20090727Vol IV Public Hearing.pdf

ORIGINAL
'e BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE LANGLEY
GULCH POWER PLANT
)
) CASE
)
)
)
)Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the SecretaryRECEIVED
NO. IPC-E-O 9-03
JUL 27 2009
BEFORE Bose, Idaho
COMMISSIONER JIM KEMPTON (Presiding)
COMMISSIONER MARSHA SMITH
COMMISSIONER MACK REDFORD
..PLACE:Commission Hearing Room
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho
DATE:July 14, 2009
VOLUME IV - Pages 387 - 428
'.
CSB REPORTING
Constance S. Bucy, CSR No. 187
23876 Applewood Way * Wilder, Idaho 83676
[phone] * [phone]
Email csb~heritagewifi.com
.
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
1 APPEARANCES
2 For the Staff:
3
4
5 For Idaho Power Company:
Scott Woodbury, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Barton L. Kline, Esq.
Idaho Power Company
Post Office Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
Mr. Ken Miller
5400 West Franklin
Boise, Idaho 83705
Ms. Betsy Bridge, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Idaho Conservation League
Post Office Box 844
Boise, Idaho 83701
APPEARANCES
6
7
For Snake River Alliance:
8
9
For Idaho Conservation
League:
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
1 I N D E X.2
3 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
4 Michael Heckler Statement 389( Public)Commissioner Kempton 4095
Julie Pipal Statement 4186( Public)
7 Rod Clay Statement 421( Public)Mr. Woodbury (Cross)423
8
John Weber Statement 424
9 ( Public)
10 John Simmons Statement 427 '(Public)Mr. Woodbury (Cross)42711
12
13.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
CSB REPORTING INDEX
(208 )890-5198
1 E X H I BIT S.2
3 NUMBER DESCRI PTION PAGE
4 FOR THE PUBLIC:
5 90L.Comments of Michael Heckler Marked
Admitted 415
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.25
CSB REPORTING EXHIBITS
Wilder,Idaho 83676
.
.
.
1 BOISE, IDAHO, TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009, 7:00 P. M.
2
3
4 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: So today is July
5 the 14th, 2009. We're in the Idaho Public Utili ties
6 Commission Hearing Room and it's the date, time and place
7 to conduct a public hearing in the matter of Idaho
8 Power's application for a certificate of public
9 convenience and necessity for the Langley Gulch power
10 plant, further identified as Case No. IPC-E-09-03.
11 Present as Commissioners at the hearing
12 are myself as Chair for the hearing, Commissioner Redford
13 to my right and Commissioner Smith to my left. The
14 proceedings in the case are being conducted in accordance
15 with Commission jurisdiction under Title 61 Idaho Code
16 and Commission Rules of Procedure under Idaho
17 Administrative Procedures Act 31.01.01.
18 Also present is the Staff attorney
19 representative Mr. Woodbury, and Idaho Power has two
20 representatives here, attorney Bart Kline and his Idaho
21 Power advisor Ric Gale. The hearing procedures, first of
22 all, we don't want to intimidate anyone of the people
23 that is coming in here to testify. We are in kind of a
24 formal setting. There's a lot of books that may still be
25 si tting around in places and that's because the hearing
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
387 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 is in progress, the technical hearing that's going on,
2 and that will resume tomorrow morning.
3 The procedure that we'll use here tonight
4 is I have a sign-in sheet that currently has four people
5 on it and I'll call you by name and if you'll come up to
6 the witness stand here. Again, it's a little formal. In
7 any other setting, you wouldn't have to actually come up
8 to a witness stand, it would just be something that was
9 facing us. Again, don't let the witness stand intimidate
10 you. It's just a microphone.
11 Before you sit down, you'll take an oath
12 of office and Commissioner Smith will give you the oath
13 of office and then, if you will, Mr. Woodbury will ask
14 some questions about your name, your address and who you
15 may represent. Obviously, if you're representing
16 yourself, you just say you're representing yourself.
17 When you're testifying, testify to us and not to the
18 audience; in other words, don't play to the audience.
19 That's not helping anything. We're trying to get
20 information about how you feel about this particular
21 issue and we're the ones that you're directing your
22 information to, so having said that, are there any
23 questions about any of the procedures?
24 Let's see if it's the same thing. Both of
25 them win. We also have attorneys, we have Ken Miller who
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
388 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 is acting as the representative for the Snake River
2 Alliance and Betsy Bridge who is acting in behalf of ICL,
3 the Idaho Conservation League. Anything else I forgot?
