Table 1 - WordPress.com · The Model Wind PPA provided as part of the 2011 Wind RFP was updated from the model PPA version used in the 2009 All-Source Solicitation. These updates

Public Service 2011 Wind RFP Bid Evaluation Report

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 4 Section 1. Introduction........................................................................................ 5

Background on CPUC Docket Nos. 10A-377E and 10A-905E 5 Commission Rule Requirements 5

Section 2. Pre-Bid Activities ............................................................................... 7 2011 Wind RFP Documents 7 Solicitation Email Address and Website 8 Bidder Communications 8

Section 3. Bid Receipt, Processing and Screening ............................................ 9 Bid Opening and Processing 9 Bid Information Management 9 Initial Economic Screening of Bids 9 Bid Eligibility Screening 10 30-Day Report 10

Section 4. Bid Pricing ....................................................................................... 11 Falling Prices in the Wind Generation Market 11

Section 5. Bid Evaluation ................................................................................. 12 Bid Due Diligence 12 Bid Re-pricing Issues 12 Static Economic Analysis of Bids 13

Levelized Energy Cost............................................................................. 13 Section 6. Evaluation Results........................................................................... 15

Bid Selection Criteria 15 Viability .................................................................................................... 15 Pricing ..................................................................................................... 15 Combined Price/Viability Ranking............................................................ 16 Location................................................................................................... 16

Shortlisted Bids 19 Selected Bids Employment Metrics 19

Section 7. Appendices...................................................................................... 20 Highly Confidential Appendix A – Results of Static Economic Analysis 21 Highly Confidential Appendix B – Employment Metrics for Bids Advance to Due Diligence 23

1


List of Tables

Table 1 LEC Ranking of Bids Advanced to Due Diligence ....................................... 15

2


List of Figures

Figure 1 Location of Bids Advanced to Due Diligence............................................... 17

3


Executive Summary Public Service had a robust response to the 2011 Wind Request for Proposals (“2011 Wind RFP”) seeking acquisition of 200 MW of wind generation resources. Public Service received 43 wind bids for approximately 6,143 MW of nameplate wind generation capacity. The bids received demonstrated that the price of wind generation resources did indeed fall by over 45% in the period of time between 2009 and 2011. In fact, by replacing the remaining 201 MW wind bid from the 2009 All-Source RFP with a 200 MW wind bid from this 2011 Wind RFP, the Company will save customers approximately $325 million in total wind energy costs ($15 million per year or $135 million present value) over the next 20 years and get 25% more wind energy. These savings include all costs associated with the new radial transmission lines needed to deliver the wind energy output to the Public Service system. Public Service believes that the bid pricing exhibited in “Highly Confidential Appendix A” clearly demonstrates that the Commission should order the Company to amend the 2007 CRP and continue with the 2011 Wind RFP. All seven bids that Public Service advanced to due diligence were deemed to be viable proposals with a good probability of being successfully developed and placed in-service by December 31, 2012. Bid prices contemplating use of Production Tax Credits (“PTC”) were sufficiently lower than those contemplating use of the Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”) to warrant using the PTC prices as the cost criteria for bid selection. Additionally, twenty five year term bids were also perceived as providing additional future value to customers versus shorter term offers. Therefore, Public Service chose to use PTC prices for twenty five year terms to economically rank bids and select those to shortlist for PPA negotiations. Public Service elected to advance three bids W039, , W004,

and W013, to a shortlist for PPA negotiations. The Company made these selections based on the price and viability criteria discussed below in conjunction with consideration of other factors such as the availability of transmission. Public Service proposes to move the bids forward into PPA negotiations to ultimately determine the most viable bid that can deliver on the submitted bid price. Public Service’s decision to negotiate with more than one bid is consistent with past practices and is intended to speed the process and provide price discipline to the process.

