Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Founded in 1852 by Sidney Davy Miller
SHERRI A. WELLMAN
TEL (517) 483-4954FAX (517) 374-6304E-MAIL [email protected]
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.One Michigan Avenue, Suite 900
Lansing, Michigan 48933 TEL (517) 487-2070 FAX (517) 374-6304
www.millercanfield.com
MICHIGAN: Ann Arbor Detroit " Grand Rapids
Kalamazoo " Lansing " Troy
FLORIDA: Tampa
ILLINOIS: Chicago
NEW YORK: New York
OHIO: Cincinnati
CANADA: Windsor
CHINA: Shanghai
MEXICO: Monterrey
POLAND: Gdynia
Warsaw " "&%$(#'
July 31, 2019
Ms. Barbara Kunkel Acting Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 W. Saginaw Highway, 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48917
Re: Northern States Power Company Case No. U-20599
Dear Ms. Kunkel:
Enclosed for electronic filing in the above captioned case are Northern States Power Company’s Application, Letter of Transmittal, Motion for Protective Order and Notice of Hearing on the Motion. Also enclosed is the public version of the supporting Testimony and Exhibit of Deborah E. Erwin, together with the Appearance of Sherri A. Wellman.
If you should have any questions, please kindly advise.
Very truly yours,
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.
By: Sherri A. Wellman
Enclosure(s) cc: Mara K. Ascheman
Deborah E. Erwin Karl Hoesly
Fkikvcnn{!ukipgf!d{<!Ujgttk!
Ygnnocp
FP<!EP!?!Ujgttk!Ygnnocp!gockn!?!
ygnnocpuBoknngtecphkgnf/eqo!E!?
!CF!Q!?!Oknngt!Ecphkgnf
Fcvg<!312;/18/42!25<63<65!.15(11(
Ujgttk!
Ygnnocp
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
*****
In the matter of the application of ) NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, )a Wisconsin corporation, for approval of its )integrated resource plan under MCL 460.6t )and for other relief. )
Case No. U-20599
APPLICATION
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Xcel Energy, Inc. (“NSP-W” or the “Company”), respectfully requests the Michigan Public
Service Commission (“MPSC” or “Commission”) approve the Company’s Integrated Resource
Plan (“IRP”) pursuant to Section 6t of 2016 PA 341, MCL 460.6t (“Act 341). In support of this
Application, NSP-W respectfully represents to the Commission as follows:
I. Introduction
1. NSP-W is a public utility organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with
principal offices located in Eau Claire, Wisconsin and Ironwood, Michigan. NSP-W is authorized
to do business in the State of Michigan.
2. NSP-W is engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale
of electricity in two counties in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and twenty-nine counties in
Wisconsin. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, NSP-W provides electric service to approximately
9,000 retail customers. NSP-W is also a public utility in the State of Wisconsin, subject to the
jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
2
3. NSP-W and its sister company, Northern States Power Company – Minnesota
(“NSP-M” and together the “NSP Companies”) plan, build and operate a single integrated electric
and production system, which is known as the NSP System. The NSP Companies jointly conduct
resource planning for the five-state Upper Midwest system served by the two companies, which
includes service territory in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan.1
NSP-W and NSP-M together serve over 1.8 million electric customers in the NSP service
territories.
4. On December 21, 2016, in Case Nos. U-15896 and U-18461 the Commission
issued its Order approving filing instructions for IRPs and establishing the application deadline
filing schedule. On February 7, 2019, the Commission issued an order granting NSP-W’s request
to file its IRP on July 31, 2019.
5. NSP-M is subject to an IRP filing requirement in Minnesota, and the IRP will also
be reviewed by the commissions in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. NSP-M
submitted this same IRP filing to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“MPUC”) on July 1,
2019, for its review. Therefore, NSP-W files this single total NSP System IRP, which covers all of
NSP-W’s and NSP-M’s customers on a multistate basis consistent with MCL 460.6t(4), which
states in relevant part “[a]n electric utility providing electric tariff service to customers both in this
state and in at least 1 other state may design its integrated resource plan to cover all its customers
on that multistate basis.”
1 NSP-W’s total source of electric power supply is incorporated into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approved Interchange Agreement (“I/A”). Under the I/A, NSP-W and NSP-M coordinate in the development and operation of their generation and transmission facilities as an integrated system (“NSP System” or “NSP” or “System”). The I/A is designed to establish the charges for each company to the other for the sales of power and energy between the companies and for transmission service provided to each, by the other. Each company then shares in system generation and transmission costs by billing each other on an actual basis. Since the 1980s, the MPSC has reviewed and approved the I/A as NSP-W’s total source of electric power supply.
3
II. Overview of IRP
6. Pursuant to MCL 460.6t(4), “If an electric utility has filed a multistate integrated
resource plan that includes its service area in this state with the relevant utility regulatory
commission in another state in which it provides tariff service to retail customers, the commission
shall accept that resource plan filing for filing purposes in this state.” MCL 460.6t(8) provides that
the Commission shall approve a proposed IRP if the Commission determines that the IRP
represents the most reasonable and prudent means of meeting the electric utility’s energy and
capacity needs.
7. As a multi-state IRP, the Company’s IRP meets the statutory requirements for an
IRP filed before the Commission. The Company’s testimony and exhibit, which accompany this
application, establish that the Company’s plan represents “the most reasonable and prudent means
of meeting the electric utility’s energy and capacity needs.”