4 Ken, it's been a rough day and I apologize. It wasn't
5 because of the meeting the other day, let me assure you
6 of that for whatever that's worth, so Mr. Heckler.
7 MR. HECKLER: I would like to present some
8 information that I have in chart form, so if I could, I
9 would just like to give you copies of my materials so
10 that it will be easier for you to follow the charts.
11 (Mr. Heckler distributing documents.)
12 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: And let the record
13 show that the Commission has accepted the comments
14 provided by Mr. Michael Heckler.
15
16 MI CHAEL HECKLER,
17 appearing as a public witness, having been duly sworn,
18 was examined and testified as follows:
19
20 EXAINATION
21
22 BY MR. WOODBURY:
23 Q Would you please state your full name and
24 spell your last name?
25 A My name is Michael Heckler,
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
389 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 H-e-c-k-l-e-r.
2 Q And what is your address?
3 A I live in Boise at 2245 Roanoke,
4 R-o-a-n-o-k-e, Drive, 83712.
5 Q Are you here speaking for yourself
6 tonight?
7 A I'm here just as a member of the public.
8 I do not represent any group or corporate entity.
9 Q Okay, you can give your comments.
10 A Thank you for this opportunity to speak to
11 you. I know having looked at some of the documents that
12 have been presented to you that you've got lots and lots
13 of data in front of you and it might seem somewhat
14 presumptuous for me to offer you more information, but I
15 have been involved in energy matters for some time. I'd
16 like to give you a little background on that as a way of
17 explanation for why I think there are a couple of points
18 that it might be worth your time to listen to.
19 In the mid and early 1970's, I worked as
20 the energy economic analyst for Seattle First National
21 Bank which was then the largest bank west of the
22 Mississippi and north of California. As you'll remember,
23 that's the time when we had the Arab oil embargo. That's
24 the time that we had the Washington Power Public Supply
25 System difficulties. I was the analyst in charge of
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
390 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 moni toring the ramifications regionally and locally on
2 both of those.
3 I've paid attention to energy over that
4 period of time. Over the last seven years I've worked as
5 the proj ect manager developing two wind farms here in the
6 State of Idaho. In that capacity I've been very
7 interested in Idaho Power's plans for new generating
8 resources. I've participated in their IRP process from
9 2002 through the present and I participate pretty
10 acti vely. I read the materials carefully and in the
11 course of following that IRP process and looking at the
12 issues presented to you today on this CPCN issue, I think
13 there are three general themes that I'd like to bring to
14 your attention.
15 I've got about 10 pages that will follow
16 and it will cover in order first, that I really think
17 that this is a seasonal load that they face and a
18 baseload is an inappropriate way to deal with it. The
19 justifications that were last provided for this baseload
20 resource were in 2006 and cost, regulatory risk and other
21 issues have changed dramatically since then that made the
22 justification that was present in 2006 not be very
23 persuasive today, and finally, I think that there are a
24 number of items in the public interest, other
25 alternatives, ways that the $400 million could be
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
391 HECKLERPublic
.
.
.
1 employed that would be more in the public interest which
2 ul timately is the standard against which you decide
3 whether to grant the certificate, so on the second and
4 third pages, you'll see several charts. I don't know if
5 that's an easy way for you to comprehend the voluminous
6 data that's been presented in this case, but for me,
7 charts are an effective way to consolidate information.
8 I think that between the three they make a
9 pretty good case for how -- the first four, actually,
10 they make a pretty good case for why the underlying load
11 problem that would drive demand for any new resources by
12 the Company is a seasonal one. On all three of the
13 charts we have load on the vertical axis and time on the
14 horizontal axis. The top chart shows two black lines.
15 The line on the top of it has an entry for every day of
16 the year and that represents the maximum load on the
17 system during that day. The bottom black line represents
18 the minimum load. The white area between the two lines
19 represents the area or represents the range across which
20 load varied during that day.
21 Looking at the data in this way I think
22 several things can be brought to bear, can be brought
23 out. One is that the minimum load that's experienced
24 each year shows distinct seasonality. It rises in the
25 winter for a heating load. It rises in the summer for an
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
392 HECKLERPublic
.1 irrigation load. During the summer the intra-day rise is
2 twice as large as any other time of the year. Spring,
3 fall and winter we're looking at intra-day rises on the
4 order of 500 megawatts a day. In the summer they're on
5 the order of 1,000.
