All Testimony to Date
A concise summation of all testimony provided on the proceeding
This is from the testimony and does not include any material provided with the testimony. I limit it to the testimony as the attachments are supposed to be documentation attesting to the veracity of the testimony. The purpose here is to provide what each intervener is testifying to.
Individual Testimonies (notebooklm)
Based on the provided sources, here is a summary for each identified commenter or testimony:
Commenter Name: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), a subsidiary of Xcel Energy.
Summary of Comments: This individual is testifying on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado in the proceeding. Their responsibilities include managing Regional Transmission Planning and Analytics. Other unnamed PSCo witnesses hold roles such as Senior Vice President of Utility Finance and Corporate Development and are responsible for developing and presenting forecasted data for Xcel Energy's operating companies and reporting historical and statistical data. Alexander A. Kangas is also testifying on behalf of Public Service. The full substance of their testimony is not provided in these introductory snippets.
Transmission Line Capacity: The Manager, Regional Transmission Planning and Analytics role suggests this is a topic they would address, but specific details on additional capacity are not present in the provided excerpts. Alexander A. Kangas is associated with transmission.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Jack W. Ihle
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Ihle's direct testimony introduces the Company witnesses providing testimony in support of the JTS. It also frames the overall JTS, focusing on its objectives and ways to advance a just transition. His supplemental direct testimony summarizes the topics addressed by other PSCo witnesses, Jon T. Landrum and Stephen Martz, in their supplemental testimony. His direct testimony, specifically Attachment JWI-2, is referenced by other parties regarding load forecasts.
Transmission Line Capacity: His supplemental testimony summarizes Stephen Martz's discussion of transmission planning, including how the Company considered locational needs and engaged with interregional developers. He also summarizes Martz's context for his (Landrum's) discussion of Regional Transmission Interconnection portfolio optimizations.
Distribution Line Capacity: His supplemental testimony summarizes Jon T. Landrum's address regarding soliciting bids for dispatchable battery energy storage system bids that can interconnect to the distribution system. He also summarizes Stephen Martz's discussion of Distribution Capacity Procurement (DCP).
Battery Capacity: His supplemental testimony summarizes Jon T. Landrum's address regarding soliciting bids for dispatchable battery energy storage system bids that can interconnect to the distribution system.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts of his testimony.
Commenter Name: Jon T. Landrum
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo). Role: Director, Resource Planning and Bidding.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Landrum's supplemental direct testimony addresses several requirements and requests from Commission Decision No. C24-0956-I. Topics include expanding Phase II documents for battery storage bids, mitigating Phase II delays, questions about Phase I JTS portfolios modeling aggregated distributed energy resources, impacts of organized wholesale market participation, modeling off-system purchases, concerns about over-reliance on the reserve margin for reliability, social cost of emissions, and reliability methodologies for Phase II. He also discusses location-related factors influencing bid selection and presents results of the Lower Low Load forecast portfolios and Regional Transmission Interconnection portfolio optimizations. His testimony is referenced by other parties regarding PSCo's modeling approach and assumptions and modeling results for the Three Corners Connector transmission project.
Transmission Line Capacity: He presents and discusses the results of Regional Transmission Interconnection portfolio optimizations completed at the Commission’s direction. He also discusses transmission locational issues that could influence bid selection in Phase II. His testimony on the Three Corners Connector transmission project modeling is referenced.
Distribution Line Capacity: He addresses several requirements regarding expanding Phase II documents to solicit dispatchable battery energy storage system bids that can interconnect to the distribution system.
Battery Capacity: He addresses several requirements regarding expanding Phase II documents to solicit dispatchable battery energy storage system bids that can interconnect to the distribution system. The reason is to comply with requirements set forth in Commission Decision No. C24-0956-I.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Stephen Martz
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo). Role: Vice President, Integrated Planning.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Martz's supplemental direct testimony addresses several Commission questions and directives regarding transmission planning from Decision No. C24-0956-I. He discusses how the Company considered locational needs for future load growth and generation siting and engaged with interregional transmission developers. He also discusses Distribution Capacity Procurement (DCP) and Dynamic Line Ratings (DLR). He provides transmission planning context for Mr. Landrum's testimony. He is adopting the Direct Testimony of former Company witness Mr. Andrew Siebenaler.
