seeking guidance from the Commission
19 regarding their Phase 2 decision to have the company
20 pursue bids for solar thermal with storage." Do you
21 see that?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And do you agree with that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Mr. Hill, then, testifies that the

177
1 company believes that changed circumstances, regarding
2 the underlying economic factors that form the basis for
3 that original decision, warrant reconsideration." Do
4 you see that?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And do you agree with that?
7 A Yes.
8 Q You mentioned, on direct examination,
9 that the reason you filed the application was for -- or
10 due to delays in the proposed transmission line that's
11 the subject of this docket. Another reason was because
12 of these changed circumstances that Mr. Hill discusses,
13 correct?
14 A No. We filed it because of the
15 reduction -- we had to reduce the amount of solar to
16 the level -- or below the level that we had available
17 in transmission capacity. And, as part of that
18 analysis, we saw that we had some changed economic
19 circumstances, that changed the testimony of Mr. Hill,
20 that was relied upon by the Commission.
21 So, that's kind of the byproduct. It's
22 not really the second reason we filed it. It's just
23 because we were filing the amendment, we needed to file
24 the other piece because of the Commission's reliance.
25 Q Okay. So, even though the company

178
1 believes these changed economic circumstances warrant
2 reconsideration, that was not one of the reasons for
3 your filing the amendment?
4 A Right.
5 Q Okay.
6 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, that's all I
7 have.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Ms. Mandell?
9 MS. MANDELL: Yes, Your Honor.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I would like to
11 address some questions to you, if I may, before I rule
12 on your request. If I understood you before the break,
13 in response to a question, you said that these would be
14 questions that you have now based on information
15 elicited during the cross examination by -- of Ms. Hyde
16 by Mr. Douglas.
17 MS. MANDELL: That is correct, Your
18 Honor.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Could you tell
20 me, please, what subject matter areas are involved?
21 MS. MANDELL: Yes. The model of the
22 proxy carbon cost. I had just a few questions there.
23 And one question with regard to the concept in the HB
24 10-1001 statute, with regard to the, as Public Service
25 calls it, "the fair share." We don't agree with that

179
1 particular designation.
2 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Are these, by way
3 of clarification, answers given by Ms. Hyde in
4 responses to questioning by Mr. Douglas?
5 MS. MANDELL: I would have to say, yes.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: We'll take -- I
7 would allow you to question. We'll take it one
8 question at a time.
9 MS. MANDELL: Thank you, Your Honor. I
10 will need to ask a couple of foundation questions.
11 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. MANDELL:
13 Q Ms. Hyde, are you familiar with the Clean
14 Air - Clean Jobs Act docket now pending before the
15 Commission?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And that docket has to do with reducing
18 emissions from 900 megawatts of coal plants in the
19 metro area; is that right?
20 A A minimum of 900 megawatts, yes.
21 Q Thank you. And even though the Public
22 Service Company plan is not due until August 13th,
23 Public Service has given some preliminary indications
24 of the model analysis and some of the inputs they will
25 be using; is that right?

180
1 A Yes.
2 Q And what year has Public Service, on a
3 preliminary basis, indicated it will be using as the
4 initial year for the carbon proxy cost?
5 A 2014.
6 Q And, Ms. Hyde, with regard to the
7 rulemaking having to do with implementation of House
8 Bill 10-1001, would you agree with me there's
9 considerable dispute about how the Commission should or
10 should not implement the provision having to do with
11 what you call, "the fair-share provision"?
12 A Yes.
13 MS. MANDELL: That's all I had. Thank
14 you.
16 Ms. Hyde. If you know, could you tell me the docket
17 number that's the Clean Air - Clean Jobs proceeding
18 or --
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Sorry. If any
21 counsel knows the answer, that would be fine. I just
22 need -- I just want to know what the reference was.
23 MR. McGANN: I believe it's 10M-245E.
24 It's a miscellaneous docket.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And I believe

181
1 that's correct but just double-checking. Thank you.
2 Redirect.
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. McGANN:
6 Q All right, Ms. Hyde. I would like to
7 start out -- do you recall being asked a series of
8 questions by Mr. Douglas concerning assumptions
9 regarding carbon and gas prices and other assumptions.
10 Do you recall that line of questions?
11 A Yes.
12 Q I would like to take a step back for a
13 moment, and just have you describe for me, and for the
14 record, and for the Judge, how is it that the company
15 goes about, essentially, doing its resource planning
16 and its compliance with the RES, and what the
17 Commission requires the company to do in terms of those
18 assumptions, like gas and like carbon?
19 A To date, what we have had is actual
20 numbers for carbon, where we present a number, other
21 parties present their alternatives, and the Commission
22 comes up with a number to use for carbon.
23 And, then, right now, we have a
24 methodology for gas prices. It's an average of four
25 forecasts, plus a gas price volatility mitigation

182
1 estimate.
2 Q And do the Commission's rules speak to
3 where those assumptions and methodologies are derived
4 and, then, how they are to be used?
5 A Well, generally, they are derived in the
6 Resource Plan, and then they would be used in the RES
7 Compliance Plan.
8 Q And you mentioned -- or I mentioned, in
9 my questions, assumptions and then methodologies. And
10 am I correct that there are certain hard assumptions
11 the company is required to make like, for example, the
12 cost of carbon; is that correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And, then, there are certain
15 methodologies the Commission develops in a Resource
16 Plan, and that would apply, for example, to gas prices;
17 is that correct?
18 A Correct.
19 Q Well, let me ask you, then, when it comes
20 to those assumptions and methodologies, which prevails?
21 Is it the company's estimate of those numbers or is it
22 the Commission's decision on those numbers?
23 A The Commission decision.
24 Q And you would agree with me that those
25 numbers change over time?

183
1 A They do.
2 Q With specific reference to -- let's go
3 through each one of these. Let's start with the cost
4 of carbon. Do you believe that there has to be carbon
5 legislation that essentially assesses a cost for
6 carbon? For the Commission to determine a cost of
7 carbon?
8 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I would object.
9 This examination is entirely leading at this point.
10 MR. McGANN: It's a foundational
11 question; that I am going to ask her how the Commission
12 derives the carbon cost. I'm just trying to switch to
13 carbon.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may certainly
15 go ahead on that question.
16 THE WITNESS: I can't remember what it
17 was. Sorry.
18 BY MR. McGANN:
19 Q Well, how did --
20 A There doesn't have to be legislation in
21 order for the Commission to decide a carbon cost,
22 because they were given separate instructions in the
23 actual Colorado legislation to consider a carbon cost.
24 Q And let me ask you, when it comes to the
25 cost of carbon, does the cost of carbon affect only the

184
1 cost of solar resources?
2 A No. It affects the whole outcome of a
3 number of dockets. It affects how much demand-side
4 management we take, how much demand response we take,
5 how much -- it affects all of the renewable and
6 nonrenewable resources in a plan. It's widespread.
7 Q And for how long has the company
8 essentially considered the cost of carbon in terms of
9 its resource acquisition decisions?
10 A We had sensitivities around carbon as far
11 back as our first Resource Plan in 1993. And we have
12 been using a numerical estimate in our basecase since
13 the 2003 Resource Plan.
14 Q And I believe that you were asked a
15 series of questions that basically focused on the fact
16 that the company, in the amended Resource Plan, has
17 suggested the carbon legislation would begin in the
18 year -- or carbon costs would begin in the year 2014.
19 Do you recall that line of questioning?
20 A Yes, I do.
21 Q If carbon legislation were passed in
22 2014, what effect, if any, would that have on the
23 company's resource acquisition choices?
24 A I think it would depend on the form of
25 the legislation. But, in general, what really impacts

185
1 our resource decisions is the, right now, the carbon
2 proxy cost that the Commission approves, and that may
3 or may not reflect the number in legislation.
4 Q Let's move onto gas prices. I believe
5 you were asked a series of questions that established
6 the fact that, in the amendment to the Resource Plan,
7 the company was estimating a lower gas price; is that
8 correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q What has been your experience with
11 respect to the price of gas over time?
12 A Every time we estimate it, using the
13 methodology from the Commission, it's different than
14 the time before. It's gone up and it's gone down in
15 the long term, and by a lot over the last few years.
16 Q I would like to move onto, I think it was
17 Exhibit 141, which was the Tables 7-3 and 7-4, from the
18 2010 RES Compliance Plan docket. Do you have that in
19 front of you?
20 A I do.
21 Q Well, let me just start, actually, with
22 just a preliminary question. I think -- do you
23 remember being asked by Mr. Douglas whether the 2010
24 RES Compliance Plan was the company's best -- and I am
25 paraphrasing here -- the best estimate of the company's

186
1 plans? Do you recall that question?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And I recall that your answer to that
4 question was, yes?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And I would just like you to explain that
7 answer, if you could. Why do you believe that that's
8 probably -- that that is the best estimate of the
9 company's plans, at least at this point in time?
10 A Because it's the only projection that we
11 have done, of those resource acquisitions, out into
12 that time frame at this point. We're just embarking on
13 another set of dockets that will consider what to do in
14 those years, and, so -- as we file the Clean Air -
15 Clean Jobs, and then the RES Compliance Plan, and then
16 the 2011 Resource Plan.
17 So, right now, it's the only plan that's
18 out there. But, in addition, we have significant
19 capacity needs, starting in 2016 and we need to add
20 something to the system in '16, '17, '18. So, I still
21 believe that it's reasonable to, since we have to add
22 something, to add solar thermal, both for its benefits
23 on the Renewable Energy Standard and the 2%, but also
24 because it will be used to serve actual capacity needs.
25 Q Well, moving onto --

187
1 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, excuse me. I
2 need to object and move to strike that last answer. We
3 repeatedly asked Public Service for those load and
4 resource forecasts beyond 2015. The ones they produced
5 go through 2015 and not beyond. And now Ms. Hyde is
6 telling us, for the first time, that in 2016 they are
7 going to start having a deficit. It's not something
8 that we have information that we can respond to, and I
9 believe that should be stricken from the record.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So, you have --
11 Mr. Douglas, can you add to your objection? The
12 testimony goes through, at least in response to
13 questioning on Exhibit 136, goes through 2015, and the
14 load and resources, with respect to that, at a 185
15 megawatt, 90 megawatt and 60 megawatt. You asked those
16 questions through 2015, correct?
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: So, your
19 objection now is going anything past what year?
20 MR. DOUGLAS: 2015, Your Honor.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Anything past
22 2015?
23 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And this question
25 involved?
188
1 MR. DOUGLAS: She said, starting in 2016,
2 they would have additional needs.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Okay. Thank you.
4 Now, one last little issue before I let other folks
5 chime in. Could you read the discovery request that
6 requested information to which you do not believe you
7 received a response that would allow this question?
8 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. Your Honor, I will
9 find it. And if it might also help the Court, there is
10 a specific load and resources forecast that was
11 provided in response to discovery, which I have, which
12 goes to 2015, which I could hand the Court.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That's okay. I
14 would take your representations. Thank you.
16 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, while
17 Mr. Douglas is looking, may I consult with my
18 co-counsel?
20 may. Absolutely. I just want to get the full scope of
21 the objection flushed out here.
23 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Uh-hum.
25 MR. DOUGLAS: There's a lot to this one,

189
1 but this is the one. So, I will just read it into the
2 record. This is Trinchera Ranch -- what was numbered
3 by Public Service as Trinchera Ranch Discovery Request
4 26-12. And this is the load and resource forecasts
5 that I mentioned was produced in response to -- it
6 says, "Please provide a copy, in electronic form only,
7 of all financial reports, studies, analyses, work
8 papers, data assumptions, and other documents the
9 company has created, Commission conducted or relied
10 upon, in connection with the company's amendment to the
11 2007 Colorado Resource Plan filed on June 4th, 2010,
12 including but not limited to documents related to the
13 costs of the proposed concentrating solar with storage
14 facilities, as compared to combined gas facilities,
15 load and resource forecast, demand forecast, including
16 the most recent demand forecast completed in March
17 2010, described on page 12 of Exhibit JFH-1, rates,
18 models, gas prices, carbon legislation, frequency and
19 costs of curtailment payments before the effect of the
20 amendment on the 2% retail rate impact set forth in the
21 study."
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And in response
23 to that, you received the load and resources Tables
24 through the year 2015?