4


Section 1. Introduction Background on CPUC Docket Nos. 10A-377E and 10A-905E Public Service Company of Colorado (”Public Service” or the “Company”) filed an application with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC’) to amend the Company’s 2007 Colorado Resource Plan (“2007 CRP”) on June 4, 2010 (Docket No. 10A-377E). The amendment sought to 1) reduce the amount of solar generation acquired in the San Luis Valley to a level within the capability of the existing transmission system; and 2) have the Commission reaffirm that the acquisition of solar thermal generation resources was in the customers’ best interests. On November 19, 2010, the Company sought to further amend its 2007 CRP by 1) recommending that the acquisition of solar resources from the 2007 CRP be limited to the 60 MW of PV for which Power Purchase Agreements (“PPA”) had been executed; and 2) requesting approval to no longer pursue a 201 MW wind bid that was originally selected from the 2009 All-Source Solicitation but for which a PPA was never executed. In conjunction with the Company’s application to amend its 2007 CRP, Public Service submitted an application (Docket No. 10A-905E) on December 3, 2010 to issue the 2011 Wind RFP for 200 MW of wind generation to replace the 201 MW bid that was originally identified in the 2007 CRP. In the wind RFP application, Public Service highlighted the importance of the timing associated with the acquisition process and construction schedule to ensure any potential wind project could be completed by the end of 2012. Wind developers can offer Public Service a lower overall price if they can avail themselves of the federal tax incentives for wind energy, namely the PTC or the ITC. These credits are currently set to expire on December 31, 2012. Given the timeframe associated with soliciting and evaluating wind bids, negotiating PPA’s and Large Generator Interconnection Agreements, constructing the wind facilities and the necessary transmission facilities, the Company felt it was necessary to issue a wind RFP as soon as possible to allow developers the best chance of bringing projects on-line by December 31, 2012. On January 28, 2011 the Administrative Law Judge determined that the two dockets (10A-377E and 10A-905E) should be combined. He also established a procedural schedule that would allow for an initial Commission decision regarding the Company’s applications to amend its 2007 CRP by early May 2011. A decision at this time should allow sufficient time to permit and construct the selected wind facility including its transmission interconnection facilities. Commission Rule Requirements This wind bid evaluation report is being submitted to the Commission in accordance with rule 3613(a) which states,

Within 120 days of the utility’s receipt of bids in its competitive acquisition process, the utility shall file a report with the Commission describing the cost-effective resource plans that conform to the range of scenarios for

5


assessing the costs and benefits from the potential acquisition of increasing amounts of renewable energy resources, demand-side resources, or Section 123 resources as specified in the Commission’s decision approving or rejecting the utility plan developed under rule 3604. In the event that the utility’s preferred cost-effective resource plan differs from the Commission-specified scenarios, the utility’s report shall also set forth the utility’s preferred plan. The utility’s plan shall also provide the Commission with the best value employment metrics information provided by bidders under rule 3615 and by the utility pursuant to rule 3611.

While a targeted solicitation such as the 2011 Wind RFP may not be contemplated by the above rule language, Public Service believes that the intent of rule 3613(a) is clear – that the results of competitive acquisition processes require a report outlining the bid evaluation process and a listing of the bid(s) being advanced for contract negotiation. As a result of the compressed time schedule for completion of the Company’s two pending applications and the need to provide an adequate amount of time for developers to construct any proposed wind project and achieve a December 31, 2012 in-service date, Public Service is providing this report on an accelerated basis in a form consistent with the use of a targeted solicitation process.

6


Section 2. Pre-Bid Activities 2011 Wind RFP Documents Public Service developed the 2011 Wind RFP document using past resource request for proposals as guidance. Guidelines and forms specific to the 2011 Wind RFP were necessary. Guidelines included specifying shorter bidder response times to due diligence questions in order to adhere to accelerated evaluation schedule, requiring information for employment metrics (now required by state Statute and Commission rules), allowing all project sizes to bid, and not requiring a bid fee. The Model Wind PPA provided as part of the 2011 Wind RFP was updated from the model PPA version used in the 2009 All-Source Solicitation. These updates were intended to reflect current wind contracting standards including the following changes:

a) Added language about Automatic Generator Control (AGC) capability required for new wind projects. This is a relatively new concept for Public Service and the 2009 Model PPA essentially had just a placeholder for this section. Since that time, Public Service negotiated several PPAs that include specific AGC language that is incorporated into the new Model PPA.

