BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

PROCEEDING NO. 17A-0797E

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
COLORADO TO MODIFY THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULES FOR THE EARLY
RETIREMENT OF COMANCHE 1 AND COMANCHE 2 GENERATING UNITS,
ESTABLISH A REGULATORY ASSET TO COLLECT INCREMENTAL DEPRECIATION,
REDUCE THE RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD ADJUSTMENT COLLECTION TO
ONE PERCENT, AND IMPLEMENT A GENERAL RATE SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT,
CONTINGENT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE COLORADO ENERGY PLAN PORTFOLIO
IN PROCEEDING NO. 16A-0396E.
______________________________________________________________________________
THE COALITION OF RATEPAYERS’ RESPONSE TO
WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES’ MOTION TO STRIKE
______________________________________________________________________________
Colorado PUC E-Filings System

The Coalition of Ratepayers (“Coalition”), through its counsel, hereby submits its

Response to Western Resource Advocates’ (“WRA”) Motion to Strike as follows:

“On the face of it, it must be a bad cause which will not bear discussion. Truth
seeks light instead of shunning it.” -- Horace Mann1

I. Introduction
WRA’s Motion seeks to strike large portions of the Answer, Cross-Answer and Surrebuttal

Testimony of Charles S. Griffey (“Griffey”) filed by the Coalition in the above-captioned docket.2

The Motion avers that portions of the testimony are beyond the scope of the proceeding and/or are

not responsive to prior testimony.3 Contrary to WRA’s assertions, the testimony offered by

1
Thoughts Selected from the Writings of Horace Mann, (H.B. Fuller & Co. 1867) p. 123.
2
WRA proposes to exclude Griffey’s Answer Testimony at 29:16-32:4; Cross-Answer Testimony
at 10:5-15:9, 17:1-30:7, Exhibits CA-1 and CA-2; Surrebuttal Testimony at 8:2-8, 8:16-18, 9:1-
32:7, 35:18-37:20 and exhibits CSG-SR-1 and CSG-SR-2 and related portions of the executive
summaries. Motion to Strike, pp. 5-7.
3
Motion to Strike, p.4.
1
Griffey is in direct response to prior testimony, is directly relevant to the interrelated issues and

comports with the Commission’s rulings in this case.

Griffey’s testimony is a direct challenge to claims made in the AD/RR proceeding (Docket

17A-0797E) by Public Service Company of Colorado (“PSCo” or “the Company”), Sierra Club,

and WRA that flatly endorse the economic conclusions of the 120-Day Report and make sweeping

pronouncements that the AD/RR application and the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio

(“CEPP”) are in the public interest. The very parties that support WRA’s Motion seeking to strike

Griffey’s testimony are the same parties that introduced this issue in earlier testimony. They

should not be allowed to proclaim the alleged benefits of the CEPP in the AD/RR proceeding

without weathering any critique. It is both the hallmark of an adversarial system and the obligation

of the Commission to consider the very type of argument and information that has been presented

by the Coalition to rebut these claims. The truth should neither be buried nor ignored.

Additionally, because the related ERP docket (Docket 16A-0393E) has been closed to

discovery and further testimony, this is the only forum that presently allows for the consideration

of the testimony at issue. Absent its consideration, the Coalition will have no adequate due process

in these interrelated proceedings in which to raise its concerns and introduce relevant rebuttal

testimony into the record. For these reasons, WRA’s Motion should be denied.

II. Argument
1. The Commissions’ Rulings Support the Inclusion of the Testimony
WRA sets forth several arguments in support of its Motion. First, WRA claims that

Griffey’s testimony in opposition to the early retirements of Comanche 1 and 2 is not relevant to

the AD/RR proceeding and should be excluded.4 Second, WRA claims that Griffey’s testimony

4
Motion to Strike, p.5.
2
addressing the 120-Day Report is beyond the scope of the proceeding and should also be excluded.