190
2 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, I believe -- I
3 am actually reading this at my computer screen. I am
4 back at counsel table, if I may.
6 may.
7 MR. McGANN: I believe the response to
8 26-12, which basically says, give us the financial
9 reports and studies you have created in connection with
10 the company's amendment to the Colorado Resource Plan,
11 including but not limited to.
12 And, so, I think again, we're back to the
13 fact that it was limited by that phrase, which was --
14 as it should have been, quite frankly. I mean, that's
15 the scope of the reopened docket. So, it makes perfect
16 sense that they would ask a discovery question along
17 those lines.
18 My understanding -- I don't think -- I
19 thought it was established, so, I don't think we were
20 required to produce the information Mr. Douglas
21 suggests by this Data Request, No. 1.
22 No. 2, I didn't think it was a secret
23 that we had load and -- that we had resource needs
24 beyond 2015. I thought that was established in the
25 first part of this case. It's also been established in

191
1 Clean Air - Clean Jobs, where Trinchera Ranch is a
2 party. It's also been established in the Resource Plan
3 docket, where they are a party as well. So, I'm not
4 sure that this is any particular secret for Trinchera
5 Ranch at this point in time.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: But your initial
7 response is that this is beyond the scope of the
8 discovery request?
9 MR. McGANN: Absolutely.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Anything further,
11 Mr. Douglas?
12 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, this was a
13 subject of negotiation. They actually produced to us,
14 first, the load and resources forecast for 2012. We
15 have requested it to go further out. And they -- I
16 believe we asked for 2020.
17 I don't have the e-mails with me, but
18 there was an e-mail response in response to this very
19 document, which then produced to 2015. The amendment
20 itself says we're fine through 2015, though, if you
21 will look at a couple of options, we'll have a small
22 deficit. I explored that with Mrs. Hyde.
23 And now, to the extent Public Service
24 wants to present testimony at this hearing that, in
25 fact, even though they are fine through 2015, they have
192
1 more needs starting in 2016, the deciding factor isn't
2 whether it's a secret in other dockets, or whether it
3 was established at the last hearing. It was -- we're
4 not asking to strike that testimony, but as to the
5 subject in this reopened hearing, for Ms. Hyde to
6 discuss this, in light of their production to us,
7 solely, of the information through 2015, isn't proper.
8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I agree, unless
9 you are prepared to produce load and resources tables
10 beyond the year 2015, then 2015 it is.
11 And the testimony is stricken, Harriet.
12 The response of Ms. Hyde, that began with her
13 discussion of a need for resources beginning in the
14 year 2016, and that the solar thermal resources in the
15 San Luis Valley is intended, in part, at least to meet
16 that need, is stricken, to be clear. Thank you.
18 BY MR. McGANN:
19 Q Ms. Hyde, if we could move onto -- I
20 think I had begun to ask you a series of questions on
21 Exhibit 141, so, if you could turn to that exhibit.
22 A I have it.
23 Q And I would like you to specifically look
24 at Tables 7-3 and 7-4.
25 A I have them.
193
1 Q And I believe you -- Mr. Douglas asked
2 you a series of questions regarding the rolling
3 deferred balance for the RESA account, which is, I
4 think, Column X in both of those tables; is that
5 correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Can you tell me whether or not that
8 rolling deferred balance includes the three solar
9 thermal placeholder plants that were set forth in the
10 2010 RES Compliance Plan?
11 A Yes. The rolling balance is after we
12 have already paid for those three 250-megawatt plants.
13 Q And if you could take a look at those two
14 tables, 7-3 and 7-4, can you tell me, of those tables
15 showing the wind, when the rolling deferred balance
16 becomes positive, and what the difference is between
17 those two tables?
18 A Yes. It shows that our estimate, with a
19 carbon proxy price starting in 2010, was that it would
20 turn negative in '12. And when we had the carbon proxy
21 price deferred to 2014, it would go positive in 2015.
22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry. Could
23 you help me out. Is that information on two different
24 tables or on the same table?
25 THE WITNESS: Two different tables.

194
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Could you tell me
2 which piece of information is on which table?
3 THE WITNESS: Sure.
5 THE WITNESS: Table 7-3, Column X, on the
6 lower set of numbers, shows that the -- this one had
7 carbon proxy costs starting in 2010, and it shows that,
8 by 2012, we have a RESA excess. We had positive money
9 left over after paying for all of our resources.
10 And then Table 7-4, again, Column X, this
11 is a case in which, instead of having a carbon proxy
12 price in 2010, we have it in 2014, but we show, in
13 Column X, that we start to have a RESA excess in 2015.
15 much. Thank you, Counsel.
16 MR. McGANN: Thank you.
17 BY MR. McGANN:
18 Q And, Ms. Hyde, just as a foundational
19 matter, am I correct that the RESA balance numbers that
20 are reflected in Exhibit 141, in Table 7-3 and 7-4,
21 those, essentially -- that modeling was done prior to
22 the enactment of new House Bill 10-1001?
23 A Yes, it was.
24 Q Now, what I would like to do now is, with
25 respect to the RESA balance, I would like to kind of

195
1 discuss with you some of the issues that Mr. Douglas
2 raised with respect to some of the provisions in the
3 statute that address how much money may be in that RESA
4 account. And, so, if you could -- let me just ask you
5 a general question. What are the amendments that were
6 enacted by the legislature in new House Bill 10-1001
7 that affect or that could potentially affect the amount
8 of money in the RESA account?
9 A There's at least four. One is the
10 provision for the positive or negative balance, and the
11 recovery, the interest on that, because it makes the
12 company neutral for spending the money ahead of time.
13 There's also the provision that allows us to seek a
14 reduction in the 3% distributed generation amount from
15 the Commission. There's also a reduction in the
16 standard rebate offer that we can seek from the
17 Commission. And there's the provision to allow us to
18 charge customers who have installed distributed
19 generation a higher amount than we would right now.
20 And I would say, also, that these
21 implement the series of tools that we already had in
22 order to try to manage the RESA. And that included
23 reductions in the REC payment and the payments, over
24 time, that are provided under the third-party ownership
25 or third-party financing model.

196
1 Q Well, let's start from that last answer,
2 then, and talk about the REC payments, then.
3 Do you know -- I believe you testified
4 already that the payments for the REC started at -- was
5 it 2,50?
6 A Right around 2.50.
7 Q And do you know where those REC payments
8 are now?
9 A On an equivalent basis, they are about 50
10 cents, just under 50 cents.
11 Q And does the company need to seek
12 permission to change or alter or lower those REC
13 payments?
14 A No.
15 Q Now, when it came to -- I believe you
16 mentioned this before, in your answer with respect to
17 those REC payments, that there had been an agreement
18 struck with the industry and with the Governor's Energy
19 Office to reduce those REC payments. Do you recall
20 that testimony?
21 A Yes.
22 Q I just would like you to actually expound
23 on that a little bit. Why do you believe that the
24 industry -- or, let me ask you this: Do you believe
25 that the industry supports the reduction or supported

197
1 the reduction of those REC payments?
2 A They did.
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I object.
4 Lacks foundation. Calls for hearsay.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Other objections?
6 Mr. McGann.
7 MR. McGANN: I'm not used to getting
8 hearsay objections in Commission proceedings, that's,
9 probably, No. 1. But, No. 2, I believe I can establish
10 a foundation. Ms. Hyde is familiar with those
11 negotiations and is familiar with the reason why those
12 stakeholders essentially came to the agreement that
13 they did with the company, in terms of those reduced
14 REC payments.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I actually have
16 absolutely a different question. What is the
17 purpose -- aside from the fact that it was discussed
18 during the cross examination, what is it that you're
19 trying to elicit from this witness?
20 MR. McGANN: Essentially, Mr. Douglas
21 raised the spectre of the fact that we would need to
22 seek Commission approval for reduction of, for example,
23 the $2 standard offer rebate.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Correct.
25 MR. McGANN: So, what I would like to do

198
1 is establish with Ms. Hyde whether or not the industry
2 would be receptive to such a reduction, if the company
3 were to seek that from the Commission. I am trying to
4 get -- it's going to the likelihood that such a
5 reduction may be obtained. Mr. Douglas has thrown some
6 doubt on whether or not we would be able to obtain such
7 reduction. And I would like to address that through my
8 redirect of Ms. Hyde.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I am still having
10 a difficult time, since you established that REC
11 payments can be reduced without any action by the
12 Commission, how delving into a discussion or an
13 agreement with respect to the REC payments advances
14 what you're discussing?
15 MR. McGANN: Simply, it would be the same
16 industry stakeholders that would be involved in the
17 reduction of the standard rebate offer. So, that was
18 the bridge that I was trying to create to get there.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: All right. The
20 objection is sustained, but on relevance grounds. She
21 answered the question that you don't need a Commission
22 order to reduce REC payments, and, as to the rest of
23 it, that's too speculative.
24 MR. McGANN: Let me move on, then.
25 BY MR. McGANN:
199
1 Q And, I believe, in part of your
2 testimony, when you had discussed reduction of the
3 standard rebate offer, you said that the company could
4 seek such a reduction through an application process.
5 Do you recall that testimony?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is there any other way the company can
8 seek a reduction of the standard rebate payment?
9 A We could put it into our RES Compliance
10 Plan in addition to separate application.
11 Q Do you recall being asked a series of
12 questions about the fact that there's a new section of
13 the statute regarding obtaining an interest rate equal
14 to the weighted after-tax cost of capital on RESA
15 balances? Do you recall that series of questions?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And do you recall also being asked
18 that -- whether or not it was true that if customers
19 had to pay interest, that less money would be available
20 for renewable resources?
21 A Yes.
22 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I object. I
23 think that mischaracterizes the testimony.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: There's an

200
1 objection. The answer is stricken until I rule on the
2 objection.
3 Mr. McGann.
4 MR. McGANN: I actually, at this point in
5 time, I believe that was certainly the answer that was
6 elicited from the witness. That was what I -- that was
7 my recollection. Well, and I can ask it in a different
8 way, too.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I would
10 appreciate if you could avoid that particular issue.
11 Reask it. Thank you.
12 BY MR. McGANN:
13 Q To the extent the weighted after-tax cost
14 of capital is added to the RESA balance, some of the
15 RESA payments will go to the payment of that interest;
16 is that correct?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Do ratepayers or customers get any
19 benefit in the payment of that interest?
20 A Yes. They got to receive the renewable
21 energy earlier. They got, essentially, the time value
22 of the emission reductions.
23 Q And sticking with the new legislation, I
24 believe, do you recall being asked, I think at the
25 beginning of your cross examination, by Mr. Douglas,

201
1 whether or not there was a public policy in favor of
2 distributed generation?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And let me just give you the opportunity,
5 now, to explain that answer, if I could.
6 A Yes. I think that it's clear, when the
7 legislature was actually pushing a policy in favor of
8 retail distributed generation, or distributed
9 generation, in general, that the majority of the
10 standard still can be met by utility-scale resources.
11 And the way that they defined, "distributed
12 generation," we now can count things that we couldn't
13 count before to that standard, like our 100-year-old
14 hydros and existing solar resources.
15 So, while the numbers show that the
16 percentage of our load that has to be met by
17 distributed generation has increased, I don't think
18 that it actually shows a large shift in the state's
19 commitment to have retail distributed generation. I
20 also think that, because we only need a small increase
21 in our acquisitions to fill that amount, like another
22 32 megawatts over our previous plan; and that people
23 knew that we could do that reasonably, and could do it
24 within the rate impact, based on our testimony before
25 the legislature; that, I think, that you can't make a

202
1 sweeping judgement that that resulted in a public
2 policy that's significantly increased the state's
3 consideration of what's now referred to as, "retail
4 distributed generation."
5 Q Okay. And I would like to just now pose
6 to you the hypothetical that I think, perhaps,
7 Mr. Douglas was driving for during his cross
8 examination. I would like you to assume that the
9 company finds that the 2% -- the money that's under the
10 2% retail rate cap will not allow the company to
11 acquire the large utility-scale solar it desires to
12 acquire over the next 10 to 15 years. Do you have that
13 hypothetical in mind?
14 A Yes.
15 Q What would the company do?
16 A Well, we have a lot of ways to try to
17 deal with that. We could file to reduce the standard
18 rebate offer. We could file for the charges that are
19 allowed to the existing customers. We could continue
20 to drive down the REC payment. We could advocate other
21 changes at the legislature, as we have in years past.
22 I think we have a lot of tools that we could use. And
23 we could also ask the Commission to reduce the 3%
24 distributed generation standard.
25 So, we have a lot of tools, a whole suite

203
1 that we could use to manage how we spend that 2% over
2 time.
3 Q I would like you to now take a look at
4 Exhibit, I believe it's 137, which was the large
5 spreadsheet.
6 A Yeah.
7 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry.
8 Three-page one or the --
9 MR. McGANN: The three-page.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: The colored
11 three-page?
12 MR. McGANN: That colored three-page one.
13 That's right.
15 BY MR. McGANN:
16 Q And, specifically, well, let's start at
17 page 2 of 3.
18 A Okay. I am there.
19 Q Can you tell me whether or not this table
20 takes into account -- or also, actually, let me just
21 ask this question of the entire exhibit, all three
22 pages. Can you tell me whether or not this exhibit
23 takes into account the company's resource needs?
24 A No, it doesn't.
25 Q Can you tell me whether or not the table

204
1 takes into account the company's desire or plans to add
2 renewable resources?
3 A No. This is just one scenario that
4 looked at, basically, the plans that were approved at
5 the time, essentially, and the contracts that were in
6 place, and how that might allow us to meet the minimum
7 standards under the legislation.
8 It doesn't take into account how we would
9 meet future load growth or future resource needs. It
10 doesn't take into account the plans that we may bring
11 forth in Clean Air - Clean Jobs, or in the RES in
12 September of 2010, or the 2011 Resource Plan. It's
13 just one snapshot of what was in place at the time,
14 relative to the new standard.
15 Q And with respect to Exhibit -- if you
16 could turn now to Exhibit 138. I would like to ask you
17 the same questions with respect to that exhibit, so let
18 me ask you the first question: Does that exhibit take
19 into account the company's resource needs?
20 A No. When I'm looking at the nameplate
21 capacity with open net, in fact, in the second
22 rectangular box that Mr. Douglas talked with me about,
23 those numbers don't take into effect any resource needs
24 going-forward, or anything that we might put forth in
25 those other dockets.