b) Modified the Excess Energy provision from a price discount to an option. This change was communicated to bidders in the 2009 All-Source Solicitation as a required change to avoid unfavorable accounting treatment of executed PPAs.

c) Removed language related to special provisions for projects that had longer construction schedules because they were dependent on new transmission lines. Since the 2011 Wind RFP is only for projects that can be operational by December 31, 2012, these special provisions are not applicable.

d) Added language about developers being required to comply with CCR 723-3-3666 concerning impacts to state and federally listed wildlife species, as well as species, habitats, and ecosystems of concern. This is a relatively new requirement and was not part of the previous Model PPA.

e) Added a confidentiality section to the Model PPA. In most cases, developers have insisted on adding some confidentiality language in recent PPA negotiations. Public Service believes that it will be helpful to include this language so that developers understand what is acceptable to Public Service.

f) Removed two Public Service conditions precedent related to Production Tax Credits and FERC approval. These allowed Public Service to terminate the PPA in certain situations that are not considered applicable to the 2011 Wind RFP.

7


g) Replaced the Right of First Offer and Purchase Option section with a much shorter version. Many developers complained that the previous language was too complicated and costly to negotiate.

h) Added an escrow agreement form as an exhibit. Recently, many developers have been choosing to use an escrow account for PPA security rather than a letter of credit or guarantee. Public Service believes that it will help in these cases to have an escrow agreement form to use as a starting point.

i) Made some updates to security, change of control, real time data requirements, availability reporting, etc. to reflect current Xcel Energy Inc. PPA standard language.

Solicitation Email Address and Website Public Service created a website for the 2011 Wind RFP that was functional the day of its issuance to establish a convenient and accessible method for bidders to access information. Public Service also created an email address for the sole function of communicating with the bidders. Bidder Communications During the period between the issuance of the 2011 Wind RFP on December 3, 2010 and the submission of bids on January 17, 2011, Public Service answered questions posed by potential bidders by email response.

8


Section 3. Bid Receipt, Processing and Screening Public Service received 43 wind bids for approximately 6,143 MW of nameplate wind capacity on or before January 17, 2011. This report section will describe the initial bid processing, management and screening. Bid Opening and Processing Public Service enacted controls and protocols for the handling, opening, and storage of bids to ensure that the integrity of the 2011 Wind RFP was maintained. Specifically, Public Service 1) maintained the bids in a secure location with controlled access; 2) communicated to all parties with access to the bids the appropriate information protection requirements; and 3) reviewed and reduced the list of personnel with access to the computer server with the stored bid information. When Public Service opened the bids it assigned each bid a four character alphanumeric Bid ID, beginning with ID number W001 and which incremented one number for each wind bid. Public Service received two solar bids which it did not assign a bid ID. These two bids were rejected and the bidder notified of the bid’s noncompliance with the 2011 Wind RFP requirements. Bid Information Management The 2011 Wind RFP required bidders provide bid related information in electronic format. When Public Service opened the bids the electronic information provided was stored on a secure Company computer server. Public Service’s Resource Planning personnel maintained the bid information as it was updated through bid due diligence correspondence with bidders to ensure a common and accurate source of information for the Company’s due diligence team. As described below, Public Service performed due diligence on the bids to better understand the bid specifics, to augment bid and proposal information, and to determine the bid price parameters. Due diligence related correspondence with bidders was managed through a single Company contact. This Company contact 1) maintained a log of outgoing bidder questions; 2) sent the questions to the bidder requested primary and secondary contacts; 3) monitored compliance with the required three-day question response timetable; 4) updated the bid communication log upon bidder response; and 5) provided the due diligence response to the requesting due diligence team member and the responsible Resource Planning analyst. Initial Economic Screening of Bids The timeline for bid analysis, selection, and wind facility development described in Section 1 necessitated that Public Service devise an abbreviated bid evaluation process. Prior to the receipt of bids Public Service decided that 1) it would focus its bid evaluation by performing eligibility screening and due diligence on a subset of the bids