Notably, WRA does not claim that the testimony offered by Griffey is not relevant to the

determination of the ERP matter. In fact, WRA argues that its Motion is not prejudicial because

this information would be “more properly presented in Proceeding No. 16A-0396E, where the

Comanche Unit retirement and the Company’s 120-Day Report are at issue.”5

As an initial matter, the division between dockets is far less absolute than WRA suggests.

The proposed CEPP is interrelated and interdependent with the AD/RR docket:

The CEP Portfolio stipulation states that the implementation of the CEP
Portfolio, if approved, is dependent upon additional approvals from the
Commission to be addressed in a separate application. Public Service proposes to:
(1) modify the depreciation schedules for Comanche 1 and Comanche 2 to
accelerate the depreciation associated with these units to reflect the new earlier
retirement dates; (2) set up a regulatory asset to collect the incremental
depreciation; (3) lower the rate of collections from the Renewable Energy Standard
Adjustment (RESA) to approximately 1 percent; and (4) redirect the RESA money
by revising the General Rate Schedule Adjustment (GRSA) to collect an amount of
revenue approximately equivalent to the 1 percent reduction of the RESA in order
to use the dollars collected through the GRSA to extinguish the regulatory asset.6

The cost recovery mechanisms proposed for Comanche 1 and 2 are inseparable from the

consideration of the overall portfolio proposals in the ERP docket. The forecast of the RESA

balances and the AD/RR application are necessary for the Commission to understand the potential

incremental costs associated with the acquisition of eligible energy resources in Phase II of the

ERP proceeding.7 Accordingly, the outcome of the ERP docket and the AD/RR docket are to be

decided concurrently as information in the one docket necessarily informs the other.

5
Motion to Strike, p. 7.
6
Decision C18-0141-I (Adopted Feb. 15, 2018), 17A-0797E, p.2.
7
Interim Decision C18-0298-I (April 25, 2018), 17A-0797E, ¶¶10-11; see also Answer Testimony
of PUC Staff Witness Richard Reis, p. 5 (noting that the AD/RR application is a “key element” of
the “total cost for modeling purposes of the CEP.”)
3
 Just as the ERP docket relies upon the updated RESA balances, updated accelerated

depreciation calculations, and analysis of the RESA and CEPA impacts from the AD/RR docket,

so too does the AD/RR docket rely upon the 120-Day Report from the ERP docket. This is evident

by the nature of the case, and the fact that PSCo was directed to provide updated RESA balances

in the AD/RR proceeding following the filing of the 120-Day Report in the ERP proceeding.8 The

Commission’s order pertaining to testimony specifically contemplated the submission of updated

information after the 120 Day report:

Specifically, the Company proposed four rounds of pre-filed testimony with

approximate filing dates: (1) Direct Testimony submitted with the AD/RR
Application; (2) Answer Testimony filed in mid-March 2018; (3) Rebuttal
Testimony with updated information on any additional adjustments to the
accelerated depreciation and on the RESA deferred account based on the
actual project costs of the CEP Portfolio submitted in mid-May 2018 (to follow
the filing of the 120-Day bid evaluation and selection report in the ERP
proceeding); and (4) Surrebuttal Testimony to be filed approximately two
weeks after the Rebuttal Testimony to address only the updated information
filed in the Company’s Rebuttal Testimony. Public Service seeks a final decision
on the AD/RR Application contemporaneously with the Commission’s Phase II
decision in the ERP proceeding in late July 2018.9

Moreover, PSCo was also ordered to broadly address why its proposal is in the public interest and

the impacts of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (“TCJA”)10 – topics that would be well outside the narrow

description of the AD/RR proceeding that WRA offers.11 WRA’s description of the AD/RR docket

8
Interim Decision C18-0298-I (April 25, 2018), 17A-0797E, ¶11.
9
Decision C18-0141-I (Adopted Feb. 15, 2018), 17A-0797E, p.2 (emphasis added). See also C18-
0252-I (April 11, 2018), 17A-0797E (extending filing deadlines of cross answer, rebuttal,
surrebuttal testimony and statements of position and hearing to accommodate Xcel’s request for a
later date to file its 120-Day report).
10
Decision No. C18-0141-I, (Adopted Feb. 15, 2018), 17A-0797E, ¶25 (“… Public Service shall
address why the granting of the relief requested in the AD/RR Application, including the specific
“steps” (as set forth in the direct testimony of McKoane, Perkett, and Trowbridge) and approvals,
are in the public interest.”); ¶27.
11
Motion to Strike, p. 2-3.
4
simply looks to PSCo’s original application language and ignores the Commission’s orders and

the general history of these dockets.