205
1 Q And does Exhibit 138 take into account
2 the company's desire to add renewable resources or plan
3 to add renewable resources?
4 A No.
5 Q And if you know -- I am skipping around a
6 bit. Let's go back to the standard rebate. Do you
7 know how much or what percent of the RESA is absorbed
8 by the standard rebate payments?
9 A Well, in the beginning, when our payments
10 were about $2 on the standard rebate and $2.50 and/or
11 2.25 on the REC payment it was almost half that was
12 going to that. Now, because the REC payment is lower,
13 it should be a higher percentage that's going to that
14 standard rebate.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I'm sorry,
16 Counsel. Ms. Hyde, just so that I am clear, meaning
17 that, at present, more than 50%? The standard rebate
18 payments consume more than 50%?
19 THE WITNESS: Right.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I had a hard time
21 trying to understand what you were saying.
22 THE WITNESS: Because I was thinking out
23 loud. Okay. So we make, to the average residential
24 customer, a payment that involves two pieces, a REC
25 payment and a standard rebate. So, when we first

206
1 started the program, we were making a $2 standard
2 rebate offer, and, then, about a $2.25 or 2.50 REC
3 payment, both made upfront. And, so, a little bit less
4 than half, $2, of that 4.50, was the standard rebate.
5 Now, since, on an equivalent basis, the
6 REC payment is down to just under 55 cents and the
7 standard rebate is still at $2, $2 is a higher
8 percentage of 2.55, that $2 was at 4.50 -- I was trying
9 to get to a customer -- to a customer, right now, the
10 standard rebate is the bulk of the money that they are
11 getting.
12 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And, Mr. McGann.
13 I am unclear whether that answered your question. But
14 that's okay. Was the question in terms of payments
15 made to retail customers?
16 MR. McGANN: Yes.
18 MR. McGANN: Your Honor, may I have a
19 moment?
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: (Nodding head in
21 the affirmative.)
23 MR. McGANN: Nothing further, Your Honor.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: First, just a
25 housekeeping matter, please. Ms. Hyde, be sure that

207
1 you leave all marked exhibits up at the front. Thank
2 you. But that aside, ma'am, I would like to thank you
3 very much for your testimony. And it's been extremely
4 helpful. Thank you so much.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And you are
7 excused, at least for the moment. You may be subject
8 to recall, depending on your attorneys. Public Service
9 have anything further?
10 MR. DOUGHERTY: Nothing further.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I am going to ask
12 this, because I just want to have the record clear,
13 Tri-State, I understand that you are offering no
14 witnesses with respect to this reopened proceeding; is
15 that correct.
16 MR. DOUGHERTY: We are not presenting any
17 affirmative witnesses, but we reserve our right to
18 present a rebuttal witness, Your Honor.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: In that event, I
20 believe that Trinchera Ranch is the only other party to
21 indicate an interest in presenting a witness.
22 Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Douglas or Mr. McDonald, how do we
23 proceed?
24 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Trinchera Ranch
25 would call Mr. James Dauphinais at this time.

208
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you. Good
2 afternoon.
3 (Whereupon James R. Dauphinais was
4 sworn.)
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you, sir.
6 Please have a seat. Move what was marked -- those
7 marked exhibits off to the side, if that would be more
8 convenient for you. And, Mr. Dauphinais, since you
9 have testified earlier in this proceeding, I will not
10 ask for the spelling of your name, but rather turn it
11 over to your counsel.
12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Douglas.
14 DIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
16 Q Mr. Dauphinais, could you please state
17 your name for the record and spell your name?
18 A James R. Dauphinais, D-a-u-p-h-i-n-a-i-s.
19 Q And Mr. Dauphinais, you have previously
20 testified in this docket; is that correct?
21 A That is correct.
22 Q Okay. And given that I am not going to
23 go back through all of the qualifications and things
24 that were presented previously, I will just get right
25 to it.
209
1 Mr. Dauphinais, one of the issues that we
2 have been discussing today, and is the subject of this
3 re-opened hearing, is a new statute, House Bill
4 10-1001, I would like to start by asking you first, are
5 you familiar with that statute?
6 A Yes, I am.
7 Q Okay. And what -- and Ms. Hyde talked
8 about some of the provisions in that statute. So, I am
9 not going to ask you to reiterate what we have already
10 heard about. But how does, in your opinion, based on
11 your understanding, how does House Bill 10-1001 differ,
12 in any significant respect to this docket, from the
13 previous Renewable Energy Standard statute?
14 A It enlarges the minimum amount of RECs
15 that are necessary in total, and the minimum amount of
16 RECs necessary for distributed generation and also for
17 retail distributed generation versus the previous act.
18 And it also does -- it also reduces the
19 amount of in-state bonus that should be applicable to
20 on-site solar, that is eliminated. And lastly, it
21 doesn't change the 2% retail rate cap.
22 Q Okay. And in your opinion, do those
23 changes -- those areas you have identified, in House
24 Bill 10-1001, impact Public Service's future resource
25 acquisitions in the San Luis Valley?

210
1 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, I object. I
2 know Mr. Douglas began with, we are not going to go
3 over your qualifications again, but, as I understand
4 Mr. Dauphinais' qualifications, it's in relation to
5 being a transmission engineer. So, I do not believe
6 that his qualifications have been established as to
7 resource planning issues. And if you would like, I can
8 conduct voir dire on that matter.
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I would.
11 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. SOPKIN:
13 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Dauphinais. Nice to
14 see you again.
15 A Good afternoon.
16 Q Mr. Dauphinais, you submitted an Appendix
17 A to your original Answer Testimony in this case way
18 back when. And, Your Honor, if I may, I believe this
19 is part of Exhibit 33, which is what Mr. Dauphinais'
20 Answer Testimony was. So, we can either try to dig for
21 that, or I happen to have a copy here of the Appendix A
22 that I could just hand to the witness.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That would be
24 easier, I believe. And that was Exhibit 33?
25 MR. SOPKIN: May I approach, Your Honor?

211
2 may. Thank you.
3 MR. SOPKIN: Does it need to be marked?
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That's all right.
5 It's already in the record.
6 BY MR. SOPKIN:
7 Q Mr. Dauphinais, do you have what is
8 marked as "Appendix A", "Qualifications of James R.
9 Dauphinais"?
11 Q And am I correct that these are the
12 qualifications that you submitted as part of your
13 Answer Testimony in this matter?
14 A This is not all of the qualifications
15 that were provided in my Answer Testimony.
16 Q Okay. And am I correct that this is the
17 complete Appendix A to your Answer Testimony?
18 A Which is an extension of other discussion
19 of my qualifications, which was in the body of my
20 Answer Testimony.
21 Q Okay. Fair enough. Let's go over this
22 document. If I'm reading this correctly, you have an
23 associate's degree in electrical engineering technology
24 from Hartford State Technical College in 1983, correct?
212
1 Q And, then, you were employed by the
2 Transmission Planning Department of Northeast Utilities
3 Company as an engineering technician for some time, and
4 then you went on to graduate, in 1990, at the
5 University of Hartford, with a bachelor's degree in
6 electrical engineering; is that correct?
8 Q And while you worked at the, I believe
9 the same place, the Northeast Utilities Service
10 Company, you were an associate engineer, then you
11 became a senior engineer?
13 Q And then, during your tenure there, you
14 worked on thermage voltage and stability analyses. And
15 I am turning to page 2 now. You worked from 1990 to
16 1997, representing Northeast Utilities on the New
17 England Power Pool Stability Task Force. And, then,
18 you also, turning to the next paragraph, you were
19 responsible for oversight of the day-to-day
20 administration of Northeast Utilities Open Access
21 Transmission Tariff; is that correct?
23 Q Okay. And, then, in 1997, you joined the
24 firm of Brubaker & Associates, and there you've
25 testified on a number of matters, correct?

213
2 Q Okay. In terms of resource planning
3 matters, you identity -- correct me if I am wrong --
4 during your deposition, that you testified before three
5 state commissions on resource planning issues in
6 adjudicatory type of cases like this one; is that
7 correct?
9 Q Okay. And I believe, in fact, it was
10 identified in a filing here, those three cases -- in a
11 filing by Trinchera Ranch -- that you testified to.
12 One case was -- you filed February 29th, 2008, Direct
13 Testimony on behalf of NIPSCO Industrial Group before
14 the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. On March
15 24th, 2008, you filed Direct Testimony, again, on
16 behalf of the NIPSCO Industrial Group, at the State of
17 Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
18 And, then, I guess it was, previous to
19 that, September 14th, 2007, you also filed testimony in
20 the fall of -- excuse me -- in the fall of 2007, you
21 filed some testimonies before the Louisiana Public
22 Service Commission; is that correct?
24 Q Okay. And I don't know that I need to
25 introduce your testimonies. I certainly have a copy of

214
1 your direct testimonies, and in each of these, if you
2 want to refresh your recollection. But let me just ask
3 you, starting with your Indiana -- the testimony you
4 filed with the State of Indiana Utility Regulatory
5 Commission, on March 24, 2008, you testified on behalf
6 of a industrial group that a utility did not show that
7 its proposed wind PPAs represent the least-cost option;
8 that there was a transmission congestion cost risk to
9 the wind power; wind generation would have a net
10 present value cost rather than benefit to the utility;
11 and the wind PPAs did not reasonably provide the option
12 for the utility to require the wind facilities to seek
13 network resource interconnection service from the
14 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator. Is
15 that the gist of your testimony in that case?
16 A That's generally correct.
17 Q And, then, the second testimony we refer
18 to, again, before the Indiana Utility Regulatory
19 Commission, February 29th, 2008, you testified on
20 behalf of an industrial group to present its concerns
21 concerning the utility's request for a CPCN for a
22 535-megawatt gas combined cycle unit. Specifically,
23 you testified that the utility justified the economics
24 of that gas facility on the basis of using natural gas
25 as a fuel, but the utility indicated it might use

215
1 synthetic natural gas as a fuel, and the utility did
2 not show how it would hold ratepayers harmless from the
3 fact that capacity and energy from the combined cycle
4 unit was committed to PGN through May 31, 2010. Is
5 that the gist of your testimony in the case?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q And, then, before the Louisiana Public
8 Service Commission, in 2007, you testified on behalf of
9 an energy user's group to present its concerns --
10 excuse me -- its concerns regarding a utility CPCN
11 application to power the Little Gypsy Unit 3 plant with
12 Petroco. You opined that the net present value benefit
13 of the proposed Little Gypsy Unit 3 plant was
14 overstated versus a gas combined cycle unit, in part,
15 because you thought the utility's analysis downplayed
16 the risk of future carbon emission costs. Is that
17 accurate?
18 A Yes. There was no carbon emission cost
19 in their analysis.
20 Q Okay. But I believe there was a
21 sensitivity analysis performed with regard to carbon,
22 correct, in that case?
23 A Yes. But they didn't rely on that for
24 their cost/benefit analysis in their initial direct
25 case.
216
1 Q Okay. And in all three of those cases,
2 no party challenged your qualifications to testify on
3 the matters you testified to?
5 Q And you have never testified to a utility
6 commission regarding a utility's compliance with a
7 Renewable Energy Standard or Renewable Portfolio
8 Standard, correct?
9 A I have not testified. I have other
10 involvement with those issues, but I have not
11 testified.
12 Q Okay. You are not an economist, correct?
13 A Beyond the application of economics to
14 regulatory matters, that's in rate matters and rate
15 design, I have experience in that, but I am not an
16 economist.
17 Q You have no degree in economics?
19 Q And you have never personally used the
20 Strategist utility plan model that Public Service has
21 used in its resource planning cases before the Colorado
22 Public Utilities Commission?
23 A Not the Strategist model. The Strategist
24 is not the only model used out there and not all
25 utilities use models of that sophistication for the

217
1 resource plan.
2 Q You do acknowledge that the Strategist
3 model is somewhat different from those other production
4 sim models?
5 A Beyond the production cost simulator,
6 yes.
7 Q Okay.
8 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, that completes
9 my voir dire. If you like, I can state our objection
10 at this point.
12 MR. SOPKIN: Public Service had not
13 contested Mr. Dauphinais' qualifications to testify to
14 transmission line engineering and planning matters in
15 this case. Public Service has no objection to
16 Mr. Dauphinais testifying to matters within his
17 expertise, such as the existing transmission system,
18 and in the San Luis Valley, with some tweaks, can
19 accommodate up to 185 megawatts of export capacity. I
20 believe that was, in fact, listed in his expected
21 testimony.
22 Public Service does not object to
23 Mr. Dauphinais' proposed testimony in the first notice
24 of witness testimony, because it was understood to be
25 within his expertise. And in that first notice of

218
1 witness testimony, there's just one sentence listed
2 there for Mr. Dauphinais' testimony with regard to the
3 impact of the House Bill 10-1001. I am referring to
4 page 3 of that document, paragraph 6.
5 "Mr. Dauphinais will testify regarding
6 the impact of the 30% Renewable Energy Standard on
7 resource acquisition in the Colorado Energy Resource
8 Zones, and the effect of such acquisitions on the
9 ability and appropriateness of the project and various
10 alternatives to meet the needs identified for the
11 project as effected by House Bill 10-1001."
12 Based on the testimony that
13 Mr. Dauphinais had given previously, based on his CV,
14 based on his testimonies, we did not believe that
15 Mr. Dauphinais had expertise with regard to energy
16 resource planning matters. And, so, we did not object.
17 We believe that the fact that he did not
18 identify, in the first notice of witness testimony, in
19 that paragraph 6, anything about RESA dollars, the 2%
20 cap, the 3% DG requirement, we thought that it was
21 going to be high level testimony simply about how the
22 30% RES affects the need for the transmission line
23 project, and not get into these various resource
24 planning issues.
25 His testimony in former cases, in other