Transmission Line Capacity: He addresses Commission questions and directives regarding transmission planning, including how the Company considered locational needs of the transmission system for planning future load growth and generation siting. He discusses the Company's engagement with interregional transmission developers and planning groups to evaluate how interregional transmission projects might play a role in meeting system needs. He also discusses dynamic line ratings (DLRs) and provides context for considering DLRs in the JTS Transmission Study. He provides transmission planning context for the Lower Low Load forecast and Mr. Landrum's testimony.
Distribution Line Capacity: He discusses distribution capacity procurement (DCP), providing context on the Company's proposed DCP process in Minnesota and its applicability to Colorado's resource planning.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Andrew Siebenaler
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo). Role: Former Company witness.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Siebenaler's Direct Testimony is adopted by Stephen Martz because Mr. Siebenaler is no longer with the Company. Attachment AWS-1 is part of his adopted testimony. His Direct Testimony (specifically Table AWS-D-5) is referenced by other parties regarding specific transmission upgrades.
Transmission Line Capacity: His Direct Testimony, particularly Table AWS-D-5, identified transmission upgrades that other parties analyze and recommend be advanced.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: John L. Bornhofen
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Bornhofen filed supplemental direct testimony in this proceeding. The purpose is to address specific directives from the Commission's Decision No. C24-0956-I, but the snippet does not detail which specific directives or the content of his testimony.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: John M. Goodenough
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Goodenough filed supplemental direct testimony in this proceeding to address two specific directives from Commission Decision No. C24-0956-I. First, he provides details regarding the "Lower-Low" forecast developed for model runs required by the Decision. Second, he provides information about the contributions to annual energy sales and summer and winter peak load attributable to certain plans approved by the Commission through other planning processes. His direct testimony (Hrg. Ex. 106 and Hrg. Ex. 101, Attachment JWI-2) is referenced by other parties regarding load forecasting methodology, including the handling of large customer loads.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Thomas Bailey
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Bailey is a PSCo witness whose testimony regarding PSCo's expected large load forecast is being responded to by other parties, specifically a witness from the Utility Consumer Advocate (UCA). The provided snippets do not contain the substance of his testimony.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Zachary Ming
Organization: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Ming is a PSCo witness whose testimony is referenced by parties like the Utility Consumer Advocate (UCA) regarding PSCo's modeling approach and assumptions. His 2024 Public Service Company of Colorado Resource Adequacy Study (Attachment ZM-1) is also cited by other parties. The provided snippets do not contain the substance of his testimony.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Dr. Scott E. England
Organization: Trial Staff.
Summary of Comments: Dr. England filed Answer Testimony in Proceeding No. 24A-0442E. His testimony includes a list of attachments covering various documents, including commission decisions, PSCo responses to discovery, and articles related to data center demand. The provided snippets do not summarize his specific findings or recommendations ("Conclusions and Recommendations" is a section header but the content is not included).
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
Organization: Utility Consumer Advocate (UCA).
Summary of Comments: This UCA witness responds to PSCo witness Thomas Bailey regarding PSCo’s expected large load forecast. They also reference industry developments, including a NERC incident involving data center load, and PSCo's modeling approach. The witness states that PSCo applied standard resource adequacy planning practices but failed to address specific areas. Another UCA witness (potentially the same or different) highlights drawbacks in PSCo's capacity expansion modeling and discusses resource availability and prices in other jurisdictions.
Transmission Line Capacity: The UCA witness recommends that PSCo disclose transmission availability assumptions and conduct sensitivity tests on the deliverability of external resources.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: A UCA witness discusses battery storage prices and availability in other jurisdictions.
Opinion on Power Sources: A UCA witness discusses prices and resource availability for solar, wind, battery storage, and thermal resources in other jurisdictions. No specific opinions for or against are stated, only that availability/prices are discussed.
Commenter Name: Leslie Henry-Sermos
Organization: Utility Consumer Advocate (UCA).
Summary of Comments: Ms. Henry-Sermos's testimony supports specific recommendations, urging the Commission to require PSCo to develop and present two distinct load forecasts: a minimum load forecast based on standard methodology and a large load scenario forecast specifically for data centers and other high-density loads.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
Organization: Likely Western Resource Advocates (WRA) or Southwestern Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), based on the context of Exhibit ranges that also contain WRA/SWEEP testimony.