8. The development of the NSP Companies’ 2020-2034 Resource Plan is the product
of a stakeholder process involving multiple public workshops conducted in Minnesota,
independent expert analysis, and information sharing. The IRP was also designed to support the
Company’s goal of reducing carbon emissions 80 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2030, and
continue progress toward its ultimate vision of 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2050. At the
same time, this IRP ensures the same level of reliability our customers have enjoyed for decades.
The key components of the 2019 IRP include:
" Extend the Monticello nuclear plant license from 2030 to 2040, and operate both
Prairie Island (“PI”) nuclear units through the end of their current licenses (PI Unit
1 to 2033 and PI Unit 2 to 2034),
" Retire the NSP Companies’ last two coal units early: the King plant in 2028 (nine
years early) and Sherco 3 in 2030 (ten years early);
4
" Continue the plan to retire Sherco 1 and 2 in 2026 and 2023, respectively, and
commit to offering Sherco 2 into MISO on a seasonal basis until its retirement,
" Acquire and operate the 760 megawatt (“MW”) Mankato Energy Center and build,
own and operate an approximately 800 MW Sherco Combined Cycle to satisfy
capacity and operational need created by coal closures,
" Acquire 4,000 MW of utility-scale solar generation between 2025 and 2034,
" Add approximately 1,200 MW of cumulative wind by 2034 as part of a “no going
back” strategy, replacing wind scheduled to retire during that period.
" Starting in 2031, add approximately 1,700 MW of cumulative firm dispatchable
resources by 2034,
" Energy savings achieved through energy efficiency programs.
The IRP is sponsored as Exhibit A-1 (DEE-1).
9. With this proposed IRP, the Company believes it can keep annual cost growth at or
below the rate of inflation. This is accomplished by deferring resource additions until later in the
plan, making use of existing assets on its system, and through Demand Side Management
activities. Additionally, the Company foresees that technological improvements will continue to
drive the costs of renewables down.
III. Procedural Process
10. While the possibility the IRP may be modified through the MPUC process is
foreseeable, the timing is not. Michigan law establishes a 300 day review period for the IRP,
however, the MPUC IRP process does not contemplate a specific time period for review. Past IRP
review processes in Minnesota have varied significantly in length, and based on recent history,
NSP-W anticipates the MPUC process is likely to take materially longer than Michigan’s 300 day
process contemplates. The uncertainty regarding the length of time for MPUC’s review means that
5
it is possible the Company’s multi-state IRP preferred plan could be modified after the Michigan
Commission has concluded its review, and the MPUC could subsequently approve an IRP that is
different than what is being filed today. NSP-W notes the Michigan IRP statute provides for
amendment of an approved IRP filing in MCL 460.6t(19), and that such amendment sets forth the
Commission’s timeline for review under MCL 460.6t(9).
11. NSP-W requests that the Commission issue an order after its 300 day review
approving the plan as filed and directing NSP-W to incorporate any additional changes, if any,
made through the MPUC IRP process within 30 days of filing such changes with the MPUC. If the
MPSC approves NSP-W’s IRP filing, and no changes are made through the Minnesota IRP
process, no further action would be needed. If changes are made through the Minnesota IRP
process, NSP-W would then be subject to MCL 460.6t(19), which would trigger the process set
forth under MCL 460.6t(9).
IV. Testimony and Exhibit and Other Matters
12. Concurrently with this Application, NSP-W is filing the direct testimony and
exhibit of Deborah E. Erwin in support of its IRP.
13. In addition to the issues described above, it is possible that other pending or to-be-
filed proceedings or other events may have impacts on the Company’s requests in this proceeding.
These impacts will be evaluated for materiality and may need to be considered in the results of this
proceeding.
14. All portions of the IRP are integrally part of the NSP Companies’ IRP. Since the
NSP Companies’ IRP is a fully integrated proposal, modifications to or a rejection of a position
made in the plan may impact the plan’s viability and the Company’s willingness to execute on the
remaining portion of the plan not modified or rejected. As such, the Company reserves the right to
abandon or amend its plan if the Commission rejects or modifies any of the Company’s proposals
6
presented in this IRP, and as subsequently modified by the NSP Companies as described above.
15. As required in the Commission’s IRP filing requirements approved in Case No. U-
15896 et al., the Company has included a Letter of Transmittal as Attachment A to this
Application. The Company’s Letter of Transmittal expresses NSP-W’s commitment to the NSP
Companies’ preferred resource plan and resource plan acquisition strategy, and has been signed by
an officer of the Company who has authority to commit the Company to the resource acquisition
strategy acknowledging that the NSP Companies reserve the right to make changes to their
resource acquisition strategies as appropriate due to changing circumstances.
WHEREFORE, Northern States Power Company respectfully requests that the Commission
issue an order:
A. Finding that the NSP Companies’ Integrated Resource Plan as supported by its
testimony and exhibit meet the applicable requirements of MCL 460.6 and represents the most
reasonable and prudent means of meeting the electric utility’s energy and capacity needs.
B. Granting such other and additional relief as set forth in this Application and
otherwise, as shall be lawful and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A WISCONSIN CORPORATION
Dated: July 31, 2019 By: Its Attorney Sherri A. Wellman (P38989) MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC
One Michigan Avenue, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4954
Attorney for Northern States Power Company
Fkikvcnn{!ukipgf!d{<!Ujgttk!Ygnnocp
FP<!EP!?!Ujgttk!Ygnnocp!gockn!?!
ygnnocpuBoknngtecphkgnf/eqo!E!?!