219
1 states, do not compare different kinds of renewable
2 resources, which is what he wants to do in this case.
3 In any case, no one challenged his expertise in those
4 cases, so the question was never reached. He's not an
5 economist. His expertise in this case on resource
6 planning matters consists of reading pleadings in this
7 case and the resource planning cases which his
8 expertise might bootstrap.
9 Public Service requests that
10 Mr. Dauphinais not be permitted to testify regarding,
11 No. 1, the comparison of the economics and future
12 economics of different types of renewable resources;
13 and, No. 2, whether Public Service can comply with the
14 2% retail rate impact cap in the future, given the 3%
15 DG set-aside and the increased RES to 30%.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Let's state the
17 second issue again, please.
18 MR. SOPKIN: Yes.
19 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: The second.
20 MR. SOPKIN: The second matter to which
21 we object.
23 MR. SOPKIN: Whether Public Service can
24 comply with the 2% retail rate impact cap in the
25 future, given the 3% DG set-aside at this point in

220
1 time, and increased renewable energy standard to 30%.
2 This is based on the law that if a person doesn't have
3 the requisite expertise, then they do not assist the
4 trier-of-fact with regard to the issues.
6 MR. SOPKIN: May I sit down, Your Honor?
7 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You may. If I
8 have any further questions, I will be happy to speak to
9 you from the counsel table. Mr. Douglas.
11 Your Honor, I do have a, with Your Honor's indulgence,
12 a few follow-up questions to Mr. Sopkin's voir dire,
13 but I will save argument to after we do that. How
14 about that?
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: You certainly may
16 ask your questions, and then present the argument.
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CON'T)
19 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
20 Q Mr. Dauphinais, you mentioned that, in
21 addition to Appendix A, in your previously filed
22 written testimony, in this case, which is Exhibit 33,
23 that there was additional information about your
24 educational background and experience in that exhibit;
25 is that correct?
221
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. Do you have Exhibit 33 in front of
3 you?
4 A I don't have a copy in front of me.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Unless you have a
6 copy, Counsel, Mr. Dauphinais, excuse me -- Dauphinais,
7 I will try to get that straight. Behind you, I think,
8 there are all of the exhibits. And I think they are
9 numerical. You should be able to find it close to the
10 number 33. Thank you, sir.
11 All right, Mr. Douglas.
13 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
14 Q Mr. Dauphinais, do you now have Exhibit
15 33 in front of you?
16 A Yes, I do.
17 Q All right. If you would turn to -- I
18 said it's the fourth page of the exhibit, but it's
19 listed as page 2. Do you see that?
20 A Yes, yes, I do.
21 Q Does that include the information that
22 you were referring to?
23 A Yes, it does.
24 Q Okay. And can you tell me what
25 additional information about your background and

222
1 experience was contained in that Direct Testimony in
2 this case?
3 A It indicated that I have testified in the
4 past in regard to resource planning, among many other
5 issues.
6 Q Okay. And just so we can get oriented on
7 the record with those areas, I am just going to read
8 from line 13: "Since my employment with BAI, I have
9 testified before the Federal Energy Regulatory
10 Commission, FERC, and many state commissions on a wide
11 variety of issues, including but not limited to avoided
12 cost calculations, certification of public convenience
13 and necessity, fuel adjustment clauses, interruptible
14 rates, market power, market structure, prudency,
15 resource planning, standby rates, transmission losses
16 and transmission planning." Is that an accurate
17 statement?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you were asked by Mr. Sopkin about
20 three specific proceedings in which you provided
21 written testimony that he was referring to, relating to
22 resource planning issues. Do you recall talking to him
23 about that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q All right. And did you present anything

223
1 other than written testimony in those cases?
2 A I presented oral testimony. I was
3 subject to cross examination.
4 Q Okay. And, Mr. Sopkin briefly summarized
5 your testimony in those cases. But is it correct that
6 all three of those proceedings, the subject of your
7 testimony related to resource planning issues?
8 A Yes. Those specific proposals, yes.
9 Q And in addition to providing testimony in
10 those three cases, about resource planning issues, have
11 you been involved in any other cases with resource
12 planning issues?
13 A Yes, I have.
14 Q Okay. Can you tell me about that?
15 A Yes. On behalf of the Louisiana Energy
16 Users group, I participated in a stakeholder group that
17 oversaw a study of retirement -- investigating the
18 retirement of Entenergy's older units. Entenergy is a
19 proper name. It's spelled, E-n-t-e-n-e-r-g-y.
20 Entenergy is a multi-state utility in the middle south
21 portion of the country. The study was done pursuant to
22 a settlement agreement before the Louisiana Public
23 Service Commission.
24 The stakeholder group basically worked
25 with the commission staff, with representatives from

224
1 Entenergy, representatives from independent generators
2 and representatives from large industrial users, which
3 was the role I served. In that stakeholder group, we
4 went through, in detail, all of the assumptions that
5 would be utilized for that study. We reviewed the
6 initial results of that study. We provided input on
7 those results. We provided input on the report for
8 that study, and I filed comments on behalf of the
9 Louisiana Energy Users Group before the Louisiana
10 Commission in regard to that study.
11 I have also been involved in another
12 stakeholder group, involving resource planning
13 analysis. Also, I'm sorry. This involved a utility in
14 Missouri, called Ameren UE. That's spelled
15 A-m-e-r-e-n, capital U, capital E, one word. It
16 involved another study, a resource planning study that
17 was part of a Settlement Agreement, this time before
18 the Missouri Public Service Commission. It involved
19 doing an analysis to compare the benefits to Ameren UE
20 for participation in the midwest ISO, the Southwest
21 Power Pool, or nonparticipation in the regional
22 transmission organization. Once again, very detailed
23 study. We had a -- we worked through assumptions as a
24 group. That, in the group there was a -- the Missouri
25 commission staff, the Office of Public Counsel of

225
1 Missouri, Entenergy and Ameren UE representatives. And
2 we basically went through, picked an independent
3 consultant to do the study, went through all of the
4 detailed assumptions, which included going through cost
5 assumptions, and identifying possible sensitivities on
6 different resource portfolios that Ameren UE might
7 utilize going-forward. And basically, once again, I
8 was involved in the preliminary results, providing
9 comments on that, providing comments on the draft
10 report.
11 In that case, we ultimately ended up with
12 a settlement, so there was no need to present
13 testimony. There was agreement on the outcome of the
14 results of that study.
15 Q Do you consider yourself an expert in
16 resource planning?
17 A Yes, I do.
18 Q And you mentioned -- or Mr. Sopkin asked
19 you about the Strategist model that's used by Public
20 Service, and I think you mentioned that there are --
21 that's one of a number of models used in the industry.
22 Do you have familiarity with any of the other models?
23 A I am familiar with the PacifiCorp --
24 that's spelled P-a-c-i-f-i, capital C-o-r-p. It's a
25 utility with service territory in several states in the

226
1 west, including Wyoming, Oregon, California, Idaho, and
2 Utah. I may have missed a state there.
3 They have a proprietary software package
4 where they look at optimization of different
5 portfolios, and trying to pick out what portfolio works
6 best and what is the pros and cons for each of the
7 portfolios.
8 Q And were you familiar with the Strategist
9 model used by Public Service prior to your work on this
10 case?
11 A I was aware it was used by a few other
12 utilities.
13 Q Had you ever any reason to review any
14 resource plans that had used that model prior to this
15 case?
16 A I reviewed the resource plans -- well,
17 not using Strategist in particular, no. I reviewed
18 PacifiCorp's integrated resource plan on behalf of the
19 client group -- or a specific client, actually a large
20 end-use customer in the State of Utah. And I have, in
21 other work in Louisiana, have reviewed the strategic
22 resource plan of Entenergy, which they didn't use
23 Strategist. They used another method to, basically,
24 weigh the pros and cons of different resource portfolio
25 approaches.
227
1 Q And another issue that Mr. Sopkin asked
2 you about is implementation of a renewable energy
3 portfolio or Renewable Energy Standard statute. Do you
4 have experience as an expert in other matters relating
5 to that issue?
6 A Yes. While I haven't testified in regard
7 to that issue, I provided assistance to the Missouri
8 Industrial Consumers Group in the State of Missouri.
9 Many them are customers of Ameren UE, and the questions
10 are with regard to the controversy that has arisen over
11 the implementation of the rate cap that was associated
12 with the renewable portfolio standard that was passed
13 through a ballot initiative in the State of Missouri.
14 Q And when you say the "rate cap," that was
15 part of the Missouri renewable energy portfolio
16 statute. Is that something -- is that a similar
17 concept to the retail rate impact cap that we've been
18 discussing here today?
19 A Broadly, yes.
20 Q Okay. Do you have any experience in the
21 area of renewable energy technology?
22 A Only in regard to being able -- in regard
23 to understanding how to apply the cost information and
24 the capacity information, the time-of-delivery type of
25 information, very similar information to what's needed

228
1 for the transmission planning, the difference being
2 cost also comes into play.
3 Q As far as the cost of the renewable
4 energy technology, have you testified in any proceeding
5 that involved the analysis of the cost of those
6 technologies?
7 A Only in regard to -- in the Indiana case,
8 I examined the cost of the facility that was proposed
9 versus possibly other alternative sites for wind farms.
10 Q Okay. Cost in relation to resource
11 planning?
12 A Correct.
13 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I don't have
14 any other voir dire questions. I would point out that,
15 well, first of all, I believe, in the areas that
16 Mr. Sopkin identified, that Mr. Dauphinais has
17 significant experience with resource planning, as it
18 relates to -- and I should also say, that the extent to
19 which we're going into resource planning is somewhat
20 limited, and Mr. Dauphinais has far more than enough
21 experience to testify and give opinions about the
22 issues that we've been discussing all day today that
23 are the subject of this reopened hearing. He's
24 provided expert testimony in multiple proceedings
25 involving resource planning, involving renewable

229
1 technologies, and the costs of those technologies.
2 He's been involved in stakeholder proceedings involving
3 those same issues by his clients, and in implementing
4 the interpretation of renewable energy statutes. And
5 he did, in fact, in his original testimony in this
6 case, list resource planning as an area of expertise
7 and something that -- about which he provided testimony
8 in other proceedings.
9 In addition, I'm at a loss as to why
10 Mr. Sopkin is focusing on the first notice of
11 Mr. Dauphinais' written testimony. There are two, and
12 in the second notice of witness testimony, there was
13 detail about the amended RES and the 2% retail rate
14 impact cap, and all of the things that we've been
15 talking about today. And Public Service did not raise
16 any issue in its motion in limine directed at that
17 second notice, with regard to the expertise of
18 Mr. Dauphinais. But I think it's pretty clear, from
19 the testimony Mr. Dauphinais has given today, that he's
20 qualified in these areas.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Sopkin,
22 anything further?
23 MR. SOPKIN: Only, Your Honor, that I
24 specifically asked, in discovery, for all testimonies
25 Mr. Dauphinais has given, at any regulatory proceeding,

230
1 with regard to his expected witness testimony. And
2 there was listed five proceedings, two in Texas, two in
3 Indiana, and one in Louisiana. And the only cases
4 identified, I believe, during his deposition, related
5 to resource planning, were the two Indiana and
6 Louisiana.
7 Now we suddenly hear about a Missouri
8 case that I never heard of, and I think it's unfair to
9 talk about that now, when I didn't get a chance to ask
10 him about it during the deposition or in previous
11 witness testimony. That's the only case in which he's
12 alleged there is any testimony about some type of
13 renewable energy standard. I don't believe any of
14 that, of the other experience he's talked about, gets
15 into such nitty-gritty as how a RESA works, how a
16 resource plan works, how a DG set-aside works.
17 The reason I mentioned the first notice
18 of witness testimony is, as I understand Your Honor's
19 ruling, it appears to indicate that Mr. Dauphinais'
20 expected testimony, as listed in his second notice of
21 witness testimony, is somehow encompassed with the
22 description in the first notice of witness testimony.
23 While we don't believe that's the case, first of all,
24 because it did not list 3% or 2%, and, second, that's
25 the reason why we did not object, is we did not believe

231
1 he had the requisite expertise to go into the
2 nitty-gritty of renewable energy matters.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Sopkin, to
4 that last point, why, then, was this issue not raised
5 in greater detail in your second motion in limine,
6 where you did have an opportunity to examine this
7 issue, and, in fact, filed a motion in limine
8 addressing some of these issues, but not raising a
9 question with respect to his expertise?
10 MR. SOPKIN: Because we were going -- I
11 wanted to ask him what his expertise was during his
12 deposition, to find out exactly what it was. And we
13 have since done that, last Wednesday. And I don't
14 believe he's qualified, based on that deposition.
15 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, if I could
16 potentially clear up one point of apparent confusion.
17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: About the
18 discovery requests or about something else?
19 MR. DOUGLAS: About the Missouri question
20 that Mr. Sopkin raised.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Yes. Thank you.
22 MR. DOUGLAS: My understanding, based on
23 the testimony today, and since he was exploring the
24 deposition, but maybe there is just some confusion on
25 Mr. Sopkin's part, but I don't believe Mr. Dauphinais

232
1 said there was any testimony involving that renewable
2 energy statute. That was, he provided expert advice to
3 an industrial group about implementation of that
4 statute. So, there's no unfair surprise. There is no
5 testimony, and that was clear. And I don't think we
6 need that, to read it, but that issue, that's exactly
7 what Mr. Dauphinais said in his deposition; that he had
8 advised his client there was no testimony and that was
9 I believe what he testified to today.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: And I think so as
11 well.
12 MR. SOPKIN: I believe, in his
13 deposition, he mentioned Louisiana, but not Missouri,
14 but I could be wrong.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I believe that

16 Mr. Dauphinais through his testimony with respect to
17 the voir dire this morning or this afternoon has
18 evidence of sufficient background and work in the area
19 of resource planning to testify in the limited areas
20 about which he has been offered in this proceeding. So
21 the objection is overruled, and Mr. Dauphinais may
22 testify with respect to those areas.
24 BY MR. DOUGLAS:
25 Q All right. Mr. Dauphinais, you had just