To suggest that the 120-Day Report is beyond the scope of the AD/RR docket is inaccurate

and ignores the fact that the 120-Day Report is not only relevant to the AD/RR proceeding; the

AD/RR proceeding is dependent upon the 120-Day Report. As the proposed early retirement of

Comanche 1 and 2 is also at the heart of the CEPP and the AD/RR matter, Griffey’s testimony on

these topics is highly relevant and necessary to a fair determination of the outcome.

The Commission has also recognized the interrelated subject matter of the AD/RR and the

ERP proceeding and has encouraged procedural efficiency between the dockets:

Given the potentially interrelated subject matter and timelines proposed in these
proceedings, we find that simplified intervention filings notifying the Commission
of the intent to participate as a party in both proceedings will enable procedural
efficiencies in this matter.12
WRA’s proposal to strike testimony in the AD/RR docket only to have it moved over to the ERP

docket does nothing more than create inefficiencies and introduce potential problems with comity

between the dockets. Keeping the testimony in place comports with the Commission’s direction

to “enable procedural efficiencies.” The testimony also ties the AD/RR considerations to the 120-

Day Report and helps to direct the Commission’s to exactly where the issues intersect. WRA’s

objection to a portion of Griffey’s Direct testimony is particularly illustrative on this point.13 The

disputed portion of Griffey’s testimony goes directly to the cost impact of the proposed regulatory

asset on the CEPP.14 His answer also provides context as to whether customers will save money

on an NPV basis with respect to the early retirement of Comanche 1 and 2. This is clearly relevant

12
Interim Decision C17-1022-I (Adopted Dec. 6, 2017), 17A-0797E, p.1.
13
Motion to Strike, p.6.
14
Griffey Answer Testimony, 29:16-32:4.
5
to both dockets as it is important to understand both the costs mechanics of the proposed regulatory

asset for the AD/RR proceeding and its overall impact on the ERP.

Testimony that identifies the connections between the economic analysis in the 120-Day

report and the AD/RR application assists the Commission with reaching an informed decision in

both dockets. There is no need to be unnecessarily repetitive or to sequester the dockets as if they

had no relation to each other. The two dockets are plainly interdependent and a complete record

in this matter necessitates some acknowledgement of that.

2. Griffey’s Testimony is Responsive to Issues Raised by Other Parties

The Answer, Cross-Answer and Surrebuttal testimony identified by WRA in its Motion is

responsive to issues previously raised in testimony by other parties. Ironically, the same parties

that support WRA’s Motion are the very same parties that opened the door to testimony addressing

the economic analysis of the CEPP. Among other things, PSCo, Sierra Club, and WRA have all

endorsed the economic conclusion found in the 120 Day Report that the CEPP benefits consumers

to the tune of $213 million.15

a. PSCo’s Supplemental Direct Testimony

PSCo’s Supplemental Direct Testimony introduced areas beyond the topics addressed in

its initial application. In response to the Commission’s Directive in Decision No. C18-0141-I,16

PSCo’s witness, Marci McKoane (“McKoane”), explains in several places in her Supplemental

Direct Testimony why the Company believes that the early retirements of Comanche 1 and 2 are

15
There is some inconsistency in the 120-Day Report as the summary states there is a savings of
$215 million, but the calculations and other statements in the 120-Day Report actually show that
the NPV savings is calculated to be $213 million. 120-Day Report, p.8, n.3; p.15, Table 1.
16
Decision No. C18-0141-I, (Adopted Feb. 15, 2018), 17A-0797E, ¶25.
6
in the Public Interest.17 McKoane’s testimony on this topic stretches for over 15 pages and makes

numerous claims, including:

• “The Company expects to achieve these [CEPP] outcomes with neutral

cost impacts or potentially cost savings on a present value basis.” 30:22-
31:02 (emphasis added).