Summary of Comments: One witness's testimony provides context for and explains some results of modeling performed by Public Service regarding the Three Corners Connector transmission project, specifically referencing Jon T. Landrum's testimony. Another witness's testimony addresses transmission-related aspects of PSCo's 2024 Just Transition Solicitation.
Transmission Line Capacity: One witness discusses PSCo's modeling results of the Three Corners Connector transmission project. Another witness addresses transmission related aspects of the JTS. No details on additional capacity are in these specific snippets.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
Organization: Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES).
Summary of Comments: One CRES witness focuses on the low-cost integration of renewable energy in this resource plan. They highlight the importance of assumed hourly load shapes on resource choices and how utilizing flexible load to shape load shapes can advantage renewable energy integration. They also mention demand management as a way to shape electricity capacity planning. Another CRES witness (with a technical background) is testifying on energy issues for Boulder and Colorado and requests the Commission ensure a focus on root causes of interruptions using Value of Lost Load (VoLL).
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: A CRES witness's testimony focuses on the low-cost integration of renewable energy. They specifically mention wind and solar as renewable energy sources whose availability can be better utilized through flexible load. They appear to be in favor of maximizing the integration of these renewable sources.
Commenter Name: Irion A. Sanger
Organization: Interwest Energy Alliance.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Sanger's testimony makes recommendations on Public Service Company of Colorado’s draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and the associated draft contracts, including power purchase agreements (PPAs) and build-transfer agreements (BTAs). His recommendations aim to ensure the RFP and contracts are fair, transparent, and competitive. He recommends general changes to the RFP requirements and discusses specific sections of the Model PPA and Model Hybrid PPA.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts, although he does discuss the Model Hybrid PPA and Model Standalone Storage PPA, which could involve battery components or standalone battery projects. The snippets don't provide details on capacity.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts, other than discussing PPA models for renewable energy and hybrid resources.
Commenter Name: Dr. Dipesh Dipu
Organization: Staff (Colorado Public Utilities Commission Staff).
Summary of Comments: Dr. Dipu's answer testimony provides support for Staff’s position of cautious optimism in Public Service Company of Colorado’s assessment of demand for electricity. This demand assessment is the basis for Proceeding No. 24A-0442E.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Steven Dahlke
Organization: Staff (Colorado Public Utilities Commission Staff).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Dahlke's public answer testimony provides recommendations to improve Public Service Company of Colorado’s 2024 Just Transition Solicitation (JTS). Specifically, he recommends enhancing procurement flexibility through a two-stage RFP structure (Phase 2A and Phase 2B). The motivation for this is the rising demand for low-carbon electricity driven by electrification and artificial intelligence, which presents both opportunities and challenges and creates uncertainties. He also offers recommendations on the Carbon Free Future Development program and the 24/7 Carbon-Free Electricity program.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: He discusses the rising demand for low-carbon electricity driven by electrification and artificial intelligence. He also offers recommendations on the proposed 24/7 Carbon-Free Electricity program. The excerpts don't detail specific opinions on wind, solar, or nuclear, but the context is related to transitioning to low-carbon/carbon-free sources.
Commenter Name: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets (Attachment JLB-2 is for qualifications, not the witness name). Likely Jim Becklenberg based on typical exhibit naming for this party.
Organization: CC4CA.
Summary of Comments: This CC4CA witness's testimony illustrates the need for PSCo to maximize the acquisition of clean energy resources in the Just Transition Solicitation (JTS). This maximization, including through clean energy choice programs, is necessary for the Town (a member of CC4CA) to achieve its goals. CC4CA also provides recommendations regarding the potential CFE (Carbon Free Electricity) and Zero Emissions Communities (ZEC) programs.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: The testimony highlights the need for PSCo to maximize acquisition of clean energy resources. This indicates a favorable stance towards clean energy, but specific opinions on wind, solar, or nuclear technologies are not detailed in the provided snippets. CC4CA also provides recommendations regarding potential CFE (Carbon Free Electricity) and Zero Emissions Communities (ZEC) programs, which are generally associated with non-fossil fuel sources.