CF!Q!?!Oknngt!Ecphkgnf
Fcvg<!312;/18/42!25<64<35!.15(11(
Ujgttk!
Ygnnocp
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
* * * *
In the matter of the application of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, for approval of its integrated resource plan pursuant to MCL 460.6t and for other relief.
) ) Case No. U-20599 ) ) )
MOTION OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY-WISCONSIN
FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation (“NSP-W” or the
“Company”), by its attorneys, pursuant to Rule 432 of the Michigan Administrative Hearing
System’s Administrative Hearing Rules, R 792.10432, and MCR 2.302(C)(8), respectfully
requests entry of a Protective Order to govern the release, use, and disclosure of confidential
information, in any matter or form, in this proceeding. In support of its Motion, NSP-W states as
follows:
1. NSP-W is a public service corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Wisconsin with principal offices located in Eau Claire, Wisconsin and Ironwood, Michigan.
NSP-W is authorized to do business in the State of Michigan.
2. NSP-W is engaged, in part, in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale
of electric energy in two counties in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and twenty-nine counties
in Wisconsin.
2
3. NSP-W requests a Protective Order to protect confidential information identified
in its direct case as well as certain discovery responses to be identified by NSP-W. Although the
Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC” or “Commission”) rules do not expressly
address the issuance of protective orders, Rule 403(1) of the Michigan Administrative Hearing
System’s Administrative Hearing Rules, R 792.10403, states that “[t]hese rules govern practice
and procedure in all proceedings before the commission, except as otherwise provided by statute
or these rules. In areas not addressed by these rules, the presiding officer may rely on
appropriate provisions of the currently effective Michigan court rules.” MCR 2.302(C)(8) states:
“On motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and on reasonable notice and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may issue any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following orders:
(8) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;”
Also, Section 80 of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act specifically provides that a
presiding officer may “[r]egulate the course of the hearings…” MCL 24.280.
4. The appropriateness of the issuance of protective orders in Commission
proceedings for documents which are confidential, proprietary, or involve trade secrets is well
established. For example, protective orders have been issued in Case Nos. U-9322 and U-9611
(July 18, 1990), U-10335 (Nov. 29, 1993), U-10491 and U-10492 (July 19, 1992), U-13221
(March 20, 2002), U-14040 (May 11, 2004), U-15988 (August 3, 2009), U-16166 (July 23,
2010), U-16417 (August 5, 2011), U-17672 (November 19, 2014), and U-18148 (November 23,
2016). In its Opinion and Order dated June 30, 1994, Case No. U-10282, the Commission
discussed the standards that it applies when considering whether to issue a protective order. The
3
Commission stated that before it will enter a protective order, the moving party must show “(1)
that the information at issue is a trade secret or otherwise confidential, and (2) that disclosure
would work a clearly defined and serious injury.”
5. NSP-W represents that public disclosure of the Protected Materials would result
in serious injury, and/or public disclosure would be inconsistent with contractual terms, and/or
disclosure of the information is considered to be proprietary, a trade secret, or commercially
sensitive.
6. NSP-W represents that the Protected Materials are not in the public domain.
Further, NSP-W avers that the confidential information it seeks to protect herein has been treated
as confidential in the jurisdictions in which a majority of its business is conducted (Wisconsin)
as well as in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota.
7. The proposed Protective Order (Exhibit A hereto) is modeled after other MPSC
orders which protected information. The proposed Protective Order identifies the documentation
in paragraph 2 as “Protected Material” and provides that any document filed with the
Commission that contains Protected Material shall be placed in a sealed envelope with a copy of
the Protective Order attached and maintained in the Commission’s files. The proposed Order
prohibits distribution or dissemination of the protected documentation by MPSC Staff (“Staff”)
or any properly admitted party except according to the terms of the Protective Order. Further,
the proposed Order dictates the use of the documentation in the discovery and litigation phases
of this case, and requires that NSP-W be given notice of any Freedom of Information Act request
filed with the Commission (or Attorney General’s (“AG”) office) seeking access to the
documents. Such notice must be given at least five (5) business days prior to the MPSC, Staff or
4
AG, responding to the request so as to provide NSP-W with an opportunity to take whatever
legal actions it deems appropriate to protect the documents from disclosure.
8. The proposed Protective Order will not hinder the Commission’s, the
Administrative Law Judge’s, Staff’s or any properly admitted party’s review of the Application,
testimony and exhibits or discovery responses in MPSC Case No. U-20599, because all will
continue to have full access to the confidential information.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, NSP-W respectfully requests the
Commission to grant this Motion and enter the proposed Protective Order, attached as Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY-WISCONSIN
Dated: July 31, 2019 By: Its Attorney Sherri A. Wellman (P38989) MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK and STONE, P.L.C. One Michigan Avenue, Suite 900 Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 483-4954
Attorney for Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin
Exhibit A
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
* * * *
In the matter of the application of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, for approval of its integrated resource plan pursuant to MCL 460.6t and for other relief.