233
1 expressed some opinions that are your understanding of
2 how the requirements of House Bill 10-1001 differ from
3 the previous renewable energy standard statute.
4 Do you recall our discussion on that
5 point?
6 A Yes, I do.
7 Q And in your opinion do those changes in
8 House Bill 10-1001 that you discussed impact Public
9 Service's future resource acquisitions in the San Luis
10 Valley?
11 A I believe they make those acquisitions
12 less likely.
13 Q Okay. And why do you believe that?
14 A A couple of reasons. One is that the
15 minimum requirements have been raised for renewable
16 energy for RECs for Public Service have been raised to
17 30 percent of retail electric sales in general, but,
18 more importantly, in the area of retail distributed
19 generation requirements they have effectively gone up
20 five times.
21 Before you had a solar on-site
22 requirement that was basically half of four percent of
23 20 or .4 percent of retail electric sales, and that is
24 going up to 1 1/2 percent of retail electric sales.
25 Moreover, previously the 25 percent
234
1 in-state bonus could apply to the solar in state. The
2 5 percent in-state bonus cannot apply under the new Act
3 to retail distributed generation. So effectively we
4 get almost a five time increase in the amount of RECs
5 that are needed from retail distributed generation.
6 You have those two things that have
7 increased. You have no increase in the retail rate
8 cap. So that puts down -- that puts pressure on the
9 amount of dollars that are available for renewable
10 resources.
11 And you combine that with the fact that
12 solar thermal generation with storage is an expensive
13 renewable resource, it makes it, in my opinion,
14 unlikely that we will see, for example, the three
15 250-megawatt placeholders.
16 Q And how does that affect, in your
17 opinion, how do those changes, in your opinion, affect
18 the stated need for the proposed project by Public
19 Service?
20 A One of the stated needs for the proposed
21 project was to accommodate future, I think they termed
22 it renewable resources, not just solar resources, but
23 out of the San Luis Valley area. That was at least
24 part of the basis of need.
25 As far as the San Luis Valley side, one
235
1 of the justifications and needs was to support exports
2 of renewable resources from the San Luis Valley area.
3 Q All right. You were present in the
4 courtroom when Ms. Hyde testified that, in fact, Public
5 Service can meet the minimum REC requirements of House
6 Bill 10-1001, the nondistributed generation
7 requirements, without adding any central solar
8 resources beyond the ones that are discussed in the
9 2007 resource plan as proposed to be amended through
10 2029.
11 You heard that testimony, correct?
12 A Yes, I did.
13 Q Okay. Have you reviewed the documents
14 produced by Public Service that go through its modeling
15 or forecasting of that compliance with House Bill
16 10-1001 through 2030?
17 A Yes, I have.
18 Q Do you agree with Ms. Hyde that Public
19 Service will be able to comply with the requirements of
20 that House Bill through 2029 without any additional
21 solar resources in the San Luis Valley beyond the ones
22 in the 2007 resource plan as proposed to be amended?
23 A Yes, I think she indicated there was a
24 small gap in distributed generation. So we might see a
25 little distributed generation happen, but otherwise it
236
1 is fully complied with.
2 Q Okay. Through 2029; you agree with that?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And does that, in your opinion, have any
5 impact on the likely future acquisition of additional
6 generation resources in the San Luis Valley in the
7 future?
8 A There is no pressing need for the
9 addition of renewable resources in the San Luis Valley
10 if the economics support it with the money that comes
11 from the RES under the retail rate cap, it is in line.
12 Q So taken together what is your opinion
13 about the likelihood that the three solar thermal
14 placeholder resources that have been discussed in light
15 of House Bill 10-1001 and those projections and all of
16 this information whether that likelihood has changed
17 since your prior testimony in this case in February of
18 this year?
19 A I think that likely -- that it has become
20 less likely that those resources will be pursued.
21 Q Now, you also, you mentioned some of the
22 changes in the distributed generation requirements.
23 And do you have a specific opinion about
24 whether those changes in and of themselves may affect
25 future valuable RESA dollars for other renewable
237
1 resources?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What is that opinion?
4 A The opinion is that it could adversely
5 affect. As I indicated earlier, it was a four-time,
6 over four-time increase in the amount that is needed or
7 the minimum requirement.
8 While there are some provisions in the
9 Act that provide some potential safety valves on that,
10 we have no idea at this time whether if, for example,
11 Public Service pursued those, whether those would be
12 granted into and to what degree they would be granted.
13 Q Okay. And you heard Ms. Hyde testify
14 today about those provisions, and her belief that at
15 least to some extent those provisions may reduce the
16 additional cost of the distributed generation from the
17 new statute.
18 Do you recall that testimony?
19 A Yes, I do.
20 Q Okay. Do you agree with Ms. Hyde on that
21 issue?
22 A I am sorry. I lost my focus for a
23 minute. Can you repeat the question?
24 Q On the issue of whether or not those
25 changes in the new House Bill in the way I believe she
238
1 specifically mentioned that the fair share provision
2 collection and the reduction of standard rebate may
3 affect future RESA dollars, it is her opinion that
4 those changes may increase available RES dollars in the
5 future.
6 Do you have an opinion about that?
7 A I don't. It is not clear to me how that
8 can happen since all of those mitigation measures are
9 designed to really mitigate the cost from the
10 distributed generation.
11 Q Okay. I think my question was a little
12 unclear.
13 Do you agree or disagree with Ms. Hyde's
14 testimony on that point?
15 A I disagree.
16 Q And can you explain why you disagree?
17 A The provisions that exist, those safety
18 valve provisions or tools as the way Ms. Hyde referred
19 to them, are designed, appeared to be designed
20 primarily to mitigate the cost for the RECs provided
21 through distributed generation, specifically retail
22 distributed generation. I don't see how they can be
23 used to provide additional dollars beyond just
24 neutralizing maybe the cost of retail distributed
25 generation.
239
1 Q Okay. So your opinion is that at best
2 those expenses are countered against RES relating to
3 retail distributed generation will stay the same based
4 on the implementation or potential implementation of
5 those safety valves?
6 A They would help neutralize the cost for
7 retail distributed generation.
8 Q Okay. But not provide additional RES
9 dollars in the future?
11 Q Okay. Have you done any modeling or
12 quantification of the potential impact of the changes
13 to the way retail distributed generation dollars are to
14 be collected by Public Service to look at that impact
15 in the future?
16 A No, I have not performed any quantitative
17 analysis.
18 Q All right. I want to change gears now
19 and talk about the verified application to amend the
20 2007 Resource Plan that is the other subject of this
21 reopen hearing.
22 Do you have an opinion about the impact
23 on the need for new transmission out of the San Luis
24 Valley if the Commission approves any one of the 60, 90
25 or 185 megawatt, the options set out in Public
240
1 Service's application to amend that resource plan?
2 A Yes, I do.
3 Q Okay. What are those opinions?
4 A The 60, 90, 185 megawatt generation
5 resource options represented in that application can
6 all be supported with the up-rate of the 115 KB line
7 that Public Service has proposed. It would not need to
8 be a second 230 KB transmission line into the valley to
9 support the export of those level of power from the San
10 Luis Valley.
11 Q And when you mention the up-rate to the
12 115 line, you are referring specifically to the minor
13 upgrade that is discussed by Public Service in the
14 amendment itself?
15 A Yes, the raising of towers, the number of
16 towers.
17 Q Okay. And how much additional transfer
18 capability would that provide?
19 A The company estimates 25 to 35 megawatts
20 and based on my review of the material provided in
21 discovery that appears to be reasonable.
22 Q Okay. So you agree then with Public
23 Service, and I believe Ms. Hyde testified about this
24 today, that no new transmission line is needed out of
25 the San Luis Valley to accommodate any of those three
241
1 options set forth in Public Service's application to
2 amend?
3 A That's correct.
4 MR. SOPKIN: Objection. Leading.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Could you
6 rephrase? Thank you.
7 Q You were present in the courtroom when
8 Ms. Hyde testified about whether a new line would be
9 needed to accommodate any of the three options that are
10 discussed in Public Service's application to amend its
11 2007 resource plan?
12 A Yes, I was.
13 Q Okay. And do you agree with Ms. Hyde's
14 testimony on that subject?
15 A Yes, I do.
16 Q And what is your recollection of that
17 testimony?
18 A My recollection is she indicated that the
19 60, 90, 185 megawatt levels could be supported without
20 the addition of a new transmission line out of the San
21 Luis Valley.
22 Q Okay. All right. Now, what about Public
23 Service's testimony about future resources beyond the
24 2007 Resource Plan as amended, do you have an opinion
25 about whether the proposed project is needed to
242
1 accommodate those resources or any such resources?
2 A I don't believe it is necessary to
3 accommodate the three 250-megawatt placeholders, but I
4 believe the likelihood of them has decreased based on
5 the application that was filed and other information
6 that has been discussed today in regard to the 2010
7 compliance filing assumptions and the changes to some
8 of those economic considerations that were behind those
9 assumptions.
10 Q Okay. What information leads you to that
11 opinion?
12 A There is four areas. One is in the solar
13 thermal generation facility with storage that Public
14 Service is currently pursuing there has been an
15 increase on a levelized energy cost per basis or per
16 megawatt hour basis of that project enough so that the
17 company itself has presented that to the Commission for
18 consideration on whether the 125 megawatts, never mind
19 the 2,550 megawatt original size of that project,
20 should be pursued.
21 Some of that cost increase has been
22 attributed to a loss of economy of sales, but we have
23 heard two other reasons today which I don't see how
24 could be tied to that. There are three other areas.
25 One is that natural gas price assumptions
243
1 have fallen. We have heard about that in regard to the
2 forecasts for those natural gas prices today versus
3 what was assumed for the 2010 compliance filing.
4 There has been delay in carbon
5 legislation and that has been reflected in the changes
6 to assumptions that Public Service is using. They are
7 now assuming that carbon prices do not kick in until
8 2014 rather than 2010.
9 And, lastly, the demand forecast and also
10 the energy sales forecast of Public Service have
11 continued to fall and have fallen since the 2010
12 compliance filing was put together.
13 Q All right. And we will get into some of
14 the details, but overall how do those four changed
15 circumstances affect the future acquisition of solar
16 resources in the San Luis Valley in your opinion?
17 A I believe they make them much less likely
18 than before, and they were not likely before. They are
19 more speculative than they were before. The premium
20 that needs to be paid for solar thermal generation with
21 storage over a combined cycle gas turbine generation,
22 which is what the company compared it to in the past,
23 that premium has enlarged significantly. It can no
24 longer can be characterized, in my opinion, as being
25 slightly higher.
244
1 There is also other information that I
2 have seen that suggests that the cost for wind
3 generation and for PV generation has fallen, where
4 there is not similar information suggesting the same
5 thing is happening for solar thermal generation for
6 storage.
7 MR. SOPKIN: Objection. I move to strike
8 that answer. That has nothing to do with what this
9 docket has been reopened for. He is talking about the
10 cost of the wind and the cost of PV versus the cost of
11 solar. That is totally outside of Public Service's
12 application to amend its 2007 Resource Plan.
13 The question in this case is, how does
14 that application affect the need for the project? Now
15 Mr. Dauphinais is trying to testify to his own
16 reference perhaps of other sources outside that
17 application to try to cast doubt on solar thermal.
18 If we are going to get into that, I have
19 plenty of evidence. Otherwise, that is a resource
20 planning case, Your Honor.
22 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Mr. Dauphinais'
23 notice of witness testimony included a mention of this
24 and in Your Honor's order there was one -- I can sight
25 to the order if I need to. I have it written down.
245
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Let us look at
2 paragraph 52 --
3 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay. Let us do that.
4 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: -- which
5 requires, specifically identify the subject matter
6 areas about which Mr. Dauphinais may testify other than
7 reliability, which is in paragraph 53.
8 MR. DOUGLAS: All right. I believe it is
9 also paragraph 54. Wait. I am sorry. Hang on just a
10 second. Hang on just one second.
11 Your Honor, this gets a little
12 convoluted, but in paragraph 48 this is, which I kept
13 looking at your ruling on 54, but that is with respect
14 to the testimony specific to the amendment, but
15 paragraph 48 deny the second motion in limine with
16 respect to the supplemented testimony of Mr. Dauphinais
17 and then that supplemented testimony specifically --
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I thought this
19 questioning was going to the second issue.
20 MR. DOUGLAS: Well, there is overlap,
21 Your Honor. And the economic -- I believe the
22 question, I can get back to it, went to comparative
23 cost of different technologies, and that is something
24 that was in the first motion.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Do you want to
246
1 look at footnote 13 on page 13 of decision number
2 R10-0746-I where we are quoting the specific subject
3 matters identified in the supplement.
4 MR. DOUGLAS: All right. Well, what I am
5 looking at, Your Honor, is page 3 of the notice of
6 witness testimony, the second notice.
7 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Just a minute.
8 Filed 18th of June. What page?
9 MR. DOUGLAS: Page 3. Paragraph 5(a),
10 about two-thirds of the way down, the sentence starts,
11 He will testify that all of these new RES requirements
12 coupled with the higher cost of solar thermal in
13 comparison to other renewable technologies demonstrate
14 that the three thermal placeholders that were used in
15 large part to justify the need of the project are even
16 more speculative than already established in the prior
17 hearing.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That addresses
19 part of Mr. Sopkin's objection.
20 The other portion of the objection is,
21 excuse me, the information about which at least as I
22 heard it and about which Mr. Dauphinais is testifying
23 has not to do with Public Service Company but is
24 related to some other unspecified information.
25 Mr. Sopkin, is that correct?
247
1 MR. SOPKIN: Yes, that is correct. And I
2 don't know if it is my time to respond yet.
3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I want to be sure
4 that I was clear. There are two pieces to the
5 objection, right?
6 MR. SOPKIN: Yes. It comes from
7 information outside of the application of amendment.
9 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I can ask
10 Mr. Dauphinais more foundational questions. I believe
11 it comes from a combination of information from Public
12 Service but then also information from reasonable,
13 relied upon experts in Mr. Dauphinais' field, which
14 would be a proper subject for examination in my
15 opinion.
16 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Yet another
17 unfortunate intersection.
18 Mr. Sopkin.
19 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, look at your
20 Decision Number R10-0746-I at page 12. You reiterated
21 what you stated in the June 14, 2010 e-mail you sent to
22 the parties. Specifically the second paragraph of that
23 the issue to be explored in the instant docket is the
24 impact, if any, on the need for the project in the
25 event the Commission grants the application to amend
248
1 the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan and sets the solar
2 resource acquisition level at 185 megawatts, 90
3 megawatts or at 60 megawatts. The parties may present
4 testimony on the impact on the need for the project of
5 a Commission decision that sets the amount of solar
6 resources to be acquired at one of the stated levels.
7 It was my understanding that the confines
8 of this proceeding in terms of the amendment, the
9 effect of the amended 2007 resource plan is just that
10 the effect of the application to amend the 2007
11 resource plan, not what Mr. Dauphinais has done in the
12 last couple of months about the differences between the
13 cost of different types of renewable resources. That
14 is exactly a resource planning and respondent
15 compliance plan issue that the Commission will decide
16 in future cases in which there will be lot of the
17 stakeholders arguing which renewable resources are
18 better than others.
19 Certainly in a CPC transmission line case
20 we cannot make decisions as to what resources are more
21 cost effective than other resources based on whatever
22 research Mr. Dauphinais has dug up.
23 Honestly, if he goes into this, we will
24 be required to put on a rebuttal expert to go into all
25 of the various forecasts between the cost of solar
249
1 thermal versus the cost of combined cycle gas, versus
2 the cost of the wind, et cetera, et cetera. If we want
3 to do that, that is fine. It is going to make for a
4 long couple of days.
5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas, I
6 noted that your colleague was pointing something out to
7 you.
8 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, brief
9 underscore that the second notice with respect, the
10 supplement of Mr. Dauphinasi's testimony about which
11 there was a motion in limine that was denied was
12 summarized by Your Honor in Footnote 13 of the order to
13 include the likely impact of the amended RES would be a
14 changed focus away from high cost utilities solar
15 thermal resources to lower cost renewable resources.
16 So, again, he is putting it in general
17 context on this. We are not going to be asking for
18 specific findings from the Commission on the cost of
19 different bids and specific technologies, but in
20 general there has been a lot of testimony in this case
21 about these speculative future solar thermal resources,
22 and Mr. Dauphinais believes that things have changed.
23 And this is one of the factors that plays into that and
24 he should be allowed to give that opinion.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: When I read the
250
1 supplement to the supplemental statement of proposed
2 testimony for this witness in the second notice of
3 testimony filed by Cuchara Ranch, I read D which I
4 believe is the portion to which you are referring as
5 stated in Footnote 13 on page 13 of the decision
6 R10-0746-I to be not an investigation of all of the
7 underlying factors which are the province to be more
8 appropriately addressed in resource planning dockets,
9 but rather a general statement as to his opinion that
10 the shift from higher cost, relatively higher cost to
11 relatively lower cost resources reduces the likelihood
12 of additional transfer capability needed out of the San
13 Luis Valley.
14 So the degree to which, Mr. Douglas, you
15 are investigating that question is beyond what I
16 understood would happen in this proceeding.
17 So to that extent I will sustain the
18 objection because it is delving into areas that are
19 more appropriately addressed in other proceedings.
20 MR. SOPKIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I don't believe
22 that I asked him the question that you just posed, and
23 if it is permissible, I would be happy to move there.
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I think that
25 would be an excellent question, although ill-framed on
251
1 my part.
2 Q Mr. Dauphinais, I believe you testified
3 about, in general, these economic changes and amended
4 RES and how they will, in your opinion, lead to a shift
5 from higher cost resources to lower cost renewable
6 resources in the future.
7 And my question to you is, how does your
8 opinion about that shift to lower cost resources affect
9 the need to build a transmission line to accommodate
10 additional generation in the San Luis Valley?
11 A It is a lower likelihood that solar
12 thermal generation with storage would be pursued, and
13 the San Luis Valley it is not the only place where that
14 can be, where it has been cited it might be placed as
15 generation. There is certainly the three 250-megawatt
16 placeholders the company has cited there.
17 So with even less, even lower likelihood
18 of those being pursued the need for a second
19 transmission line out of the San Luis Valley has
20 diminished for purposes of supporting exports.
21 Q And you mentioned in your prior answer
22 that the premium, I believe it was your word, in the
23 cost of solar thermal resources over natural gas
24 combined cycle resources, which is how Public Service
25 compared them, how that affects the likelihood of the
252
1 acquisition of these three 250-megawatt solar thermal
2 placeholders that we have been discussing.
3 Can you explain what you mean by that?
4 A Yes, lower natural gas prices create a
5 lower variable cost for producing energy for combined
6 cycle gas turbine generators.
7 Delayed carbon prices or lower carbon
8 prices lead to also lower variable cost for production
9 energy from combined cycle gas turbine generation.
10 So what that does is creates a greater
11 premium in that there is less cost savings provided in
12 terms of energy savings, energy production savings from
13 solar thermal generation with storage versus combined
14 cycle gas turbine generation as natural gas prices and
15 carbon prices assumptions become lower.
16 Q And how does that higher premium, as you
17 say, affect the likelihood that additional transmission
18 will be needed in the San Luis Valley to accommodate
19 future generation?
20 A It decreases the likelihood that solar
21 thermal generation with storage should be pursued
22 similar to the three 250-megawatt placeholders the
23 company has discussed previously, and that decreases
24 the likelihood that there is a need for additional
25 export capability out of San Luis Valley above that
253
1 necessary to support either the 60, 90 or 185 megawatt
2 levels and generation additions that are proposed in
3 Public Service's application to amend its 2007 Resource
4 Plan.
5 Q And you mentioned -- one of the things