Commenter Name: John F. Pierce
Organization: The Colorado Solar and Storage Association (COSSA), The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), and Advanced Energy United, collectively the Clean Energy Industry (CEI).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Pierce's answer testimony responds to PSCo's 2024 Just Transition Solicitation. He identifies concerns regarding PSCo's draft PPA documents, specifically the Model Renewable Energy PPA, the model hybrid PPA, and the Model Standalone Storage PPA. He worked with COSSA members' comments and identified his own concerns.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: He discusses concerns regarding the Model Standalone Storage PPA, which pertains to battery storage projects. No specific details on needed capacity are provided.
Opinion on Power Sources: He testifies on behalf of organizations representing the solar and storage industry and clean energy. His focus on the Model Renewable Energy PPA, model hybrid PPA, and Model Standalone Storage PPA indicates a focus on renewable and storage technologies.
Commenter Name: Kenneth L. Wilson
Organization: The Colorado Solar and Storage Association, The Solar Energy Industries Association, and Advanced Energy United.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Wilson's answer testimony discusses transmission needed to support the loads being forecast. He specifically states that Public Service has not effectively addressed the transmission needed to serve the load they are projecting. He focuses on the transmission needed to support the wind and solar resources of Southeast Colorado. He makes recommendations about how the Commission should proceed regarding transmission.
Transmission Line Capacity: He discusses the transmission needed to support the loads being forecast and, specifically, the transmission needed to support the wind and solar resources of SE Colorado. He states PSCo has not effectively addressed this need.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: His testimony focuses on the transmission needed to support wind and solar resources. This indicates a favorable stance towards these renewable sources, particularly in SE Colorado.
Commenter Name: Jamison Valdez
Organization: Environmental Justice Coalition (EJC). Previously testified on behalf of an environmental justice coalition.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Valdez's testimony addresses issues relevant to the Pueblo and Colorado Springs communities. He critiques the Pueblo Innovative Energy Solutions Advisory Committee Study Report (PIESAC Report), stating its findings severely lack consideration of public health or environmental factors and the cost to ratepayers, and that it heavily favors certain energy generation. On behalf of the EJC, he supports the recommendation for the Commission to order PSCo to study and implement a renewable energy park in Pueblo. Conversely, the EJC opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with gas, nuclear, or gas with carbon capture or hydrogen capabilities.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: The EJC recommendation for a renewable energy park in Pueblo includes storage. No specific capacity is mentioned.
Opinion on Power Sources:
Wind and Solar: In favor. The EJC recommends a renewable energy park in Pueblo that includes renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, and storage. The purpose is to provide a just transition for Pueblo.
Methane Gas: Against. The EJC opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a gas plant.
Hydrogen: Against. The EJC opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a gas plant with hydrogen capabilities.
CCS: Against. The EJC opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a gas plant with carbon capture capabilities.
Nuclear (SMRs, AP-1000/APR-1400): Against. The EJC opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a nuclear generator. The reason is not explicitly stated in these snippets, but is linked to opposing certain energy generation favored by the PIESAC.
Commenter Name: David A. Schlissel
Organization: Environmental Justice Coalition (EJC).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Schlissel was asked by the Environmental Justice Coalition to address several issues, including PSCo’s proposals for modifying the ERP process, proposals regarding solar resources near Pueblo, and whether a renewable energy park in Pueblo would benefit the community. His main findings include that PSCo’s proposal to spend funding on costly and speculative technologies (CCS, hydrogen, nuclear) would impose pollution, health/safety risks on nearby communities, and expensive burdens on ratepayers. He supports the concept of a renewable energy park in Pueblo as an alternative.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: A renewable energy park as envisioned includes short-duration battery storage and long-duration energy storage. The purpose is to support the electricity grid and its users, storing energy when wind and solar generation are high and converting it back to electricity. No specific capacity is mentioned.
Opinion on Power Sources:
Wind and Solar: In favor. A renewable energy park as envisioned includes renewable energy (primarily wind and solar). This is supported as an alternative to other technologies and providing benefits for Pueblo.
Methane Gas: Against. Opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a gas plant.
Hydrogen: Against. Opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a gas plant with hydrogen capabilities. Finds hydrogen (including hydrogen-methane blends) poorly suited as an emission reduction strategy for a just transition. Reasons include it being costly and speculative, posing pollution and health/safety risks, and imposing expensive burdens on ratepayers.
