BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

PROCEEDING NO. 16A-0117E

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
COLORADO FOR APPROVAL OF THE 600MW RUSH CREEK WIND PROJECT
PURSUANT TO RULE 3660(h), A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR THE RUSH CREEK WIND FARM, AND A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE 345 KV RUSH CREEK TO MISSILE SITE
GENERATION TIE TRANSMISSION LINE AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF NOISE AND
MAGNETIC FIELD REASONABLENESS.
______________________________________________________________________________
REVISED, CORRECTED MOTION TO INTERVENE OF RATEPAYERS WELLS
TRUCKING, WELLS RANCH, WESTLAKE WINE AND SPIRITS, AUTO COLLISION
SPECIALISTS, LEANIN TREE CARDS, 88 DRIVE IN THEATER, INDEPENDENCE REAL
ESTATE NETWORK, INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE, KELSEY ALEXANDER, LOU
SCHROEDER, MARY DABMAN.

On June 1, 2016, the Ratepayers Coalition filed a Motion to Intervene in this proceeding.
Due to exigencies in the Time for Response, the Motion contained certain omissions. The
Ratepayers therefore respectfully submit this Revised Motion which is substantially similar to
the Motion filed on June 1.
1.

The ratepayers named above (Ratepayers or the Coalition) hereby move for

an Order allowing them to intervene in this proceeding in opposition to the Application Of

Public Service Company Of Colorado For Approval Of The 600 MW Rush Creek Wind Project.
The Ratepayers are an unincorporated association of electricity consumers served by Public
Service Company of Colorado (the Company). The Ratepayers are comprised of individuals,
businesses, and nonprofit associations, and include a diverse range of electricity usage, including
residential, agricultural and industrial consumers.

2.

The Ratepayers state that they have a legally protected interest in securing

affordable, reliable, electricity produced by a fuel mix that is consistent with state and federal
law. The Ratepayers further state that their interest is not adequately represented by any current
party to this preceding because the Public Utilities Commission (the Commission) and staff are
statutorily charged with exploring and promoting alternative energy development, including
renewable energy, and the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) is charged by statue primarily
with promoting an undefined public interest and only secondarily with promoting the security
and economic interest of ratepayers, and only to the extent OCC deems ratepayer interest
consistent with OCCs estimation of the public interest.
The Ratepayers Interests are Distinct From Every Party to This Docket.
3.

The Ratepayers have a clear and simple objective: to obtain the most economical,

reliable electricity that complies with state and federal law. There is no other party in this
proceeding with the same purpose.
4.

The Ratepayers seek intervention to make the following showing on behalf of all

ratepayers:
1) The Company has admitted it does not need the claimed increase in generation associated with
the Rush Creek project in order to provide for its projected consumer base.
2) The Company does not need the Rush Creek project to comply with Colorados mandate for a
minimum 30% renewable energy component in generating electricity.
3) The Company does not need the Rush Creek Project to comply with federal law.
4) Wind generated power is far more expensive than other available sources that fully comply
with state and federal law. The Rush Creek project will needlessly raise costs for consumers.

5) Wind generated power is an environmental hazard that threatens multiple species of birds and
bats, which the Company did not address in its Application to the Commission, as required by
Colorado law.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is Mandated By State Law to Promote
Renewable Energy.
5.

In 2001, Colorados legislature modified the mission and mandate of the Colorado

Public Utilities Commission. The legislature provided:

6.

The commission shall give the fullest possible consideration to the cost-effective

implementation of new clean energy and energy-efficient technologies in its consideration of

generational acquisitions for electric utilities, bearing in mind the beneficial contributions such
technologies make to Colorado's energy security, economic prosperity, insulation from fuel price
increases, and environmental protection, including risk mitigation in areas of high wildfire risk
as designated by the state forest service. The commission shall consider utility investments in
energy efficiency to be an acceptable use of ratepayer moneys. This is codified at C.R.S. 40-2123(1).
7.

By this mandate, the legislature directed the Commission to consider higher

consumer costs an acceptable consequence of increased reliance on renewable energy.

The intervening ratepayers have a different perspective and seek permission to appear and make
their case. PUC Trial Staff is bound by the policies that govern the Commission.

The Office of Consumer Counsel has been Severed from Consumer Protection, and is
Directed to Promote an undefined Public Interest.

8.

The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) was established to advocate the

interests of utility consumers before this Commission. In 2014, however, the Colorado General
Assembly modified the mission of the OCC as follows:
The consumer counsel shall represent the public interest and, to the extent consistent therewith,
the specific interests of residential consumers, agricultural consumers, and small business
consumers
9.

Two things in this alteration are notable. The public interest is undefined. It

could be containing energy costs. It could be reducing carbon output. It could be supporting an
economic development plan in Eastern Colorado. It could be supporting the policies of the
Administration that appointed the Consumer Counsel.
10.

One thing it patently is not is representing the specific interests of energy

consumers. Those interests are expressly relegated to secondary status. Those interests are the
interests that the intervening Ratepayers seek standing to vindicate. The OCC is instructed by
statute to treat them as secondary, and address then only as it deems consistent with its view of
the public interest.
11.

The intervening ratepayers respectfully submit that they are lawfully and fairly

entitled to a seat at the table of this discussion.

Xcels Application is Deficient in Disregarding Environmental Impact; the Intervening

Ratepayers are the only Party with an Incentive to Test the Deficiency.

12.

While renewable energy projects are lauded as environmentally friendly, there is

growing recognition of their environmental tolls, as well. Wind farms kill large numbers of birds
and bats. Colorado law directs that a utility applicant must supply information on the anticipated
environmental impact of the project. C.R.S. 40-2-123. According to the Colorado Department of
Parks and Wildlife, there are 18 species of birds in the state that are endangered, threatened, or of
special concern. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx.
13.

Xcels application is silent on this matter. The application does not conform to

law. The intervening Ratepayers have the incentive to probe this important subject. Commission
trial staff does not. OCC does not. Only the Ratepayers will press this issue.

Intervention of Right by the Colorado Energy Office Results in Three Separate State
Offices Participating in this Docket With the Statutory Charge to Promote Renewable
Energy.

14

In its Notice of Intervention, the Colorado Energy Office recited the following:

The CEO is statutorily mandated to promote renewable energy resource development in

Colorado. Public Services application in this proceeding, if approved, will increase wind
generation in the state, which the CEO supports. The CEOs interests are therefore directly
impacted by the proposed project. It is plain therefore, that between the consideration of the
Commission, the input of its staff, and the participation of the OCC, the specific economic
interests of the Ratepayers do have equal or adequate representation in the conduct of the
proceedings.
The Ratepayers Motion is Compliant and Legally Adequate.

15.

The Motion is timely as it was filed on June 1, 2016.

16.

The nature and quantity of any evidence to be presented by Ratepayers in this

proceeding is not yet known. As the interests of the associations members continue to develop
and appear in the course of this proceeding, the Ratepayers reserve the right to participate
accordingly. However, Intervention by the Ratepayers will not unduly broaden the issues in this
proceeding since the matters which the Ratepayers may choose to address would pertain to issues
which are or may be inherent in this proceeding.
17.

For the foregoing reasons, Ratepayers respectfully request permission to intervene

in this action.
Respectfully submitted,

s/ Shawn Mitchell
By:

____________________________________

Law Office of Shawn Mitchell

Phone: 303-946-6507
Email: sdmitchelllaw@gmail.com
Attorney for Ratepayers Coalition