• “…the CEPP supports the goals of Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive

Order D 2017-015, ‘Supporting Colorado’s Clean Energy Transition,’
which calls on state agencies to work with electric utilities to maximize use
of renewable energy while maintaining reliability and without increasing
costs to customers.” 31:02-06 (emphasis added).

• “Protect customers from cost impacts. The AD/RR Application provides a

process to address the incremental depreciation expense from the early
retirement of Comanche 1 and Comanche 2 while keeping customers
neutral through the 1% RESA reduction.” 32:15-18.

• That the various approvals sought in the AD/RR application are in the
public interest. 33:18 – 45:14

• That the AD/RR Application “supports the CEPP, which in turn can
address every stated objective in the legislative declaration of intent
section of Amendment 37, the original 2004 ballot initiative that created
the RES. Amendment 37 was intended to “save customers and businesses
money, attract new businesses and jobs, promote development of rural
economies, minimize water use for electricity generation, diversify
Colorado’s energy resources, reduce the impact of volatile fuel prices,
and improve the natural environment of the state…” and to “develop
and utilize renewable energy.” 45:03-14 (emphasis added).
If WRA is bothered by testimony the Coalition did submit, one can only wonder what their

response would have been had the Coalition responded to even a handful of the incredibly broad

and unsupported claims made in just the last paragraph of McKoane’s Supplemental Direct

testimony. In any event, the Supplemental Direct testimony provided by PSCo clearly goes

17
Marci McKoane Supplemental Direct Testimony, Executive summary, pp. 3-4; 28:15-26; 30:01-
45:14.
7
beyond the bounds of its initial application and makes numerous statements about the viability of

the CEPP, its alleged cost neutrality and/or benefits to consumers, and addresses additional cost

impacts beyond the items in the AD/RR application such as the TCJA impact and the costs of

salvage and decommissioning of Comanche 1 and 2.18 Griffey’s testimony is well-within the scope

of being responsive to PSCo’s testimony.

b. WRA’s Cross-Answer and Surrebuttal Testimony

WRA did not file answer testimony, but did submit both cross-answer and surrebuttal

testimony from Gwen Farnsworth (“Farnsworth”).”19 Although the majority of Farnsworth’s

testimony addresses the creation of a RESA rider, she nonetheless weighs in on the supposed

economic benefits of the CEPP:

Q. Is the Company’s AD/RR proposal beneficial for customers?

A. Yes. The AD/RR proposal, including my recommendations above, should

be beneficial for customers. It helps ensure neutral bill impacts or savings for
customers with the early retirement of Comanche 1 and Comanche 2. The
Company’s 120-Day Report estimates the Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio save
customers approximately $213 million, even when including the carrying costs
of an accelerated depreciation regulatory asset. The AD/RR mechanism
protects customers in the near term from bill impacts due to early plant
retirement through a transparent and verifiable mechanism.20

18
Company witnesses Alex Trowbridge and Lisa Perkett also address the impact of the TCJA and
nine additional areas identified by the Commission in Paragraph 20 of Decision No. C18-0141-I
that required additional explanation. Supplemental Direct Testimony of Alex Trowbridge, pp. 12-
30; Supplemental Direct Testimony of Lisa Perkett, 10-24; 28-34. Perkett also addressed salvage
and decommissioning costs and the total costs and savings to ratepayers as requested by the
Commission in Paragraph 24 of Decision No. C18-0141-I. Supplemental Direct Testimony of Lisa
Perkett, pp. 27, 35-38.
19
Cross-Answer Testimony of Gwendolyn Farnsworth, 5:12.
20
Id. 13:07-15.
8
By endorsing the company’s alleged savings of $213 million and supposed consumer protection,

WRA opened the door to criticism of those claims. WRA returned to this same issue in its

surrebuttal testimony:

Q. Are there other considerations the Commission should take into account when
evaluating the Company’s proposal?

A. Yes. Public Service voluntarily proposed to advance the retirement dates of

these two units in order to realize significant benefits for customers. These benefits
include reducing CO2 emissions by nearly 60%, and SO2 and NOx emissions by
90% compared to 2005, increased system reliability and flexibility with battery
storage, rural investment and job growth across Colorado, and over $200 million
in customer savings….21

In addition to endorsing PSCo’s alleged cost savings found in its 120-Day Report, WRA also

weighed in on supposed environmental benefits, system reliability/flexibility, rural investment,

and job growth --- none of which were part of PSCo’s original AD/RR application. WRA’s own

testimony is irrelevant by the argument it has propounded. Should the Commission favor WRA’s

Motion to Strike, then it follows that WRA’s testimony should be stricken as well.

c. Sierra Club’s Answer and Surrebuttal Testimony

As noted at the outset of Griffey’s Cross-Answer testimony, his testimony was submitted,

in part, to “rebut[] Sierra Club witness Tyler Comings’ claim that ‘Comanche 1 and 2 are clearly

uneconomic when compared to other options available to the Company.’”22 In Tyler Comings’

(“Comings”) direct testimony, substantial portions of the testimony endorsed the calculations and

conclusions of PSCo regarding the supposed cost savings of the CEPP. His testimony included

the following:

• “The accelerated depreciation of Comanche Units 1 and 2 and offsetting

mechanism is in the public interest.” 3:16-17.

21
Surrebuttal Testimony of Gwendolyn Farnsworth for WRA, 10:09-16 (emphasis added).
22
Griffey Cross Answer Testimony, Executive Summary, p.2.
9
 • “Comanche 1 and 2 are clearly uneconomic when compared to other options
available to the Company. Expediting their retirement frees up the
Company to pursue these less expensive options.” 7:10-12.

• “…the proposal to close Comanche 1 and 2 early will result in a reduction

in present value costs to customers…” 7:18-19.

• “…in the 2016 Electric Resource Plan (“ERP”) proceeding, the Company
produced an analysis that showed that retiring Comanche 1 and 2 earlier
and replacing it primarily with new renewable resources would save
ratepayers money.” 8:7-10 (also citing the annuity method used by PSCo in
the ERP proceeding).

Comings then goes on to summarize much of the portfolio analysis that PSCo put forth in the ERP

proceeding.23 He then claims that the benefits of the CEPP are underaccounted, arguing that actual

bid information and supposed future coal plant compliance costs would increase the relative

benefits of the CEPP.24 If PSCo and WRA opened the door to testimony about the economics of

the CEPP, Comings’ testimony ripped it right off the hinges.

As with WRA’s testimony, if the Commission were to adopt WRA’s position in its Motion,

then none of PSCo or Sierra Club’s testimony in this area should be permitted either. This also

applies to Comings’ Surrebuttal testimony which goes on at length about the alleged economic

benefits of the CEPP – largely taking PSCo’s 120-Day Report numbers at face value.25

3. Griffey’s Testimony Will Assist the Commission

Commission Rule 1501 allows the Commission to broadly consider testimony and other

evidence before it and is not “bound by the technical rules of evidence,” and “may receive and

consider evidence not admissible under the rules of evidence, if the evidence possesses reliable

probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent persons in the conduct of their

23
Direct Testimony of Tyler Comings, pp. 9-11.
24
Id. at 9–10.
25
Surrebuttal Testimony of Tyler Comings, pp. 4-5.
10
affairs.” The Commission has often rejected motions to strike testimony,26 including similar

efforts made in the ERP docket to prevent Griffey’s testimony from seeing the light of day.27

Although PSCo, WRA, and Sierra Club offer little more than an echo-chamber for the 120-

Day Report’s conclusion that the CEPP saves ratepayers $213 million over the ERPP, the fact

remains that all three parties have opened the door to challenge this claim. The record should not

reflect an uncontested adoption of PSCo’s conclusions, particularly when one of the issues that the

Commission has directed PSCo to address in its application is whether the AD/RR proposal is in

the public interest. Neither the AD/RR application nor the CEPP have been shown to be in the

public interest. In particular, Griffey’s testimony reveals that the 120-Day Report’s claim of

economic costs savings to ratepayers is nothing more than a falsehood built upon accounting errors

and misleading assumptions.