CCS: Against. Opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) capabilities. Finds exploring CCS contrary to a just transition. Reasons include it being costly and speculative, posing pollution and health/safety risks, and imposing expensive burdens on ratepayers.
Nuclear (SMRs, AP-1000/APR-1400): Against. Opposes replacing the Pueblo coal plant with a nuclear generator. Finds exploring the use of nuclear reactors in the context of the Carbon Free Future Development (CFFD) program contrary to a just transition. Reasons include it being costly and speculative, posing pollution and public health and safety risks, and imposing expensive burdens on the Company’s ratepayers.
Commenter Name: Jorge Camacho
Organization: Likely Western Resource Advocates (WRA) or Southwestern Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), based on the context of Exhibit ranges that also contain WRA/SWEEP testimony.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Camacho's answer testimony identifies and justifies "no-regrets" transmission system upgrade investments. The purpose is to alleviate existing and emerging congestion, enhance near-term system reliability, and enable the integration of renewable energy resources into Colorado, especially into the Denver Metro Area. He recommends advancing three specific transmission upgrades identified in Mr. Siebenaler’s Direct Testimony (Table AWS-D-5). He argues these projects are crucial transmission infrastructure and should proceed in Phase I regardless of specific generation siting outcomes in Phase II.
Transmission Line Capacity: Recommends advancing three specific transmission upgrades identified in Mr. Siebenaler’s Direct Testimony:
May Valley–Longhorn 345 kV Extension
New 230 kV Double Circuit Line from Harvest Mile to Cherokee
Chambers Transformer #3 addition The purpose is to alleviate existing and emerging congestion, enhance near-term system reliability, and enable the integration of renewable energy resources into Colorado, especially into the Denver Metro Area.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Recommends transmission upgrades that will enable the integration of renewable energy resources into Colorado. This indicates a favorable view towards renewable energy.
Commenter Name: Megan E. Ottesen
Organization: CEO (Clean Energy Organization or Colorado Energy Office - clarification not in snippets).
Summary of Comments: Ms. Ottesen's testimony presents CEO’s recommendations to the Commission and Public Service Company of Colorado regarding the Company’s application for approval of its 2024 Electric Resource Plan (ERP) Just Transition Solicitation (JTS). Her testimony focuses on the complexity of the JTS process, noting the large number of bids and potential new resources expected. She cites PSCo's Resource Adequacy Study and testimony regarding load forecasts.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: J. Scott Sturm
Organization: Onward Energy.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Sturm's answer testimony provides an overview of Onward Energy and its facilities in Colorado, specifically the Fountain Valley Power facility. He describes the conforming bid policy proposed by PSCo. He recommends that Public Service should not erect unnecessary barriers to re-contracting with existing resources, as this risks those facilities seeking other commercial options which would have significant cost implications for PSCo’s customers.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts, other than referring to existing resources like the Fountain Valley Power facility.
Commenter Name: Brian T. Turner
Organization: Advanced Energy United, Colorado Solar and Storage Association (COSSA), and Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), collectively the Clean Energy Industry (CEI).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Turner is filing on behalf of the Clean Energy Industry. He summarizes Advanced Energy United's interests, which include membership across the clean energy landscape, from utility-scale generators to distributed energy resources, electric vehicles, and demand response. The provided snippets do not contain specific recommendations or detailed comments from his testimony.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Represents organizations covering the clean energy landscape, including utility-scale generators and distributed energy resources. This indicates a general favorable stance towards clean energy technologies.
Commenter Name: Lauren Swain
Organization: PSR Colorado (Physicians for Social Responsibility).
Summary of Comments: Ms. Swain's answer testimony emphasizes the need for the Commission to consider the health impacts of fossil fuel generation, particularly in sensitive communities. She cites a recent proceeding where PSCo was ordered to conduct a health impacts analysis. She responds to PSCo's Just Transition testimony, commenting on portfolios, load growth, methane gas, the Carbon Free Future Development (CFFD) fund, hydrogen, CCS, and nuclear reactors. She argues that including methane gas, exploring hydrogen or CCS, and exploring nuclear reactors in the JTS/CFFD is contrary to a just transition.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources:
Methane Gas: Against. Argues that including methane gas as a fuel source in the JTS portfolio is contrary to a just transition. Reason: Negative health impacts of fossil fuels.