6 that you mentioned specifically was the change in the
7 carbon cost assumption.
8 Have you done any quantification of the
9 effect of that change in carbon assumption on available
10 future RES dollars for renewable acquisitions?
11 A No, I have not done my own quantification
12 of that.
13 Q Do you know if Public Service did any
14 quantification on that?
15 A They did in their 2010 compliance, RES
16 compliance plan filing. They performed a sensitivity
17 study and I believe it was discussed this morning by
18 Ms. Hyde.
19 Q And have you reviewed that quantification
20 by Public Service?
21 A Yes, I have.
22 Q And do you have an opinion about what
23 that shows?
24 A That shows that even if they decide after
25 2016 to continue to draw two percent a year through the
254
1 RES, that there will be a negative balance through 2020
2 in terms of the RES balance, the rolling balance.
3 Q And have you done any quantification or
4 modeling of the impact of the change of natural gas
5 forecast that you discussed on future available RES
6 dollars?
7 A No, I have not.
8 Q Mr. Dauphinais, you have given some
9 opinions now about the effect of some changes and you
10 identified House Bill 10-1001, and then also the effect
11 of some economic changes reflected in Public Service's
12 amendment application to amend the 2007 Resource Plan,
13 and also the reduction levels that they are proposing.
14 Do you have an opinion about how overall
15 the need for additional transmission out of the San
16 Luis Valley has been affected by the combination of
17 those effects from House Bill 10-1001 proposed
18 amendment?
19 A The two changes act in concert to make it
20 less likely that there would be a need for additional
21 export capability above the 60, 90 or 185 megawatt
22 levels proposed in the application to amend the
23 resource plan.
24 Specifically, as I discussed, the change
25 to the amendment to the renewable energy standard put
255
1 pressure on such that there is likely to be fewer RES
2 dollars available, and that puts pressure on the
3 company to be even more cost effective than they are
4 right now in regard to applying those dollars, but it
5 may mean there is not enough dollars to pursue
6 additional renewable resources to some degree, and they
7 may count on higher cost resources like solar thermal
8 generation with storage.
9 You have that going on and then we know
10 on the other side from the application to amend the
11 2007 Resource Plan that you basically have a much
12 larger premium showing up for solar thermal generation
13 with storage versus combined cycle gas turbine
14 generation, much larger than originally envisioned.
15 So the combination of the two make it
16 much more unlikely that the three 250-megawatt
17 placeholders for solar thermal generation with storage
18 for San Luis Valley will actually come to be.
19 Q I am sorry. You said makes those three
20 250-megawatt placeholders far less likely?
21 A Less likely, yes.
22 Q Less likely than what?
23 A Less likely than they were before. They
24 were not likely before.
25 Q Okay. And in light of these effects that
256
1 you discussed from both House Bill 10-1001 and the
2 application to amend the 2007 Resource Plan, do you
3 have an opinion about whether constructing the proposed
4 San Luis Valley to Calumet double-circuit 30KB segment
5 of the proposed project would be prudent?
6 A My opinion is that it would not be
7 prudent to pursue that.
8 Q Why not?
9 A There is not a justification of need for
10 that level of export capability that is provided by the
11 project. There are other alternatives available that
12 provide a more phased-in approach to providing any
13 additional export capability that may become necessary
14 in the future to support exports of generation over 60,
15 90 or 185 megawatts.
16 MR. DOUGLAS: If I can have a moment,
17 Your Honor.
19 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I have nothing
20 further.
21 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Douglas,
22 before you sit down, I believe that the motion that
23 Mr. Sopkin made was a motion to strike the response.
24 And while I granted the motion, I do not believe I was
25 as clear as I should have been that the motion to
257
1 strike is granted and the response to which the
2 objection was made is granted -- I am sorry -- the
3 testimony is stricken. I just wanted to, while you are
4 still there, I just wanted to deliver that
5 pronouncement.
6 MR. DOUGLAS: I appreciate that, Your
7 Honor.
9 Now, in the identification of parties
10 that may have cross-examination for this witness the
11 Office of Consumer Counsel indicated that it might have
12 questions.
13 MR. SCHLESINGER: No questions, Your
14 Honor.
15 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Nelson, you
16 indicated that you might have some questions.
17 MR. NELSON: Yes, Your Honor.
19 BY MR. NELSON:
20 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Dauphinais.
21 A Good afternoon, Mr. Nelson.
22 Q In your testimony, if I understood it
23 correctly, it is your opinion that the passage of House
24 Bill 10-1001 makes the likelihood of solar thermal
25 resources decreased, the likelihood of new solar
258
1 thermal resources; and then, if I understood also
2 correctly, increases the need for resources that are
3 renewable but are not solar thermal, for example, wind.
4 Do I understand your testimony correctly?
5 A I don't think that is quite correct.
6 Q Okay. Let me try to unpack this a little
7 bit.
8 Your testimony was that with House Bill
9 10-1001 there is a higher renewable energy portfolio
10 standard than there was under the previous law.
11 Is that fair?
13 Q Okay. You also testified that because
14 there was a higher requirement but the cost cap was not
15 changed, your opinion was that there would be a
16 systematic shift away from what you described as higher
17 cost resources towards what you described as lower cost
18 resources.
19 Did I understand you correctly?
20 A There was a greater emphasis on being
21 cost effective.
22 Q Would you agree with me that as you
23 understand it and as you have testified today that a
24 wind resource is one of those lower cost resources as
25 you see it?
259
1 A That is a lower cost resource.
2 Q I wanted to talk to you about in a couple
3 of places in your testimony you refer to the proposed
4 project in sort of a generic sense.
5 I would like to talk to you about it in a
6 more specific sense. You recall, do you not, there are
7 three different portions of this proposed project, the
8 transmission line from the San Luis, the Calumet
9 substation -- the Calumet substation and the
10 transmission line from the Calumet substation to the
11 Comanche power plant?
12 A Yes, I recall that.
13 Q Okay. And am I correct that with respect
14 to the Calumet substation and the transmission line
15 from the Calumet substation to Comanche, would you
16 agree that the purpose of that in large part is to
17 increase the transfer capability for wind resources on
18 to the PSCo system and to meet the resource needs of
19 the Front Range in general?
20 A I think that it is a combination of wind
21 and there is possibility of solar there. It is an area
22 that has been identified that is fairly good for solar
23 as well.
24 Q Okay. Focusing on the wind part of the
25 Calumet substation and the transmission line to get
260
1 from the Calumet substation to Comanche, I would then
2 be correct that if it becomes necessary to increase the
3 wind resources on the PSCo system because of the
4 passage of House Bill 10-1001, that that makes that
5 segment even more important than it was before that new
6 law was passed?
7 A I would say that the need for export
8 capability would be a bit higher since that is
9 identified as an area where wind might be cited, yes.
10 Q Okay. So could I take it from that that
11 from a transmission planning perspective, would you
12 agree it is reasonable for the Commission to approve
13 the Calumet substation and the transmission line from
14 Calumet to Comanche to focus only on that portion of
15 that, and would you agree that it is reasonable for the
16 Commission to approve that in part in light of the
17 expanded need for wind resources due to the passage of
18 House Bill 10-1001 that we have just been talking
19 about?
20 A It may be, yes. I have not taken a
21 position on that today, but it may be.
22 Q Okay. Then I will try it this way: At
23 least you have no objections on behalf of Cuchara Ranch
24 for the construction of the Calumet substation and the
25 transmission line from that to Comanche?
261
2 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I just want to
3 put an objection on the record. I believe that is
4 beyond the scope. I don't believe Mr. Dauphinais has
5 been asked to look at this issue, which means there is
6 no foundation for it either.
7 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That's correct,
8 since his testimony was expressed to be limited only to
9 the San Luis Valley to Calumet substation.
10 MR. NELSON: The purpose for the question,
11 Your Honor, was that a couple of times during the
12 course of the presentation by Mr. Douglas he referred
13 to the "proposed project."
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I understand.
15 MR. NELSON: I am trying to clarify the
16 position as it relates to that. That was my last
17 question.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: In that event, I
19 will let you take the last answer, and thank you.
20 MR. NELSON: Thank you.
22 Mr. Dauphinais.
23 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Ms. Mandel?
24 MS. MANDEL: No questions, Your Honor.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you. Does
262
1 any other party have questions of this witness before
2 the applicants?
3 In that event, we will take an afternoon
4 break, fortuitously about ten minutes. We will be in
5 recess until four o'clock at which time someone, I
6 don't know if it was Tri-State or Public Service, but
7 whoever may cross-examine this witness.
8 (Recess taken.)
9 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Back on the
10 record after the afternoon break.
11 Mr. Dougherty.
12 MR. DOUGHERTY: Your Honor, Tri-State
13 anticipates that Public Service will most likely cover
14 any issues that we would have done with Mr. Dauphinais.
15 So we will reserve our cross-examination time until
16 after Mr. Sopkin is done, but I expect that we will
17 have few to no questions.
18 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you, sir.
19 Mr. Sopkin.
21 BY MR.SOPKIN:
22 Q Good afternoon again, Mr. Dauphinais?
23 A Good afternoon.
24 Q Mr. Dauphinais, as I understand it, you
25 have the opinion that the amended renewable energy
263
1 standard, and here we are talking about House Bill
2 10-1001 requires more emphasis on efficient and cost
3 effective acquisition of renewable resources as
4 compared to the previous RES because the amended RES
5 increased the percentage of required renewable
6 resources to 30 percent, removes any solar requirement,
7 increases the percentage of required distributed
8 generation to three percent and retains the 2 percent
9 retail rate impact cap; is that correct?
10 A It is. I would add it is also the
11 enlargement of the retail distributed generation
12 minimum requirement as well.
13 Q Okay. I thought that I said that. That
14 is okay.
15 Okay. You would agree that if the
16 Commission implements the former RES, the 20 percent,
17 RES did not disregard the issues of efficiency and cost
18 effectiveness when choosing renewable resources as part
19 of Public Service Company's resource portfolio?
20 A No, I am just saying there could be
21 increased emphasis on that.
22 Q In terms of the removal of the solar
23 requirement, would you agree that up to half of the
24 three percent distributed generation set aside can be
25 met by on-site solar facilities up to 30 megawatts,
264
1 correct?
2 A I am not so -- you described it as
3 on-site solar facilities, and so I am a little
4 confused. The Act discusses wholesale distributed
5 generation and retail distributed generation.
6 Q Okay. Why don't we do it this way: I
7 will tell you what, if you can look at Exhibit 132.
8 A Okay. That I have.
9 Q If you would turn to page 4 of that
10 document.
11 A I am there.
12 Q And on page 4 I will just skip down to
13 the capital E there. You see it says, 30 percent of
14 its retail electricity sales in Colorado for the years
15 2020 and thereafter with distributed generation
16 equaling at least 3 percent of its retail electricity
17 sales.
18 You do see that, correct?
19 A Yes, I do.
20 Q That is the new standard for, the new RES
21 standard for the year 2020, and thereafter 30 percent
22 RES standard with DG set aside at three percent of its
23 retail electricity sales, correct?
24 A Yes, with the caveat that there are other
25 provisions that better define how that distributed
265
1 generation can be made up.
2 Q Right. That.is what we are getting to.
3 A Okay.
4 Q Going down from there you see directly
5 below what we just read is Roman Numeral II A?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And it states, Of the amounts of
8 distributed generation in subparagraph C, D and E of
9 subparagraph Roman I of this paragraph C at least
10 one-half shall be derived from retail distributed
12 A Yes.
13 Q All right. And turning back to page 2 of
14 this document, at the very bottom do you see that
15 distributed renewable electric energy or distributed
16 generation means, turning to the next page, A, retail
17 distributed generation and, B, wholesale distributed
18 generation? Do you see that?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. And going down from there, there
21 is a definition of retail distributed generation, and I
22 am not going to ask you to read that.
23 Going down there is also a definition of
24 wholesale distributed generation which says, Means a
25 renewable energy resource in Colorado with a name plate
266
1 rating of 30 megawatts or less and that does not
2 qualify as retail distributed generation.
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you see that?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. And going back to the definition
7 of retail distributed generation directly above that in
8 Roman V, it starts out that it means a renewable energy
9 resource that is located on the site of a customer's
10 facilities, correct?
11 A Yes.
12 Q So now I am going to go back to my
13 original question.
14 Would you agree that up to half of the
15 three percent distributed generation set aside can be
16 met by on site -- excuse me -- let me remove the word
17 on site -- by wholesale distributed generation solar
18 facilities up to 30 megawatts?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. And even though there is a
21 30-megawatt limit, to your knowledge, there is no
22 prohibition as to how many solar 30-megawatt
23 installations can be used to meet up to half of that
24 three percent DG set aside?
25 A There is no explicit prohibition, but if
267
1 they were very, very close to one another that might
2 get some scrutiny.
3 Q But there is no prohibition to it to your
4 knowledge, correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Okay. And in terms of where a
7 30-megawatt solar PV plant might be located, do you
8 have knowledge that some of the best solar resources in
9 the state of Colorado are in the San Luis Valley?
10 A Some of the best, not the only, but some
11 of the best.
12 Q And so, to your knowledge, nothing would
13 prevent Public Service, for example, from proposing in
14 the future multiple 30-megawatt PV solar plants in the
15 San Luis Valley, correct?
16 A If the economics supported it.
17 Q In terms of obtaining solar thermal --
18 moving on to solar thermal now -- obtaining solar
19 thermal within the two percent retail rate impact cap,
20 first off, you have seen Public Service's crunching of
21 numbers with regard to RES dollars available for that,
22 correct?
23 A Yes, I have.
24 Q And you have no reason to disagree with
25 those figures, correct?
268
1 A I have no reason to disagree with them.
2 Q And you have not done your own
3 quantitative analysis regarding those RES dollars,
4 correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Now, your opinion as to how much solar
7 resources can be acquired under the 2 percent retail
8 rate impact cap of course assumes that that 2 percent
9 cap applies?
10 In other words, it is not a Section 123
11 resource, correct?
13 Q All right. And in terms of what types of
14 solar resources might qualify to be Section 123
15 resources in future, that would be up to the Commission
16 to decide, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And even aside from future parabolic
19 trough solar thermal installations, do you acknowledge
20 that there are other solar technologies that might be
21 developed in the future that could qualify to be
22 Section 123 resources, correct?
23 A That is possible, yes.
24 Q Now, let us move on to the effect of the
25 three percent distributed generation requirement.
269
1 You do acknowledge that House Bill
2 10-1001 allows a utility such as Public Service to
3 request that the Commission lower the three percent DG
4 requirement in the future, correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And so if Public Service believes that
7 the three percent DG requirement is consuming too many
8 RES dollars and thereby preventing the acquisition of
9 beneficial energy resources in the state of Colorado,
10 it can seek an order from the Commission to lower that
11 DG amount, correct?
12 A Yes, if it chooses to do that.
13 Q If that application were granted, RES
14 dollars would be freed up for that purpose?
15 A RES dollars would be freed up versus what
16 would have been consumed if that relief had not been
17 granted.
18 Q Okay. The same question with regard to
19 the standard rebate offer. You also agree that House
20 Bill 10-1001 allows a utility such as Public Service to
21 request that the Commission lower the $2 per watt
22 standard rebate offer for on-site solar DG in the
23 future, correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And the same thing if Public Service
270
1 believes that the standard rebate offer is consuming
2 too many RES dollars and that is somehow preventing the
3 acquisition of beneficial solar resources in the
4 future, it could seek an order from the Commission
5 lowering the standard rebate offer amount?
6 A Yes.
7 Q If the Commission granted that
8 application, RES dollars would be freed up?
9 A Again, relative to relief not being
10 granted.
11 Q Right. Now, you have an opinion that the
12 likely impact of the amended RES would be a changed
13 focus away from high cost utility scale solar thermal
14 resources to lower cost renewable resources such as
15 wind and solar PV, including distributed generation,
16 correct?
17 A Generally that will be the outcome of the
18 changes, yes.
19 Q And you would agree that wind, solar and
20 solar DG -- excuse me, wind, solar PV and solar DG
21 generation of resources without storage are
22 intermittent resources?
23 A Did you qualify the DG?
24 Q I said solar DG.
25 A Okay. Yes, they may be intermittent.
271
1 Q And you are aware that Public Service is
2 studying the cost of integrating intermittent resources
3 into its system, correct?
4 A It has performed some studies, and I
5 believe there is an additional wind integration study
6 underway.
7 Q Okay. Would you agree that conducting
8 such a study is a good idea?
9 A Yes, it is prudent.
10 Q And you also agree that at some point a
11 utility can reach a breaking point where it is cost
12 prohibitive to integrate more intermittent resources?
13 A It is possible to hit that point, yes.
14 Q In order to find that point you would
15 have to conduct a study of the transmission system and
16 generation resources on a or within a utility system,
17 correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you have not conducted such a study,
20 correct?
21 A I have not conducted such a study, no.
22 Q And would you agree that the cost of
23 generation is highest during peak load times, correct?
24 A I guess. I need to make a clarification.
25 Are you talking about the incremental cost for power
272
1 for utility during high load conditions?
2 Q Yes.
3 A Yes, it is higher typically during peak
4 load conditions.
5 Q So would you also agree that a resource
6 that can be dispatched during peak load times has more
7 value to a utility than one that cannot be dispatched?
8 A That is true.
9 Q Would you agree that Public Service can
10 have summer peaking needs as late as 6 p.m. in the
11 evening or later?
12 A I believe that I have seen a figure from
13 a solar integration study that Public Service performed
14 that I think suggested from 2 to 5 p.m. would be the
15 peak period.
16 Q Okay. We will come back to that.
17 Would you agree that a solar thermal plan
18 with four-hour storage could be dispatched during peak
19 times?
20 A A solar thermal, yes, it could be
21 dispatched during peak times.
22 Q Let us move into changed economic
23 circumstances.
24 You discussed a number of economic
25 circumstances that you believe make the acquisition of
273
1 solar thermal resources in the future less likely.
2 Do you recall that discussion?
3 A Yes, I do.
4 Q Now, in terms -- one of those changed
5 economic circumstances you mentioned is the decrease to
6 the natural gas price forecast.
7 Do you recall that?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And would you agree that to the extent
10 gas prices have gone down, the relative cost
11 differential on all renewable resources including wind,
12 solar, PV and solar DG go up?
13 A They all go up, yes.
14 Q Would you agree that gas prices have been
15 characterized by volatility over the last ten to twenty
16 years?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Mr. Dauphinais, moving on to the issue of
19 the delay in expected carbon legislation from 2010 to
20 2014, would you refer to Exhibit 141, please?
21 A I have it.
22 Q I believe you were asked by Mr. Douglas
23 questions about when the rolling balance turns negative
24 with regard to delayed carbon legislation.
25 So I would ask you to turn to Table 7-4.
274
1 Are you there?
2 A I am on page 7-4, yes.
3 Q And looking at column X, that has the
4 rolling balance of RES dollars under a delayed carbon
5 legislation assumption, correct?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q If you look at that column it shows the
8 balance turning positive in the year 2015, correct?
9 A Yes. I don't believe my testimony was on
10 the balance last time.
11 Q But the balance increases there through
12 2020 to the amount of $285 million, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Positive balance, correct?
15 A Correct.
16 Q Thank you. One of the issues you
17 discussed with regard to solar thermal is how the cost
18 of solar thermal relates to a combined cycle natural
19 gas unit.
20 Do you recall that?
21 A Yes, I do.
22 Q Do combined cycle natural gas units omit
23 carbon?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Thanks.
275
1 You do believe that some kind of carbon
2 legislation cap and trade or some type of carbon types
3 is more likely than not to occur in the next ten years;
4 isn't that true?
5 A Yes, I agree with that.
6 MR. SOPKIN: Your Honor, may I approach.
8 MR. SOPKIN: I have one question on this
9 document. It is Colorado Statute Section 40-2-123. I
10 would ask that administrative notice be taken of it.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: That will be
12 done. Exhibit 143 is admitted.
13 (Whereupon Exhibit No. 143 admitted.)
14 Q Mr. Dauphinais, if you turn your