Griffey’s testimony addresses the disparity in treatment between the CEPP and ERPP with

respect to the TCJA, resulting in $37 million in errors favoring the CEPP. He also addresses the

introduction of a new CT unit to the portfolio analysis 28, the abandonment of the GSRA in favor

of the “Colorado Energy Plan Adjustment” (“CEPA”), the continued failure to treat accelerated

depreciation equally between the portfolio for accounting purposes (a disparity of $171 million),

the windfall to PSCo as a result of receiving a WACC on the new proposed regulatory asset, and

26
See, e.g., Decision No. C12-1233-I, Docket Nos. 11A-869E, 12A-782E, 12A-785E (October 24,
2012), ¶7 (denying motion to strike testimony of Gwen Farnsworth).; Decision No. C16-1140,
Docket 16AL-0326 (November 30, 2016) ¶24 (denying Black Hills’ motion to strike staff
testimony and attachments).
27
Hearing Transcript, Vol. V, Docket No. 16A-0396E (Feb. 7, 2018), 14:23-30:18 (hearing and
denying CIEA’s Motion to Strike portions of Griffey’s Surrebuttal Testimony).
28
Erroneous fuel cost assumptions with these CT units result in a $68 million error alone. An
additional $92 million erroneously favoring the CEPP results from fixed costs assumptions.
Between the TCJA errors and the introduction of these new units, $197 million virtually wipes out
the alleged costs savings, even before the other issues are addressed.
11
certain other omissions and disparities in PSCo’s treatment of the competing portfolios such as a

failure to account for wind and battery degradation and additional transmission interconnectivity

cost information. When corrected for these errors, the early retirement of Comanche Units 1 & 2

will cost ratepayers at least $284 million on a present value basis through 2054 (even more when

a shorter time horizon is considered). This is a $497 million difference from PSCo’s 120-Day

Report and undermines the claims made in the AD/RR proceeding by PSCo, Sierra Club, and

WRA that the CEPP saves ratepayers money and is in the public interest.

The economics of the CEPP and the other the other portfolios have been a moving target

since the close of Phase I due to changes in the Strategist modeling and calculations – even apart

from bid information. PSCo’s testimony in the AD/RR matter has continued this trend, in

particular, the introduction of MAM-1, revised MAM-1, and the explanations for certain cost

calculations offered by McKoane, Trowbridge, and Perkett in Supplemental Direct and Rebuttal

testimonies. The Phase I Decision was not intended to give PSCo a green light to continue to

doctor its ERP accounting to give the false impression that the CEPP is a better deal than it actually

is. As Griffey’s testimony shows, the errors have not been resolved but rather compounded. It is

critical to examine these problems for the proper resolution of both dockets. In particular,

Griffey’s testimony shows that the proposed scheme to defer accelerated depreciation and recover

it via the CEPA scheme has not been shown to be more beneficial than simply taking accelerated

depreciation as it occurs.29

4. Striking Griffey’s Testimony Will Result in Inadequate Due Process and

Prejudice the Coalition
As discussed above, numerous parties have weighed in on the supposed economic benefits

of the CEPP in the AD/RR proceeding, going well-beyond the analysis of the RESA/GRSA/CEPA

29
Charles Griffey Surrebuttal Testimony, 34:10-35:15.
12
riders and the accelerated depreciation of Comanche 1 and 2. With the filing of its 120-Day