Hydrogen: Against. Argues that hydrogen (including hydrogen-methane blends) is poorly suited as an emission reduction strategy for a just transition. Reasons not detailed in these snippets, but linked to opposition to technologies in CFFD and potentially health impacts.
CCS: Against. Argues that exploring carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as an emission reduction strategy is contrary to a just transition. Reasons not detailed in these snippets, but linked to opposition to technologies in CFFD and potentially health impacts.
Nuclear (SMRs, AP-1000/APR-1400): Against. Argues that exploring the use of nuclear reactors in the context of the CFFD is contrary to a just transition. Reasons not detailed in these snippets, but linked to opposition to technologies in CFFD and potentially health impacts.
Commenter Name: Tyler Comings
Organization: Conservation Coalition.
Summary of Comments: The provided snippets consist only of the list of attachments to Mr. Comings's answer testimony. The list indicates he sponsored attachments showing PSCo responses to discovery requests from various parties on a wide range of topics. The substance of his own testimony is not provided.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: Derek Stenclik
Organization: Conservation Coalition.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Stenclik's answer testimony highlights some drawbacks with Public Service Company of Colorado’s capacity expansion modeling process utilized for this Proceeding. He also discusses prices and resource availability for solar, wind, battery storage, and thermal resources in other jurisdictions. He specifically concludes that the Company's base load forecast does not sufficiently account for large loads. He is testifying on behalf of the Utility Consumer Advocate ("UCA"). Correction: The snippet lists him for the Conservation Coalition, while asks for recommendations on behalf of UCA. The source is clearly titled "Hearing Exhibit 801, Answer Testimony of Derek Stenclik for the Conservation Coalition". Source is titled "Hearing Exhibit 2602, Answer Testimony of Dr. Dipesh Dipu", but the Q&A about UCA recommendations is on a different page range within that exhibit file name. This suggests an error in the snippet attribution provided. Based on the explicit title, Mr. Stenclik is for the Conservation Coalition. His testimony discusses electricity rate designs and large load tariffs.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: He discusses battery storage prices and resource availability in other jurisdictions. No specific capacity or need is mentioned.
Opinion on Power Sources: He discusses prices and resource availability for solar, wind, battery storage, and thermal resources in other jurisdictions. No specific opinions for or against are stated, only that availability/prices are discussed.
Commenter Name: Keith M. Hay
Organization: CEO (Clean Energy Organization or Colorado Energy Office - clarification not in snippets).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Hay's testimony presents CEO’s recommendations to the Commission and Public Service Company of Colorado regarding the Company’s 2024 Just Transition Solicitation (JTS). He provides background on the Just Transition Electric Resource Plan (ERP) and discusses CEO’s recommendations related to Public Service’s load forecasts and the inclusion of new resources. He notes that the JTS addresses the replacement capacity for Pueblo Unit 3, in part, through load forecasts. He provides a comparison of different load forecasts presented by PSCo, highlighting the impact of large customer loads. He also summarizes and provides recommendations on Public Service’s 24/7 Carbon-Free Electricity (CFE) program proposal.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Discusses the inclusion of new resources and the proposed 24/7 Carbon-Free Electricity (CFE) program. These topics are related to future power sources and emissions, but specific opinions on wind, solar, or nuclear are not detailed.
Commenter Name: Kevin C. Cray
Organization: Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Cray's answer testimony summarizes his recommendations to the Commission on behalf of CCSA. He recommends approving transmission adder, transmission credit, and distribution credit values calculated by CCSA Witness Mr. Beach. He also recommends determining a procedural pathway by which dispatchable distribution-connected resources can participate.
Transmission Line Capacity: Recommends approving the transmission adder and transmission credit values calculated by Mr. Beach. These values are related to the costs and benefits associated with connecting resources to the transmission system.
Distribution Line Capacity: Recommends approving the distribution credit values calculated by Mr. Beach. These values are related to the costs and benefits associated with connecting resources to the distribution system. He also recommends determining a procedural pathway for dispatchable distribution-connected resources.
Battery Capacity: Recommends a procedural pathway for dispatchable distribution-connected resources, which includes standalone storage. No specific capacity is mentioned.