9


in order to accomplish its goals; and 2) the approach best suited for selecting this subset was to perform an initial economic screening of bids. Public Service used the electronic bid pricing data and project descriptions to develop a $/MWh levelized energy cost (“LEC,” addressed in greater depth below) for each bid. Using this LEC value, bids were ranked from most economic to least economic and a subset of seven of the most economic bids were advanced for due diligence. Public Service was prepared to expand the number of bids advanced to due diligence had the due diligence process identified that one or more of the seven bids were not viable or if the due diligence determined that all costs were not priced into the bid and, hence, the bid slipped out of the top seven economic bids. Bid Eligibility Screening Public Service performed an eligibility review of the bids advanced for due diligence. The test for bid eligibility was conformity with the requirements of the 2011 Wind RFP. The primary screening criteria were resource eligibility, complete 2011 Wind RFP forms and a complete discussion of the narrative topics. In conjunction with bid eligibility screening Public Service determined whether the bid constituted one or more bid pricing alternatives based on the term of contracts sought or multiple interconnection points on the Public Service electric transmission system. After performing the initial bid screening, Public Service made specific requests of bidders to develop eligible bids in the event that the bids were not fully compliant with the 2011 Wind RFP requirements. Bidders responded in a timely manner and Public Service ultimately determined that all bids advanced for due diligence met the requirements of the 2011 Wind RFP. 30-Day Report Public Service filed its 30-Day Report in compliance with CPUC Rule 3617(b)(I) on January 24, 2011. The 30-Day Report described that the Company received 43 bids for approximately 6,143 MW and provided a description of the bid pricing.

10


Section 4. Bid Pricing Falling Prices in the Wind Generation Market Public Service argued in its filings in both Docket No. 10A-377E and Docket No. 10A-905E (now consolidated) that the market for wind generation had recently experienced a drop in prices of sufficient magnitude to warrant issuing the 2011 Wind RFP for the purpose of replacing the 201 MW wind bid from the 2009 All-Source Solicitation for which a PPA was never executed. Public Service in its 30-Day Report provided the Commission, and the parties to the dockets, with an indication of the relative price of the wind bids in the 2011 Wind RFP to the remaining 201 MW wind bid from the 2009 All-Source Solicitation. The initial economic screening of bids and the static1 economic analysis of bids demonstrate that the price of wind resources did indeed fall by over 45% in the period of time between 2009 and 2011. In fact, by replacing the remaining 201 MW wind bid from the 2009 All-Source RFP with a 200 MW wind bid from this 2011 Wind RFP, the Company will save customers approximately $325 million in total wind energy costs ($15 million per year or $135 million present value) over the next 20 years and get 25% more wind energy2. These savings include all costs associated with the new radial transmission lines needed to deliver the wind energy output to Public Service system. Public Service believes that the pricing exhibited in “Highly Confidential Appendix A” clearly demonstrates that the Commission should order the Company to amend the 2007 CRP and continue with the 2011 Wind RFP.

1 The term “static” in this instance refers to a spreadsheet analysis as opposed to a dynamic analysis in

which the entire Public Service system is represented using computer dispatch simulation models. 2

11


Section 5. Bid Evaluation Bid Due Diligence Prior to the receipt of wind bids, Public Service assembled a due diligence team to assist in the evaluation process. The team included subject matter experts from Resource Planning and Bidding, Purchase Power, Siting and Land Rights, Commercial Operations, Transmission Project Management, Transmission Planning, and Transmission Access. The team members were instructed to produce a report summarizing their assessment of the seven bids advanced to the due diligence process. The reports were customized to the team’s area of expertise but each focused on assessing the viability of the bid to meet the proposed commercial operations date (“COD”). A green, yellow, red scale was employed to rate the bids. A green score indicated no concerns for the bid. A yellow score indicated that caution was warranted with some aspect of the bid. A red score indicated that the bid contained a “fatal flaw,” an indication that the project might not be viable or might not meet a COD before 12/31/12 in order to be eligible for federal tax incentives. Due diligence reviews of the seven most economic bids began on January 18, 2011. The period for conducting due diligence was from January 18 through February 11 but due diligence will continue at a reduced level throughout the contract negotiation process. Public Service used the due diligence reports, its static economic analysis and the consensus opinion of the due diligence team to determine the shortlist of bids to move forward to contract negotiations. During due diligence Public Service did not identify viability issues with the seven initially identified bids that would warrant moving a bid out of the due diligence pool and advancing another bid into the pool. Bid Re-pricing Issues During the bid evaluation process it became apparent that a few bids should be allowed to re-price their proposals to 1) upgrade their 230 kV interconnection radial to 345kV, 2) reflect a twenty-five year contract term, and 3) reflect the terms and conditions of the model PPA. The Company is sensitive to bid re-pricing and both its real and perceived impact on the integrity of the competitive solicitation process. As a result, Public Service was judicious in allowing instances of re-pricing (limiting the re-pricing opportunities to the three issues noted) and closely reviewed the price changes to ensure they were commensurate with any change made to the bid. The first issue identified concerned the interconnection voltage. Several bidders priced interconnection via a 230 kV radial to locations where the Company preferred 345 kV interconnection. Public Service requested these bidders to re-price assuming a 345 kV radial and 345 kV interconnection. This change from 230kV to 345kV did not always