Report, PSCo has provided revised portfolios that incorporate bid information, revised impacts

due to accelerated depreciation and the proposed RESA changes, revised TCJA impacts, additional

transmission interconnectivity cost information, additional cost sensitivity runs in Strategist, and

additional portfolios as ordered by the Commission in Decision No. C18-019130. The parties to

the AD/RR docket endorsing PSCo’s conclusions that the CEPP benefits ratepayers are relying

directly upon the analysis PSCo performed in preparing its 120-Day Report. It is neither fair nor

appropriate for parties to endorse the numbers PSCo offers and simultaneously call for the

exclusion of testimony that questions those numbers. To exclude testimony in opposition to these

claims would plainly prejudice the Coalition. Moreover, as the AD/RR proceeding and the ERP

proceeding are interrelated and each relies upon the economic analysis that is performed in the

other, it is appropriate to consider these arguments in both proceedings. With the ERP proceeding

now closed to discovery and further testimony, it is appropriate to consider relevant testimony in

the AD/RR proceeding and allow it to inform both decisions. Absent inclusion of the testimony

here, the Coalition is left without a venue to introduce its testimony and is prejudiced thereby. The

Coalition is entitled to adequate due process and, in this case, it includes having a sufficient

opportunity to address the accounting shenanigans introduced in the 120-Day Report.

III. Conclusion

WRA’s Motion should be denied because Griffey’s testimony is in direct response to

claims made by the parties in Docket 17A-0797E, is in response to directives by the Commission

to address these interrelated dockets and whether the AD/RR proposal is in the public interest, and

is in response to information provided by PSCo only after the close of Phase I of the ERP

30
Decision No. C18-0191, Docket 16A-0396E (Adopted March 14, 2018).
13
proceeding. Griffey’s testimony does not propose to relitigate any of the issues already decided

in the ERP proceeding, rather it addresses new information that has come to light in the AD/RR

proceeding and in the 120-Day Report. He also rebuts the blanket endorsement of the 120-Day

Report’s conclusions by PSCo, Sierra Club, and WRA. They have all opened the door to Griffey’s

testimony which is relevant, responsive, and appropriate. For these reasons, WRA’s Motion to

Strike is without merit and should be denied.

In the alternative, if the Commission chooses to grant in whole or part the Motion, the

Coalition requests that the following sections of PSCo, WRA and Sierra Club testimony be stricken

for the reasons discussed above:

PSCO

• Marci McKoane, Supplemental Direct Testimony, 30:01-45:14 and related portions

of the executive summary, pp. 3-4;

• Marci McKoane, Rebuttal Testimony, 21:06-07; 22:07-16; 33:17-34:08; 39:06-07;

46:22-27:16; 53:05-54:02; and related portions of the executive summary, p. 5;

• Alex Trowbridge, Rebuttal Testimony, 18:12-19; 28:14-36:12; 56:03-58:18 and

related portions of the executive summary, pp. 4-5;

WRA

• Gwen Farnsworth, Cross-Answer Testimony, 5:12; 13:07-15.

• Gwen Farnsworth, Sur-rebuttal Testimony, 10:09-16.

Sierra Club

• Tyler Comings, Direct Testimony, 3:16-17; 4:14-20; 7:06-11:21; 13:10-27:19;

28:07-11; Attachment TFC-2;

• Tyler Comings, Sur-Rebuttal Testimony, 1:21-2:25; 3:10-10; 3:15-11:11.

14
 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Coalition of Ratepayers respectfully

requests that WRA’s Motion to Strike be DENIED.

Respectfully submitted on this 20th day of July, 2018.

/s/ Meredith Kapushion ____

Shayne Madsen, #8750

Meredith Kapushion, #36772 Meghan Griffiths
Madsen & Associates, P.C. 100 Congress Avenue
7441 Old Mill Trail Suite 1100
Boulder, CO 80301 Austin, TX 78701
smadsen@COlawyer.net ph (512) 236-2363
mkapushion@COLawyer.net mgriffiths@jw.com
(ph) 303-588-1693

ATTORNEYS FOR COALITION OF RATEPAYERS

15
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served
in accordance with the governing procedural orders to all parties of record in this proceeding via
the Public Utilities Commission E-Filing system this 20th day of July, 2018.

_/s/ Meredith Kapushion

16