) ) Case No. U-20599 ) ) )
PROTECTIVE ORDER
This Protective Order governs the use and disposition of Protected Material that
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation (“Applicant”), or any other Party
discloses to another Party during the course of this proceeding. The Applicant or other Party
disclosing Protected Material is referred to as the “Disclosing Party”; the recipient is the
“Receiving Party” (defined further below). The intent of this Protective Order is to protect non-
public, confidential information and materials so designated by the Applicant or by any other
party, which information and materials contain confidential, proprietary, or commercially
sensitive information. This Protective Order defines “Protected Material” and describes the
manner in which Protected Material is to be identified and treated. Accordingly, it is ordered:
I. “Protected Material” and Other Definitions
A. For the purposes of this Protective Order, “Protected Material” consists of trade
secrets or confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information provided in Disclosing
Party’s discovery or audit responses, any witness’ related exhibit and testimony, and any
arguments of counsel describing or relying upon the Protected Material. Subject to challenge
2
under Paragraph IV.A, Protected Material shall consist of non-public confidential information and
materials including, but not limited to, the following information disclosed during the course of
this case if it is marked as required by this Protective Order:
1. Trade secrets or confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information provided in response to discovery, in response to an order issued by the presiding hearing officer or the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC” or the “Commission”), in testimony or exhibits filed later in this case, or in arguments of counsel;
2. To the extent permitted, information obtained under license from a third-party licensor, to which the Disclosing Party or witnesses engaged by the Disclosing Party is a licensee, that is subject to any confidentiality or non-transferability clause. This information includes reports; analyses; models (including related inputs and outputs); trade secrets; and confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information that the Disclosing Party or one of its witnesses receives as a licensee and is authorized by the third- party licensor to disclose consistent with the terms and conditions of this Protective Order; and
3. Information that could identify the bidders and bids, including the winning bid, in a competitive solicitation for a power purchase agreement or in a competitively bid engineering, procurement, or construction contract at any stage of the selection process (i.e., before the Disclosing Party has entered into a power purchase agreement or selected a contractor).
4. Information that is protected as confidential in other jurisdictions that Applicant provides utility service.
B. The information subject to this Protective Order does not include:
1. Information that is or has become available to the public through no fault of the Receiving Party or Reviewing Representative and no breach of this Protective Order, or information that is otherwise lawfully known by the Receiving Party without any obligation to hold it in confidence;
2. Information received from a third party free to disclose the information without restriction;
3
3. Information that is approved for release by written authorization of the Disclosing Party, but only to the extent of the authorization;
4. Information that is required by law or regulation to be disclosed, but only to the extent of the required disclosure; or
5. Information that is disclosed in response to a valid, non-appealable order of a court of competent jurisdiction or governmental body, but only to the extent the order requires.
C. “Party” refers to the Applicant, MPSC Staff (“Staff’), Michigan Attorney
General, or any other person, company, organization, or association that is granted
intervention in Case No. U-20599 under the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, Mich Admin Code, R 792.10401 et al.
D. “Receiving Party” means any Party to this proceeding who requests or
receives access to Protected Material, subject to the requirement that each Reviewing
Representative sign a Nondisclosure Certificate attached to this Protective Order as
Attachment 1.
E. “Reviewing Representative” means a person who has signed a
Nondisclosure Certificate and who is:
1. An attorney who has entered an appearance in this proceeding for a Receiving Party;
2. An attorney, paralegal, or other employee associated, for the purpose of this case, with an attorney described in Paragraph I.E.1;
3. An expert or employee of an expert retained by a Receiving Party to advise, prepare for, or testify in this proceeding; or
4. An employee or other representative of a Receiving Party with significant responsibility in this case.
A Reviewing Representative is responsible for assuring that persons under his or her
supervision and control comply with this Protective Order.
4
F. “Nondisclosure Certificate” means the certificate attached to this
Protective Order as Attachment 1, which is signed by a Reviewing Representative who
has been granted access to Protected Material and agreed to be bound by the terms of this
Protective Order.
II. Access to and Use of Protected Material
A. This Protective Order governs the use of all Protected Material that is
marked as required by Paragraph III.A and made available for review by the Disclosing
Party to any Receiving Party or Reviewing Representative. This Protective Order
protects: (i) the Protected Material; (ii) any copy or reproduction of the Protected
Material made by any person; and (iii) any memorandum, handwritten notes, or any other
form of information that copies, contains, or discloses Protected Material. All Protected
Material in the possession of a Receiving Party shall be maintained in a secure place.
Access to Protected Material shall be limited to persons authorized to have access subject
to the provisions of this Protective Order.
B. Protected Material shall be used and disclosed by the Receiving Party
solely in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Protective Order. A Receiving
Party may authorize access to, and use of, Protected Material by a Reviewing
Representative identified by the Receiving Party, subject to Paragraphs III and V below,
only as necessary to analyze the Protected Material; make or respond to discovery;
present evidence; prepare testimony, argument, briefs, or other filings; prepare for cross-
examination; consider strategy; and evaluate settlement. These individuals shall not
release or disclose the content of Protected Material to any other person or use the
information for any other purpose.
5
C. The Disclosing Party retains the right to object to any designated
Reviewing Representative if the Disclosing Party has reason to believe that there is an
unacceptable risk of misuse of confidential information. If a Disclosing Party objects to a
Reviewing Representative, the Disclosing Party and the Receiving Party will attempt to
reach an agreement to accommodate that Receiving Party’s request to review Protected
Material. If no agreement is reached, then either the Disclosing Party or the Receiving
Party may submit the dispute to the presiding hearing officer. If the Disclosing Party
notifies a Receiving Party of an objection to a Reviewing Representative, then the
Protected Material shall not be provided to that Reviewing Representative until the
objection is resolved by agreement or by the presiding hearing officer.