15 attention to Exhibit 143.
16 A Yes, I have it.
17 Q And would you please read the first
18 sentence of Section 1B, please?
19 A The Commission may give consideration to
20 the likelihood of new environmental regulation and the
21 risk of higher future cost associated with the emission
22 of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide when it
23 considers utility proposals to acquire resources.
24 Q Thank you. That is the only question
25 that I have about that document.
276
1 So would you agree that the Commission
2 can decide in future resource planning cases that solar
3 thermal with storage is in part justified by the risk
4 of higher future cost from carbon legislation? Would
5 you agree with that?
6 A It is possible. I think it becomes less
7 likely, especially if the 125-megawatt facility before
8 the Commission right now is pursued as a 123 resource.
9 Q I will ask you this: If carbon
10 legislation is enacted by 2014 as is currently expected
11 by Public Service that requires an abrupt decrease in
12 power plant carbon emissions, would you agree that
13 Public Service would need to increase its plan of
14 acquisition of renewable resources?
15 A Your question had an assumption in it
16 that I think is hypothetical.
17 Q It is hypothetical.
18 A The hypothetical is that it is not just
19 that there is a price for carbon, but there is a
20 requirement for Public Service to dramatically reduce
21 its carbon output.
22 Q That's right.
23 A With that caveat -- I guess, can you
24 repeat the question and I will answer it with that
25 caveat?
277
1 Q If carbon legislation is enacted by 2014
2 that requires an abrupt decrease in power plant carbon
3 emissions, would you agree that Public Service will
4 need to increase its planned acquisition of renewable
5 resources?
6 MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I object as
7 vague, unspecific hypothetical. I don't know what we
8 are talking about when we say legislation that would
9 require a dramatic decrease of carbon emissions. I am
10 not sure what that means.
11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Sopkin.
12 MR. SOPKIN: Well, Your Honor, it was
13 answered during the deposition.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I am sure during
15 the deposition you-all had reached some agreement as to
16 what those terms mean, but I will sustain the
17 objection. The question is vague.
18 Q Okay. I will ask it this way: If carbon
19 legislation is enacted that requires Public Service to
20 increase its planned acquisition of renewable
21 resources, would you agree that one of the ways to plan
22 for acquisition of renewable resources is to build
23 transmission to locations where the best renewable
24 resources are located?
25 A If there is a sudden need for that, but
278
1 to speculate on that need being there, build
2 transmission to meet the speculated need, that would
3 not be reasonable.
4 Q But you do agree that Public Service
5 should plan for some type of carbon legislation within
6 the next ten years, correct?
7 A Plan for it, yes. That does not mean
8 that you are going to necessarily implement all of the
9 different possible outcomes, because we don't know what
10 the exact outcome is. We know a range of outcomes.
11 Q I believe you testified earlier today in
12 response to Mr. Douglas' questions that because the 60
13 megawatt, 90 megawatt or 185 megawatt options that are
14 before the Commission in the application of amendment
15 2007 Resource Plan case, that those options would be
16 supported by or at least the 185-megawatt option would
17 be supported by the raising of lines in the San Luis
18 Valley, and because of that you testified that no
19 second transmission line into the valley is needed in
20 your opinion, correct?
21 A I may have dropped 230KB, and I meant to
22 make it clear no second 230KB transmission line is
23 needed into the valley.
24 Q Okay. That is because you still have the
25 opinion that the only need shown by the applicant in
279
1 this case relates to the 2007 resource planning case,
2 correct?
3 A As would be amended by the application to
4 amend the plan, that's correct.
5 Q So the same opinion you had before that
6 if there is any overbuild, it would need to be a very
7 slight amount of overbuild remains for you, correct?
8 A Generally, yes.
9 Q And so if the Commission approved 60
10 megawatts and that does not require any additional
11 construction of transmission line in the San Luis
12 Valley, would you say a line is not needed at all,
13 correct?
14 A Yes, it would not be needed to support
15 exports from the valley.
16 MR. SOPKIN: Okay. May I have one
17 moment, Your Honor?
19 MR. SOPKIN: No further questions.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Mr. Dougherty.
21 MR. DOUGHERTY: Tri-State has no questions
22 for this witness.
24 MR. DOUGLAS: I have no further
25 questions, Your Honor.
280
1 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I would like to
2 thank you very much, sir, for your testimony today. It
3 has been quite helpful. You are excused. I ask that
4 you leave the marked exhibits at the witness area.
5 Thank you. Thank you, sir, very much.
6 I believe that the next witness that we
7 have is not available until Friday is my understanding,
8 correct?
9 MR. DOUGLAS: That's correct, Your Honor.
10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: What I ask of
11 Public Service and Tri-State is that, you are getting
12 dailies I believe with respect to this transcript,
13 could you let me and the parties, the parties know by
14 noon on Wednesday or so, by e-mail is fine, whether you
15 intend to offer a rebuttal witness as to the testimony
16 of Mr. Dauphinais. And that is all that you need to
17 do. I don't think that you need to identify the
18 witness, although you may, if you wish to. Just to let
19 people know so we can get some sense of what we are
20 looking at for the remainder of the hearing.
21 MR. SOPKIN: Yes, Your Honor.
23 Anything from -- anything else from anyone?
24 MR. FLANAGAN: To prove that there is a
25 viewing audience out there on the webcast, we have
281
1 received a number of inquiries and I wanted to revisit
2 with you very briefly the situation with the Huerfano
3 County Commissioners. A number of people from the
4 Valley have contacted the Commission and asked about
5 filing written comments and have been told not to do
6 so, that they would not be part of the record and would
7 not be considered.
8 First, I think that you recognized this
9 morning that the letter that you said would be
10 considered for what it is worth from the Huerfano
11 County Commissioners. One of the three signatories to
12 that letter did testify.
13 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: He did, yes.
14 MR. FLANAGAN: He testified as a
15 representative of the Huerfano County Commissioners and
16 said we are okay with the northern route but not the
17 southern route because there were a lot of people from
18 the Majors Ranch. You recall all of that. But that
19 was the thrust of the testimony at that hearing where
20 he was subject to cross-examination and now the same
21 witness is one of three signatories on a letter of June
22 16, 2010 that, as I think you indicated, is not part of
23 the official record but --
24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: It is not part of
25 the evidentiary record. It is part of the
282
1 administrative record.
2 MR. FLANAGAN: We are certainly in favor
3 of the Commission getting as much information as they
4 can, but there are a number of people who have
5 contacted us from the Valley who would like to be
6 treated similarly to Huerfano County Commissioners and
7 to make written comments.
8 You might recall, and this has been a big
9 issue down there with letters to the editor, newspaper
10 articles, the gubernatorial candidates have discussed
11 this in their discussions down there, and have received
12 questions and have had to answer inquiries, and I guess
13 we would like --
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: If I may, let me
15 back up and do a quick rewind.
16 Let me just say that I presume your
17 request is that folks who wish to do so be given an
18 opportunity to submit written comments.
19 MR. FLANAGAN: Yes, Your Honor.
20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Excellent. Let
21 me start by saying that after the evidentiary hearing
22 was held in February there were inquiries made of the
23 Commission as to whether or not additional letters of
24 support or nonsupport could be received and considered.
25 My understanding is the response was
283
1 because the evidentiary record is closed and no one
2 would have an opportunity, no party would have an
3 opportunity to review those letters and make statements
4 about them in testimony, those letters would not be
5 considered by the Commission.
6 We have now a different circumstance than
7 was true in March or April when those inquiries were
8 received. Now we have an evidentiary record which is
9 reopened. We have parties who, if they wish to do so,
10 may review letters received by the Commission and may
11 choose to give testimony in response to those letters.
12 This is the same opportunity that folks were given in
13 the February hearing.
14 So insofar as I understand the situation,
15 so long as a letter, written correspondence is
16 received, let us set a time so folks will have a
17 reasonable opportunity to look at that correspondence
18 before the commencement of the hearing on Friday
19 morning. So long as correspondence is received by the
20 Commission by the close of business on Wednesday, which
21 would be the 28th of this month, all parties then,
22 because those are posted on the Commission's website
23 under this docket, would have an opportunity to review
24 that correspondence and could, if they wished to do so,
25 make statements with respect to that correspondence,
284
1 that will be considered as other statements to, excuse
2 me, as other letters received by the Commission that
3 are considered in the normal course. They will still
4 not be part of the evidentiary record in this case, but
5 the Commission does look at them and does give them,
6 that correspondence, some consideration.
7 What that is I am not in a position to
8 articulate, but the Commission does read those, all the
9 letters that are received, therefore, that is my
10 statement with respect to that.
11 Any correspondence received will get the
12 same consideration as any other correspondence that has
13 been received, and the Huerfano County Commissioner
14 letter, the two letters, one in March and June, to the
15 extent that they were received after the close of the
16 evidentiary record would have received no consideration
17 from the Commission because no party would have had an
18 opportunity to respond to that correspondence.
19 Now it is in this other category simply
20 because the evidentiary record has been reopened. Is
21 that of any assistance?
22 MR. FLANAGAN: I appreciate the
23 clarification. I think there will be a few more
24 letters.
25 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Somehow from the
285
1 tenure of your discussion I expect that there be. Just
2 bear in mind that we can only get so many e-mails at a
3 time. So let us not crash the server.
4 So aside from that, aside from my
5 probably inappropriate remark, does that help?
6 MR. FLANAGAN: Yes.
8 Also, I understood Mr. Bode of the
9 Commission Staff made an appearance after we came in
10 from the afternoon break and indicated that the webcast
11 was not on.
12 I want to apologize to anyone who may
13 have attempted to access the webcast. The light did
14 not come on. There is a camera light that did not come
15 on, but the control panel showed that the webcast was
16 on. I did not know that we were not broadcasting. So
17 my apologies to everyone out there who may have been
18 inconvenienced by that.
19 So with those matters, anything else from
20 any of the parties?
21 Mr. Nelson.
22 MR. NELSON: Just a procedural question.
23 I was curious, depending on the response that Public
24 Service Company and Tri-State make with respect to
25 rebuttal witnesses, I wondered if there was any chance
286
1 that the hearing start time on Friday might be adjusted
2 or if that is set in stone? I am only asking because I
3 am out of the state on Friday and Mr. Davidson will be
4 covering for me. I wanted to make sure whether he
5 should watch for a potential change in the start time.
6 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I wish I could
7 say that is the case. I am going to hold to 8:00
8 because I just want to be 100 percent sure that we get
9 through this hearing in the combined time that is left,
10 which is Friday starting at 8:00 and Saturday starting
11 at 9:00.
12 MR. NELSON: Very good. I appreciate
13 that clarification.
14 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: I too would like
15 to make that later time. I don't see it in the cards.
16 Anything else from any of the parties?
17 Thank you all very much. We are in
18 recess until 8 a.m. on Friday. I will look for the
19 e-mail from Tri-State and Public Service.
20 Thank you all very much.
21 (The hearing adjourned at 4:39 p.m., July
22 26, 2010.)
23
24
25
287
1
2 CERTIFICATION
3 STATE OF COLORADO )
4 CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER )
6 We, Michele Koss, James Midyett and Harriet
7 Weisenthal, do hereby certify that we were present and
8 reported in stenotype the proceedings in the foregoing
9 matter; that we thereafter reduced our stenotype notes
10 to typewritten form, with the aid of a computer,
11 composing the foregoing transcript; further, that the
12 foregoing official transcript is a full and accurate
13 record of the proceedings in this matter held at
14 Denver, Colorado on July 26, 2010.
15 FILED at Denver, Colorado _________________.
16
17 __________________________
Michele Koss
18
19
20 ___________________________
Harriet Weisenthal
21
22
23
24 ___________________________
James Midyett
25