12


lead to an increase in bid price. In instances where bid prices did increase, they were relatively small in magnitude i.e., less than $1.00/MWh. The second issue dealt with the length of the contract term being proposed by bidders. Public Service believes that, given the relatively low energy prices offered in the bids, securing these prices for a longer PPA term would benefit customers. As a result the Company requested that several bidders offer twenty five year pricing. In addition, Public Service recognized that an escalating bid price which starts low and increases over time could provide added benefit to the Company’s Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment which is projected to have a negative balance for the next several years. The third issue dealt with language in the Model PPA that caused confusion about whether the Company would include the financial impact of lost PTC’s when compensating developers for curtailed wind energy production. While most bidders did in fact submit bid pricing that assumed they would be compensated for lost PTC’s (which is what the Company wanted them to submit for evaluation purposes), a few bidders submitted pricing that assumed they would not be compensated for lost PTC’s. In order to get all bids on a common basis with regard to this issue for the evaluation process, these few bidders were allowed to re-price their proposals to reflect compensation for lost PTC’s.

Static Economic Analysis of Bids Levelized Energy Cost Public Service performed a static economic analysis of the bids by calculating a LEC for each bid based on the proposed bid price. The objective of this static economic screening was to represent the cost of each bid with a single $/MWh value (the LEC) that could then be compared with the LEC’s of other bids. Through this comparison Public Service determined which bids were most economic. Public Service ranked bids by their PTC and ITC LEC prices. As noted above, Public Service decided to advance seven of the top PTC ranked bids to due diligence. Most of the submitted bids included all required cost categories to deliver their energy to the Public Service transmission system in their bid price, i.e. costs associated with development and operation of a facility, bidder transmission interconnection costs and, if required, wheeling costs. Some of the bids however required additional analysis by Public Service to determine the appropriate bidder interconnection costs and/or wheeling costs to include in the bid price. To determine an All-In LEC that includes all costs associated with a bid, in addition to the costs above, interconnection costs and any transmission network upgrades that would be incurred by Public Service need to be added to the bid prices. Consistent with the 2009 All-Source Solicitation, projects that would use transmission upgrades for which the Company had been issued a CPCN were not assigned transmission network upgrade costs. For the set of seven bids advanced, Public Service determined the needed Public Service interconnection costs and transmission network upgrades and

13


added these costs to those seven bids (none of the bids advanced to due diligence required transmission network upgrades to be added). Public Service re-ranked the bids by their All-In LEC3 to determine the lowest cost bids and to determine if the original subset of seven bids advanced for due diligence remained the most economic.4 Public Service’s analysis of All-In LECs confirmed that the seven most economic bids had been advanced to due diligence and that no other bids needed to be added to the due diligence effort. See “Highly Confidential Appendix A” for the complete Static Economic Analysis results.

3 The All-In LEC is a true All-In price for only the seven bids advanced for due diligence. The other bids

on the list do not include adders for Public Service interconnection costs or transmission network upgrades. Due to limited time for the evaluation and the small amount of added costs to the top seven bids, Public Service deemed it unnecessary to determine the true All-In LEC for all bids in order to complete its evaluation. Even with Public Service Interconnection costs added to the seven bids advanced to due diligence, those seven bids still have a lower LEC than the next best bid that did not have these costs added.