D. Before reviewing any Protected Material, including copies, reproductions,
and copies of notes of Protected Material, a Receiving Party and Reviewing
Representative shall sign a copy of the Nondisclosure Certificate (Attachment 1 to this
Protective Order) agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. The
Reviewing Representative shall also provide a copy of the executed Nondisclosure
Certificate to the Disclosing Party.
E. Even if no longer engaged in this proceeding, every person who has
signed a Nondisclosure Certificate continues to be bound by the provisions of this
Protective Order. The obligations under this Protective Order are not extinguished or
nullified by entry of a final order in this case and are enforceable by the MPSC or a
court of competent jurisdiction. To the extent Protected Material is not returned to a
Disclosing Party, it remains subject to this Protective Order.
6
F. Members of the Commission, Commission staff assigned to assist the
Commission with its deliberations, and the presiding hearing officer shall have access to
all Protected Material that is submitted to the Commission under seal without the need to
sign the Nondisclosure Certificate.
G. A Party retains the right to seek further restrictions on the dissemination of
Protected Material to persons who have or may subsequently seek to intervene in this
MPSC proceeding.
H. Nothing in this Protective Order precludes a Party from asserting a timely
evidentiary objection to the proposed admission of Protected Material into the evidentiary
record for this case.
III. Procedures
A. The Disclosing Party shall mark any information that it considers
confidential as “CONFIDENTIAL: SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
ISSUED IN CASE NO. U-20599.” If the Receiving Party or a Reviewing Representative
makes copies of any Protected Material, they shall conspicuously mark the copies as
Protected Material. Notes of Protected Material shall also be conspicuously marked as
Protected Material by the person making the notes.
B. If a Receiving Party wants to quote, refer to, or otherwise use Protected
Material in pleadings, pre-filed testimony, exhibits, cross-examination, briefs, oral
argument, comments, or in some other form in this proceeding (including administrative
or judicial appeals), the Receiving Party shall do so consistent with procedures that will
maintain the confidentiality of the Protected Material. For purposes of this Protective
Order, the following procedures apply:
7
1. Written submissions using Protected Material shall be filed in a sealed record to be maintained by the MPSC’s Docket Section, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in envelopes clearly marked on the outside, “CONFIDENTIAL —SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED IN CASE NO. U-20599. Simultaneously, identical documents and materials, with the Protected Material redacted, shall be filed and disclosed the same way that evidence or briefs are usually filed;
2. Oral testimony, examination of witnesses, or argument about Protected Material shall be conducted on a separate record to be maintained by the MPSC’s Docket Section or by a court of competent jurisdiction. These separate record proceedings shall be closed to all persons except those furnishing the Protected Material and persons otherwise subject to this Protective Order. The Receiving Party presenting the Protected Material during the course of the proceeding shall give the presiding officer or court sufficient notice to allow the presiding officer or court an opportunity to take measures to protect the confidentiality of the Protected Material; and
3. Copies of the documents filed with the MPSC or a court of competent jurisdiction, which contain Protected Material, including the portions of the exhibits, transcripts, or briefs that refer to Protected Material, must be sealed and maintained in the MPSC’s or court’s files with a copy of the Protective Order attached.
C. It is intended that the Protected Material subject to this Protective Order
should be shielded from disclosure by a Receiving Party. If any person files a request
under the Freedom of Information Act with a governmental agency participating in this
proceeding, including, but not limited to, the MPSC, the MPSC Staff, and the Michigan
Attorney General, seeking access to documents subject to this Protective Order, the
governmental agency shall immediately notify the Disclosing Party, and the Disclosing
Party may take whatever legal actions it deems appropriate to protect the Protected
Material from disclosure. In light of Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, MCL
15.235, the notice must be given at least five (5) business days before the governmental
agency grants the request in full or in part.
8
IV. Termination of Protected Status
A. Receiving Party reserves the right to challenge whether a document or
information is Protected Material and whether this information can be withheld under
this Protective Order. In response to a motion, the Commission or the presiding hearing
officer in this case may revoke a document’s protected status after notice and hearing. If
the presiding hearing officer revokes a document’s protected status, then the document
loses its protected status after 14 days unless a Party files an application for leave to
appeal the ruling to the Commission within that time period. Any Party opposing the
application for leave to appeal shall file an answer with the Commission no more than
14 days after the filing and service of the appeal. If an application is filed, then the
information will continue to be protected from disclosure until either the time for appeal
of the Commission’s final order resolving the issue has expired under MCL 462.26 or, if
the order is appealed, until judicial review is completed and the time to take further
appeals has expired.
B. If a document’s protected status is challenged under Paragraph IV.A, the
Receiving Party challenging the protected status of the document shall explicitly state its
reason for challenging the confidential designation. The Disclosing Party bears the
burden of proving that the document should continue to be protected from disclosure.
V. Retention of Documents
Protected Material remains the property of the Disclosing Party and only remains
available to the Receiving Party until the time expires for petitions for rehearing of a final
9
MPSC order in Case No. U-20599 or until the MPSC has ruled on all petitions for
rehearing in this case (if any). However, an attorney for a Receiving Party who has
signed a Nondisclosure Certificate and who is representing the Receiving Party in an
appeal from an MPSC final order in this case may retain copies of Protected Material
until either the time for appeal of the Commission’s fmal order resolving the issue has
expired under MCL 462.26 or, if the order is appealed, until judicial review is completed
and the time to take further appeals has expired. On or before the time specified by the
preceding sentences, the Receiving Party shall return to the Disclosing Party all Protected
Material in its possession or in the possession of its Reviewing Representatives-including
all copies and notes of Protected Material-or certify in writing to the Disclosing Party that
the Protected Material has been destroyed.