CPUC Jul 26 Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CPUC Jul 26 Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

4 DOCKET NO. 09A-324E VOLUME 9

6 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TRI-STATE

12 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE

17 PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in

18 interest, the above-entitled matter came on for hearing

19 before MANA L. JENNINGS-FADER, Administrative Law Judge

20 of the Public Utilities Commission, on July 26, 2010;

21 said proceedings having been reported in shorthand by

22 James L. Midyett, Michele Koss, and Harriet S.

23 Weisenthal, Certified Shorthand Reporters.

24 WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were

2 (AS NOTED OF RECORD.)

12 NUMBER MARKED ADMITTED

13 Exhibit No. 132 3 16

2 (Whereupon, Exhibit Nos.

3 132 through 135, 135 A and 136 marked for

5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning,

7 This is a continuation of the hearing in

8 Dockets No. 0A-324-E, and Docket No. 09A-325E -- I'm

9 not going to read the titles, they are previously read

10 numerous times into the record.

11 This is continuation of the hearing and a

12 reopened evidentiary hearing held pursuant to Decision

14 My name is it Mana Jennings-Fader. I'm

15 the Administrative Law Judge assigned by the Commission

16 to hear this case.

17 And I would like to begin this morning by

18 taking appearances beginning with the applicants.

19 MR. DOUGHERTY: Good morning, Your Honor.

20 Tom Dougherty on behalf of Tri-State

21 Generation & Transmission Association.

22 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning.

23 MR. SOPKIN: Good morning, Your Honor.

24 Greg Sopkin on behalf of Public Service

2 MR. McGANN: Good morning.

3 David McGann on behalf of Public Service

5 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you and

7 MR. SANTISI: Good morning, Your Honor.

8 Michael Santisi, Assistant Attorney

9 General, appearing on behalf of staff of the PUC.

10 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you and

12 MR. SCHLESINGER: Good morning.

13 Assistant Attorney General Jake

14 Schlesinger, appearing on behalf of the Office of

15 Consumer Counsel. And with me today is First Assistant

16 Attorney General Stephen Southwick, as well.

17 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning.

18 MR. FLANAGAN: Top of the morning to you

20 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Top of the

22 MR. FLANAGAN: Tim Flanagan along with

23 Matt Douglas and Tim Macdonald for Trinchera.

24 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Thank you.

25 Any other counsel.

2 behalf of Pole Canyon.

3 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning.

4 MS. MANDELL: Good morning, Your Honor.

5 Victoria Mandell on behalf of Western

6 Resource Advocates. And I have with me today Kristin

7 Charipar -- and I'll get you that spelling in a second.

8 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Other counsel

10 MS. HICKEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

11 A.L.J. JENNINGS-FADER: Good morning.