4 Some bids offered multiple terms for the sale, multiple sizes and multiple interconnection sizes; therefore, the number of ranked bids exceeds the 43 bid count

14


Section 6. Evaluation Results Bid Selection Criteria Viability All seven bids advanced to due diligence were deemed to be viable proposals with a good probability of being successfully developed and placed in-service by December 31, 3012. While all seven bids were deemed viable, the due diligence team did perceive that some bids were more viable than others, e.g. less risk of completing radial line construction in a timely manner. The resultant viability ranking follows: W004 - Highly Viable W039 - W013 - W006 - W036 – W025 – W041 – Viable Pricing Bid prices contemplating use of the PTC were sufficiently lower than those contemplating use of the ITC to warrant using the PTC prices as the criteria for bid selection. As previously discussed, twenty five year term bids were also perceived as providing additional future value to customers. Therefore, Public Service chose to use PTC prices for twenty five year terms to rank bids and select those to shortlist and move forward for PPA negotiations. The seven bids for which due diligence was performed are ranked by All-In LEC in Table 1 below.

Table 1 LEC Ranking of Bids Advanced to Due Diligence

All-In PTC LEC Rank Bid # Developer Project Name

Point of Interconnection

Approximate Nameplate

(MW)

All-In PTC LEC

($/MWh)1 W039 200.0 2 W004 200.0 3 W036 200.0 4 W025 200.0 5 W013 200.0 6 W041 150.0 7 W006 200.0

15


16

Combined Price/Viability Ranking A combined ranking of the bids with both price and viability taken into account produced the following ranking: W039 - / W004 - Better W013 - W036 – W006 - W025 – W041 – Worse Location Public Service analyzed how the location of this additional 200 MW of wind generation might provide economic value to the system by reducing wind curtailment costs due to increased geographic diversity. The results of this analysis indicated that the location of this additional 200 MW of wind will provide little if any value towards reducing overall system wind curtailment costs. While this analysis considered only the power supply related cost to customers, Public Service does recognize that not concentrating wind resources in a single geographic region of the state can allow for economic development benefits in other areas of the state. As it happens, the two lowest priced bids are located in the central eastern plains area of the state where approximately 15% of the Company’s total wind generation resources are currently located. If the Company were to move forward with one of these bids it is expected that economic benefits would flow to the surrounding areas. Figure 1 shows the location of the Company’s existing wind facilities, the wind facilities under construction and the seven wind bids for which due diligence was performed.


17

Figure 1 Location of Bids Advanced to Due Diligence

Figure 1 is Highly Confidential and not shown.

ce 2011 Wind RFP Bid Evaluation Report

18

Page Intentionally Blank

Public Servi


Shortlisted Bids Public Service elected to advance three bids W039, , W004,

and W013, to a shortlist for PPA negotiations. The Company made these selections consistent with the price and viability criteria discussed above in conjunction with consideration of other factors such as the availability of transmission. Public Service proposes to move these bids forward into PPA negotiations to ultimately determine the most viable bid that can deliver on the offered bid price. Public Service’s decision to negotiate with more than one bid is consistent with past practices and is intended to provide bid price discipline during the negotiation process. Selected Bids Employment Metrics The employment metric information provided by the bidders for the bids advanced to due diligence is included in Highly Confidential Appendix B. Public Service requested and the bidders provided this information for compliance with Rule 3615(c).

19


20

Section 7. Appendices



21

Highly Confidential Appendix A – Results of Static Economic Analysis

Appendix A is Highly Confidential and not shown.

ce 2011 Wind RFP Bid Evaluation Report

22


Public Servi


Highly Confidential Appendix B – Employment Metrics for Bids Advance to Due Diligence Employment Metrics: Respondents shall include descriptions of each best value employment metric described below as it relates to the bid project.

(a) The availability of training programs, including training through apprenticeship programs registered with the United States Department of Labor, Office of Apprenticeship and Training;

(b) The employment of Colorado workers as compared to importation of out-of-state workers;

(c) Long-term career opportunities; and (d) Industry-standard wages, health care, and pension benefits.