VI. Limitations and Disclosures
The provisions of this Protective Order do not apply to a particular document, or
portion of a document, described in Paragraph II.A if a Receiving Party can demonstrate
that it has been previously disclosed by the Disclosing Party on a non-confidential basis
or meets the criteria set forth in Paragraphs I.B.1 through I.B.S. A Receiving Party
intending to disclose information taken directly from materials identified as Protected
Material must-before actually disclosing the information-do one of the following: (i)
contact the Disclosing Party’s counsel of record and obtain written permission to disclose
the information, or (ii) challenge the confidential nature of the Protected Material and
obtain a ruling under Paragraph IV that the information is not confidential and may be
disclosed in or on the public record.
VII. Remedies
10
If a Receiving Party violates this Protective Order by improperly disclosing or
using Protected Material, the Receiving Party shall take all necessary steps to remedy
the improper disclosure or use. This includes immediately notifying the MPSC, the
presiding hearing officer, and the Disclosing Party, in writing, of the identity of the
person known or reasonably suspected to have obtained the Protected Material. A Party
or person that violates this Protective Order remains subject to this paragraph regardless
of whether the Disclosing Party could have discovered the violation earlier than it was
discovered. This paragraph applies to both inadvertent and intentional violations.
Nothing in this Protective Order limits the Disclosing Party’s rights and remedies, at
law or in equity, against a Party or person using Protected Material in a manner not
authorized by this Protective Order, including the right to obtain injunctive relief in a
court of competent jurisdiction to prevent violations of this Protective Order.
Administrative Law Judge
Attachment 1
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
* * * *
In the matter of the application of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, for approval of its integrated resource plan pursuant to MCL 460.6t and for other relief.
) ) Case No. U-20599 ) )
NONDISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE
By signing this Nondisclosure Certificate, I acknowledge that access to Protected
Material is provided to me under the terms and restrictions of the Protective Order
issued in Case No. U-20599, that I have been given a copy of and have read the
Protective Order, and that I agree to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order. I
understand that the substance of the Protected Material (as defined in the Protective
Order), any notes from Protected Material, or any other form of information that copies
or discloses Protected Material, shall be maintained as confidential and shall not be
disclosed to anyone other than in accordance with the Protective Order.
Reviewing Representative
Date: _________, 2019
Title: Representing:
Printed Name
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
*****
In the matter, on the application of ) NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ) a Wisconsin corporation, for approval of its ) Case No. U-20599 integrated resource plan under MCL 460.6t ) and for other relief. )
NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the scheduling of a hearing on the Motion of Northern States Power Company for Entry of a Protective Order will be taken up with the assigned Administrative Law Judge at the prehearing conference in this matter at the Michigan Public Service Commission, 7109 West Saginaw Highway, Lansing, Michigan.
Respectfully submitted,
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
Dated: July 31, 2019 By: ____________________________________ Its Attorney Sherri A. Wellman (P38989) MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. One Michigan Avenue, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 487-2070
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
* * * *
In the matter of the application of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, for approval of its integrated resource plan pursuant to MCL 460.6t and for other relief.
) ) Case No. U-20599 ) ) )
DIRECT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBIT OF DEBORAH E. ERWIN
1
BACKGROUND & EXPERIENCE
Q. Would you please state your name and your business address? 2!
A. My name is Deborah E. Erwin. My business address is 10 East Doty Street, Suite 3!
511, Madison, WI 53703. 4!
Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity? 5!
A. I’m employed as a Manager of Regulatory Policy by Northern States Power 6!
Company, a Wisconsin corporation (“NSP-W” or the “Company”) and wholly-7!
owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. (“Xcel Energy”). 8!
Q. Please describe your current job responsibilities. 9!
A. My current job responsibilities include identifying and evaluating policy ;!
alternatives and recommending potential Company regulatory and legislative 21!
strategies on a wide variety of issues. I consult with legislative, regulatory and 22!
subject matter experts throughout Xcel Energy and the utility industry to establish 23!
progressive and consistent policies and strategies. In fulfilling these obligations, I 24!
prepare and deliver supporting testimony and comments in regulatory 25!
proceedings, administrative rulemaking and legislative hearings as necessary. In 26!
addition, I am the lead renewable energy contact for NSP-W. 27!
Q. Please describe your education experience and degrees. 28!
A. I am a 2003 graduate of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, with a Bachelor 29!
of Arts degree in Political Science. I am also a 2006 graduate of the University of 2;!
Minnesota Law School, and was admitted to the Minnesota State Bar in October 31!
2006. 32!
3
Q. Have you previously presented testimony on behalf of the Company in other 2!
cases? 3!
A. Yes, I have testified before the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC” or 4!
“Commission”) and I have testified in several dockets before the Public Service 5!
Commission of Wisconsin (“PSCW”). 6!
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 7!
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 8!
A. My testimony presents NSP-W’s Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”), pursuant to 9!
Section 6t(4) of Act 341, MCL § 460.6t(4) and the August 28, 2018 and February ;!
7, 2019 Orders of the MPSC in related docket, U-18461. 21!
Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits with this testimony? 22!
A. Yes. I am sponsoring one exhibit: 23!
" Exhibit A-1 (DEE - 1) Upper Midwest Integrated Resource Plan 2020-2034 24!
COMPANY OVERVIEW 25!
Q. Please provide an overview of NSP-W. 26!
A. NSP-W is a public utility organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with 27!
principal offices located in Eau Claire, Wisconsin and Ironwood, Michigan. NSP-28!
W is authorized to do business in the State of Michigan. NSP-W is engaged in 29!
the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in two 2;!
counties in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and twenty-nine counties in 31!
Wisconsin. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, NSP-W provides electric service 32!
to approximately 9,000 retail customers. NSP-W is also a public utility in the 33!
4
State of Wisconsin, subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission 2!
of Wisconsin. 3!
Q. Can you please describe the relationship between NSP-W and its sister 4!
company, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation? 5!
A. NSP-W and its sister company, Northern States Power Company – Minnesota 6!
(“NSP-M” and together the “NSP Companies”) plan, build and operate a single 7!
integrated electric and production system, which is known as the NSP System. 8!
The NSP Companies jointly conduct resource planning for the five-state Upper 9!
Midwest system served by the two companies, which includes service territory in ;!
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan. NSP-W and 21!
NSP-M together serve over 1.8 million electric customers in the NSP service 22!
territories. 23!
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN OVERVIEW 24!
Q. Is NSP-W or NSP-M subject to IRP filing requirements in any of the other 25!
five states in which they operate? 26!
A. Yes, NSP-M is subject to an IRP filing requirement in Minnesota. NSP-M 27!
submitted this same IRP filing to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 28!
(“MPUC”) on July 1, 2019 for its review. I understand that the Commissions in 29!
North Dakota and South Dakota will also review the IRP. MCL 460.6t(4) allows 2;!
‘[a]n electric utility providing electric tariff service both in this state and in at 31!
least 1 other state may design its integrated resource plan to cover all its 32!
customers on that multistate basis.” Based on that statutory provision, NSP-W 33!
5
files this single total NSP System IRP (Exhibit A-1 (DEE-1)), which covers all of 2!
NSP-W and NSP-M’s customers on a multistate basis. 3!
Q. Please provide an overview of the NSP Companies’ IRP. 4!
A. The development of the NSP Companies’ 2020-2034 Resource Plan is the product 5!
of a stakeholder process involving multiple public workshops conducted in 6!
Minnesota, independent expert analysis, and information sharing. The IRP was 7!
also designed to support the Company’s goal of reducing carbon emissions 80 8!
percent (from 2005 levels) by 2030, and to continue progress toward its ultimate 9!
vision of 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2050. ;!
At the same time, this IRP ensures the same level of reliability our 21!
customers have enjoyed for decades. This is accomplished primarily through the 22!
proposed extension of the Monticello nuclear plant by an additional 10 years and 23!
the continued operation of the Prairie Island nuclear units through their current 24!
license. In addition, the NSP Companies propose to purchase the 760 megawatt 25!
(“MW”) Mankato Energy Center (“MEC”) combined cycle facility, and construct 26!
a new natural gas combined cycle plant at the Sherco site in 2026. These large, 27!
dispatchable resources will be critical as 2,400 MW of coal-fired baseload is 28!
retired in the next decade and the NSP Companies transition to a system that is 29!
more than 50 percent intermittent renewables. Finally, the NSP Companies also 2;!
propose several firm dispatchable, load-supporting resources in the mid-2030s. 31!
The Company believes that technological advancements will improve the 32!
functionality and drive down the cost of resources like storage, and these could 33!
take the place of traditional gas peaking units. 34!
6
The key components of the 2019 IRP include: 2!
• Extend the Monticello nuclear plant license from 2030 to 2040, and 3!
operate both Prairie Island (“PI”) units through the end of their current 4!
licenses (PI Unit 1 to 2033 and PI Unit 2 to 2034), 5!
• Retire the NSP Companies’ last two coal units early: the King plant in 6!
2028 (nine years early) and Sherco 3 in 2030 (ten years early); 7!
• Continue the plan to retire Sherco 1 and 2 in 2026 and 2023, respectively, 8!
and commit to offering Sherco 2 into MISO on a seasonal basis until its 9!
retirement, ;!
• Acquire and operate the 760 MW MEC and build, own and operate an 21!
approximately 800 MW Sherco Combined Cycle (Sherco CC) to satisfy 22!
capacity and operational need created by coal closures, 23!
• Acquire 4,000 MW of utility-scale solar generation between 2025 and 24!
2034, 25!
• Add approximately 1,200 MW of cumulative wind by 2034 as part of a 26!
“no going back” strategy, replacing wind scheduled to retire during that 27!
period. 28!
• Starting in 2031, add approximately 1,700 MW of cumulative firm 29!
dispatchable resources by 2034, 2;!
• Energy savings achieved through energy efficiency programs. 31!
Q. Can the Company estimate what impact this will have on customer costs? 32!
A. With this proposed IRP, the Company believes it can keep annual cost growth at 33!
or below the rate of inflation. This is accomplished by deferring resource 34!
7
additions until later in the plan, making use of existing assets on its system, and 2!
through Demand Side Management activities. Additionally, the Company 3!
foresees that technological improvements will continue to drive the costs of 4!
renewables down. 5!
