Xcel Energy 2013 Annual Report Download - page 42

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 42 of the 2013 Xcel Energy annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 180

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 180

24
The removal of a federal ROFR would eliminate rights that NSP-Minnesota, NSP-Wisconsin and SPS currently have under the MISO
and SPP tariffs to build certain transmission projects within their footprints. The FERC required that the opportunity to build such
projects would extend to competitive transmission developers. Compliance with Order 1000 for NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin
will occur through changes to the MISO tariff while compliance for SPS will occur through the SPP tariff. PSCo is not in an RTO and
therefore is responsible for making its own Order 1000 compliance filings. MISO, SPP and PSCo all made their initial compliance
filings to incorporate new provisions into their tariffs regarding regional planning and cost allocation. The FERC ruled on the initial
regional compliance filings for MISO, SPP and PSCo, and directed further changes to fully address the requirements of Order 1000.
Additional regional compliance filings have been submitted by MISO, SPP, PSCo and FERC action on these supplemental compliance
filings is pending. Several parties, including Xcel Energy, also sought rehearing of the FERC orders requiring changes to the initial
compliance filings. The rehearing requests are also pending FERC action.
Filings to address Order 1000 interregional planning and cost allocation requirements with other regions were made by PSCo, MISO
and SPP in 2013. The filings are pending action by the FERC.
NSP-System
In 2012, Minnesota enacted legislation that preserves ROFR rights for Minnesota utilities at the state level. This legislation is similar
to legislation previously passed in North Dakota and South Dakota. Wisconsin has not developed such legislation. The FERC’s initial
order to address the regional requirements of Order 1000 required MISO to remove proposed tariff provisions that would have
recognized state ROFR rights and allowed state regulators to select the developer of a transmission project. NSP-Minnesota, NSP-
Wisconsin and other MISO transmission owners requested rehearing of this issue. The rehearing request is pending the FERC’s
action. The FERC has accepted changes to MISO’s transmission cost allocation procedures that will protect the ROFR for projects
needed for system reliability.
PSCo
Colorado does not have legislation protecting ROFR rights for incumbent utilities. PSCo submitted its compliance filing to address the
regional planning and cost allocation requirements of Order 1000, proposing that PSCo would join the WestConnect region, a
consortium of utilities in the Western Interconnection. In March 2013, the FERC issued its order on PSCo’s initial compliance filing
and required a further compliance filing with additional tariff changes. In April 2013, PSCo and other WestConnect members
requested rehearing on various aspects of the March 2013 order. PSCo and other WestConnect jurisdictional utilities made their
additional compliance filings to address directives in the March 2013 order. The FERC is expected to rule in 2014 on the regional
compliance filing and the requests for rehearing. WestConnect members, including PSCo, filed their Order 1000 interregional
compliance filings in May 2013 and the filings are pending FERC action.
SPS
In July 2013, the FERC issued its initial order on SPP’s Order 1000 regional compliance filing identifying several issues and requiring
a further compliance filing by SPP. The FERC rejected SPP’s proposal to retain a ROFR for new transmission projects with
operational voltages between 100 KV and 300 KV. Requests for rehearing of the FERC’s July 2013 order were filed and are pending
FERC action. The SPP regional compliance filing to the July 2013 order was filed and is pending FERC action. The SPP
interregional compliance filing was submitted and is also pending the FERC’s action. SPS believes that Texas statutes protect the
ROFR of incumbent utilities operating outside of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to construct and own
transmission interconnected to their systems, though this view is disputed by some parties. The State of New Mexico does not have
legislation protecting ROFR rights for incumbent utilities.
Xcel Energy Services Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin vs. ATC (La Crosse, Wis. to Madison, Wis. Transmission Line) — In February 2012,
Xcel Energy Services Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin filed a complaint with the FERC concerning ownership of the proposed La Crosse,
Wis. to Madison, Wis. 345 KV transmission line. In July 2012, the FERC ruled favorably on Xcel Energy Services Inc.’s and NSP-
Wisconsin’s complaint, ruling that the responsibilities to construct the La Crosse, Wis. to Madison, Wis. transmission line, also known
as the Badger Coulee line, belong equally to NSP-Wisconsin and ATC. In August 2012, ATC requested rehearing and requested that
the FERC grant a stay of the ruling. In September 2012, the FERC granted rehearing for purposes of further consideration but did not
grant a stay. Thus, the July ruling remains in effect pending the FERC’s further ruling on rehearing. In order to proceed with
development of the project, the two companies are working together on routing and regulatory state issues pending FERC action on
ATC’s request for rehearing. A joint CPCN application was filed with the PSCW in October 2013.