Appendix B is Highly Confidential and not shown.

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CONSOLIDATED DOCKETS 10A-377E & 10A-905E

I hereby certify that on this, the 18th day of February 2011, an original and seven (7) copies the foregoing "PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF FILING 2011 WIND RFP BID EVALUATION” and “PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY’S 2011 WIND RFP BID EVALUATION REPORT” were e-filed; And an original and seven (7) copies the foregoing "PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY’S HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL VERSION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY’S 2011 WIND RFP BID EVALUATION REPORT” were hand-delivered with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in accordance with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in accordance with applicable law upon:

Doug Dean, Director Colorado Public Utilities Commission 1560 Broadway, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80202

And the public version will be served upon each of the persons appearing below through the Colorado Public Utilities Commission e-filing system to registered users in accordance with applicable law and an electronic copy will be forwarded to all parties set forth below. As indicated by the symbol (#), these individuals can receive highly- confidential material and will be served accordingly:

DOCKET NO. 10A-377E * Benedict, Sarah [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Douglas, Matthew [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Flanagan, Timothy t [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Kemp, Russell [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Killean, James [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Larson, Matthew [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Macdonald, Timothy [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch * Sterrett, Holly [email protected] Blanca Ranch & Trinchera Ranch Brandt King, Michelle [email protected] CIEA Davidson, Mark [email protected] CIEA Muller, Nicholas [email protected] CIEA * Nelson, Thorvald [email protected] CIEA * Pomeroy, Robert [email protected] CIEA * Corbetta, Richard [email protected] Climax & CF&I * Fanyo, Richard [email protected] Climax & CF&I * Valentine, Mark [email protected] Climax & CF&I * Barmak, Mariya [email protected] CPUC Commission Counsel * Cocian, Emanuel [email protected] CPUC Staff Counsel

* Indicates those persons who have signed nondisclosure agreement Updated: 02/18/11 # Indicates those persons who can receive highly confidential material Dockets 10A-377E & 10A-905E

1

mailto:[email protected]


















* Nocera, David [email protected] CPUC Staff Counsel * Bergman, Bob [email protected] CPUC Advisory Staff * Davis, Ron [email protected] CPUC Advisory Staff * Reasoner, John [email protected] CPUC Advisory Staff *# Caldara, Paul [email protected] CPUC Staff *# Camp, Gene [email protected] CPUC Staff *# Dalton, Bill [email protected] CPUC Staff *# Mignogna, Richard [email protected] CPUC Staff *# Podein, Sharon [email protected] CPUC Staff Moser, Wendy [email protected] Gas Intervenors Rowe, R. William [email protected] Gas Intervenors Rowe, Russell Paul [email protected] Gas Intervenors Shandy, Donald [email protected] Gas Intervenors Futch, Matt [email protected] GEO Gilbert, Carly [email protected] GEO Goad, Jerry [email protected] GEO Cox, Craig [email protected] Interwest Energy Alliance Lehr, Ron [email protected] Interwest Energy Alliance * Tormoen Hickey, Lisa [email protected] Interwest Energy Alliance *# Levis, William [email protected] OCC *# Schechter, P.B. [email protected] OCC *# Schlesinger, Jacob [email protected] OCC *# Southwick, Stephen [email protected] OCC Glustrom, Leslie [email protected] Pro Se * Mandell, Victoria [email protected] Western Resources Advocates

Electronic Copies to: Johnson, Judy [email protected] CIEA O’Riley, Kathleen [email protected] CIEA Penn, Patti [email protected] CIEA Rhetta-Fair, Melvena [email protected] CPUC (Trial Staff) *# Jett, Philip [email protected] OCC *# Mitchell, Chere [email protected] OCC Anderson, Penny [email protected] Western Resources Advocates * Nielsen, John [email protected] Western Resources Advocates

DOCKET NO. 10A-905E

Muller, Nicholas [email protected] CIEA Nelson, Thorvald [email protected] CIEA Pomeroy, Robert [email protected] CIEA

* Indicates those persons who have signed nondisclosure agreement Updated: 02/18/11 # Indicates those persons who can receive highly confidential material Dockets 10A-377E & 10A-905E

2



