Q. Do you have any concluding remarks regarding the NSP Companies’ IRP. 6!
A. At this time, the NSP Companies believe this IRP represents “the most reasonable 7!
and prudent means of meeting the electric utility’s energy and capacity needs.” 8!
PROCEDURAL PROCESS IN LIGHT OF IRP REVIEW IN OTHER STATES 9!
Q. Above you noted that this IRP is also subject to a filing requirement in ;!
Minnesota, will NSP-M respond to data requests in those proceeding?21!
A. Yes, the stakeholder involvement in Minnesota, in particular, is very high. There 22!
are over 300 interested persons on the stakeholder distribution list and there have 23!
been fourteen stakeholder workshops, as well as many individual stakeholder 24!
meetings, leading up to NSP-M’s filing the IRP in Minnesota. This high level of 25!
stakeholder involvement is likely to continue as the MPUC reviews the IRP. 26!
Therefore, it is likely NSP will receive and respond to a large number of data 27!
requests relating to the IRP in Minnesota. Under MPUC precedent, all of NSP’s 28!
data request responses must be filed in the Minnesota IRP docket. NSP-W 29!
therefore believes that to the extent Michigan stakeholders and Commission staff 2;!
wish to submit data requests relating to the IRP to the Company, these questions 31!
(or something very close to it) are likely to already be answered through the 32!
Minnesota process. NSP-W is prepared to share data request responses prepared 33!
8
by NSP-M in this proceeding as needed and subject to confidentiality procedures 2!
as necessary. 3!
Q. Is it possible that the IRP will be modified through the course of the MPUC 4!
process? 5!
A. Despite the robust stakeholder process leading up to the filing, it is possible the 6!
MPUC may modify the preferred plan that has been submitted. NSP-W notes, 7!
however, that there are no major activities planned in the five year1 action plan 8!
period for the IRP, so changes relating to the longer term would be subject to 9!
consideration again in a future Michigan IRP proceeding. NSP-W is not ;!
requesting approval or rate recovery for costs associated with any generating 21!
facilities as contemplated in Sections (11), (12) and (17) of MCL 460.6t. 22!
Q. Do you have an estimate of when the Minnesota process will be completed?23!
A. While the possibility the IRP may be modified through the MPUC process is 24!
foreseeable, the timing is not. Michigan law establishes a 300 day review period 25!
for the IRP, however, the MPUC IRP process does not contemplate a specific 26!
time period for review. Past IRP review processes in Minnesota have varied 27!
significantly in length, and based on recent history, NSP-W anticipates the MPUC 28!
process is likely to take materially longer than Michigan’s 300 day process 29!
contemplates.2 The uncertainty regarding the length of time for MPUC’s review 2;!
means that it is possible the Company’s multi-state IRP preferred plan could be 31!
modified after the Michigan Commission has concluded its review, and the 32!
1 While Michigan’s IRP process uses a 3 year “action plan” concept, the Minnesota IRP process uses a 5 year action plan. 2 For example, the previous two NSP-M IRP review processes in Minnesota took approximately 18 months and approximately 3 years to complete.
9
MPUC could subsequently approve an IRP that is different than what is being 2!
filed today. NSP-W notes the Michigan IRP statute provides for amendment of an 3!
approved IRP filing in MCL 460.6t(19), and that such amendment sets forth the 4!
Commission’s timeline for review under MCL 460.6t(9). 5!
Q. Based on the information above, what does NSP-W request the Commission 6!
do in this proceeding? 7!
A. In light of the above considerations, NSP-W requests that the Commission issue 8!
an order after its 300 day review approving the plan as filed and directing NSP-W 9!
to incorporate any additional changes, if any, made through the MPUC IRP ;!
process within 30 days of filing such changes with the MPUC. If the Commission 21!
approves NSP-W’s IRP filing, and no changes are made through the Minnesota 22!
IRP process, no further action would be needed. If changes are made through the 23!
Minnesota IRP process, NSP-W would then be subject to MCL 460.6t(19), which 24!
would trigger the process set forth under MCL 460.6t(9). 25!
Q. Does that conclude your direct testimony at this time? 26!
A. Yes. 27!
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
This form is issued as provided for by 1939 PA 3, as amended, and by 1933 PA 254, as amended. The filing of this form, or an acceptable alternative, is necessary to ensure subsequent service of any hearing notices, Commission orders, and related hearing documents.
General Instructions:
Type or print legibly in ink. For assistance or clarification, please contact the Public Service Commission at (517) 2)'")$*0.
$)'%-' #+.'" The #ommission will provide ')'&.,+*(& service of documents .* $(( +$,.'&- in this proceeding"
THIS APPEARANCE TO BE ENTERED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING:
Case / Company Name: Docket No. __________________
Please enter my appearance in the above-entitled matter on behalf of:
1. (Name)
2. (Name)
3. (Name)
4. (Name)
5. (Name)
6. (Name)
7. (Name)
Name ________________________________________
Address _______________________________________
______________________________________________
City _________________________ State ____________
Zip _____________ Phone (____) __________________
Email _________________________________________
Date __________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
EAHR1 - $*#&*#&$%(
" I am not an attorney
" I am an attorney whose:
Michigan Bar # is P-____________
_____________Bar # is: _____________ ( state )
"#($ !&'%
Northern States Power Company U-20599
Northern States Power Company
Sherri A. Wellman
One Michigan Avenue, Ste. 900
Lansing MI
48933 517 483-4954
38989
July 31, 2019
Save Form