Opinion on Power Sources: Represents the Coalition for Community Solar Access, indicating a favorable stance towards solar energy, particularly community solar. Recommends a pathway for dispatchable distribution-connected resources, which could include battery storage.
Commenter Name: R. Thomas Beach
Organization: Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA).
Summary of Comments: Mr. Beach's answer testimony presents the recommendations of CCSA on steps Public Service Company of Colorado has taken to provide distribution-connected resources with an equitable opportunity to participate in the upcoming Just Transition Solicitation (JTS). He notes that distributed resources can include dispatchable resources such as standalone storage. He calculated transmission adder, transmission credit, and distribution credit values that Mr. Cray recommends be approved.
Transmission Line Capacity: Calculated transmission adder and transmission credit values. These are related to costs/benefits for transmission interconnection. No specific capacity is discussed.
Distribution Line Capacity: Calculated distribution credit values. These are related to costs/benefits for distribution interconnection. No specific capacity is discussed. He presents recommendations on providing an equitable opportunity for distribution-connected resources.
Battery Capacity: States that distributed resources can include dispatchable resources such as standalone storage. No specific capacity or need is mentioned.
Opinion on Power Sources: Represents the Coalition for Community Solar Access, indicating a favorable stance towards community solar. Discusses standalone storage, suggesting support for this technology.
Commenter Name: Christine V. Brinker
Organization: Western Resource Advocates (WRA) and Southwestern Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP).
Summary of Comments: Ms. Brinker's answer testimony provides an overview of Public Service’s Just Transition Solicitation filing and relevant Colorado policies and regulatory developments. She summarizes the combined recommendations of WRA and SWEEP’s witnesses, which are also summarized in an attachment. The snippets do not provide the content of these recommendations but mention topics like transmission upgrades.
Transmission Line Capacity: Her testimony mentions specific transmission upgrades as being among the recommendations of WRA and SWEEP’s witnesses, citing the Harvest Mile to Cherokee and Chambers Transformer #3 addition projects.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts, although WRA and SWEEP are generally known for advocating for clean energy.
Commenter Name: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
Organization: Moffat County. Chris Nichols later testifies on behalf of Moffat County, suggesting this could be part of the same party's presentation.
Summary of Comments: This answer testimony provides the Commission with some background on Moffat County and the impact the coal industry and Craig Station have on the county. It notes Moffat County became a formal intervenor in a previous Tri-State ERP proceeding.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Discusses the impact of the coal industry and Craig Station, indicating the context of energy transition away from coal in the county.
Commenter Name: Chris Nichols
Organization: Moffat County.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Nichols's answer testimony provides an overview of Moffat and Craig’s efforts to usher in new energy projects and other economic development to prepare for the Northern Colorado coal plant closures. The purpose is to inform the Commission and parties about these efforts.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Discusses efforts to usher in new energy projects in response to coal plant closures, indicating a focus on transitioning away from coal towards potentially other energy sources.
Commenter Name: Brian Duffany
Organization: Routt County Governments.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Duffany's answer testimony discusses labor figures for Routt County. He states he is not making any recommendations as part of this specific testimony; the recommendations of the Routt County Governments are discussed elsewhere.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Commenter Name: William A. Monsen
Organization: CIEA.
Summary of Comments: Mr. Monsen's answer testimony discusses Public Service's rationale for providing more equitable treatment of IPPs (Independent Power Producers) and UOG (Utility Owned Generation, implied) projects. He also addresses Public Service's claim that customers do not "receive the direct benefit".
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Discusses treatment of IPPs and UOG projects, which could involve various power source types.
Commenter Name: Alissa Burger
Organization: Likely Western Resource Advocates (WRA) and Southwestern Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), based on the context of Exhibit ranges.
Summary of Comments: Ms. Burger's testimony analyzes the load forecasts developed by Public Service Company of Colorado for use in determining system need in the Just Transition Solicitation plan filing. She sponsors a whitepaper reviewing large load forecasting practices and ratemaking recommendations. Her testimony references PSCo's Direct Testimony on load forecasting and reports on electricity demand growth and data centers.
Transmission Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Distribution Line Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Battery Capacity: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.
Opinion on Power Sources: Not discussed in the provided excerpts.