6 The combination of that rise, high rise
7 during summer days and the high base load due to the
8 irrigation that's running during the summer makes it so
9 that summer peaks are on the order of 700 megawatts
10 higher than any other time during the year. The smaller
11 chart in the lower left-hand corner shows load over a
12 two-day period and what that one is showing in my mind
.13
14
gi ves us an idea of what's causing the rise during the
summer peak load days. If you'll notice, the south, west
15 and east portions of the service terri tory show a
16 relatively flat load day in and day out, but the Treasure
17 Valley component shows a dramatic rise during the
18 afternoon.
19 All four areas have commercial and
20 residential load that drives irrigation or pardon me,
21 drives air conditioning, but in the other three that
.
22 residential load is swamped out by irrigation and in the
23 Treasure Valley we see the air conditioning load. The
24 chart on the lower right shows you how Idaho Power met
25 load on the first day, the first of the two days shown in
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
393 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 the chart on the left. That would be June 30th of 2008
2 and I failed to point out earlier that all three of these
3 charts were provided at the Idaho Power IRP advisory
4 council meeting on August 7th of 2008. That's the source
5 for the data.
6 You can see that over the course of the
7 day on June 30th, 200S, Idaho Power varied its coal
8 production from about 600 megawatts in the early morning
9 up to a little over 900 during most of the day. It did
10 most of the load following with their hydro system,
11 running it from a low of 500 to about 1,200 megawatts.
12 They brought in about 600 megawatts that they purchased
13 during the course of the day and only in the late
14 afternoon when the load was at its maximum did they run
15 the peakers down in Mountain Home which are represented
16 by the area in yellow.
17 If you'll turn to the chart on page 3, I
18 guess the summary point on these charts is that we have a
19 seasonal peaking load. At least in 200S we can see that
20 it's dramatically higher in the summer. The chart on the
21 bottom of page 3 is based on information that was
22 provided in response to ICL Production Request NO.8.
23 The spreadsheet was provided that had pages of tabular
24 data. This is just a graph showing how load has varied
25 over the last four years and we can see here, again, that
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
394 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 we've got a distinct summer seasonal peak. Seasonal peak
2 is caused by a confluence of two things. We get an
3 irrigation load on top of an air condi tioning driven
4 higher residential and commercial load.
5 Note that the level of consumption for the
6 bottom two customer classes, those being industrial and
7 commercial customers, are pretty constant over the entire
8 period of time. To me the data suggests that the load
9 that Idaho Power faces has a seasonal peak. Data that
10 they provided in the IRP process suggested the seasonal
11 peak is growing. Their peak load is forecast to grow at
12 the twice the rate of their base load. Given the
13 existing seasonal peak and the fact that the seasonal
14 peak is growing more rapidly than the other components of
15 their load, it strikes me that a baseload resource is not
16 an appropriate way to use their scarce financial assets.
17 Subsidizing residential and commercial AC
18 improvements could provide direct benefit to ratepayers
19 by reducing their consumption and at the same time
20 reducing the demand for the resource, demand during the
21 period that's driving this requirement for new resource.
22 You could use price signals as a method to indicate to
23 customers that there's a -- that there would be benefits
24 in reducing this peak demand. It could also increase the
25 participation of irrigators in their peak rewards proj ect
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
395 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 to the levels that PacifiCorp has already experienced.
2 There's a different approach in these alternatives that
3 could drive a reduction, could address that seasonal load
4 that wouldn't require the building of what's ostensibly a
5 base load resource.
6 On page 4, I point out that telling the
7 Commission that Idaho Power has a seasonal load is no
8 news to you. I'd like to read a portion of the Order you
9 issued, 30201, in granting the CPCN for the third peaker.
10 "We continue to find the programs or procedures that
11 reduce critical peak hourly demand have great value to
12 both ratepayers and the Company. Idaho Power must
13 diligently and vigorously pursue all available, cost
14 effecti ve DSM, conservation and pricing options that
15 could potentially displace or defer the need for
16 additional future peaking generation."
17 From my experience on the IRP process and
18 other information that I'LL present in the next section,
19 I don't think that the Company has vigorously pursued all
20 such opportunities. In so doing, I think the public has
21 been ill-served and that Langley Gulch is effectively
22 Idaho Power's -- if it were to be brought on in 2002 --
23 2012, it's effectively their fourth peaker.
24 In the next section I'd like to speak
25 about the justification for a baseload resource. One
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
396 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 could see the issue in front of you as, on the one hand,
2 the Company wants you to grant the CPCN and allow the
3 process of constructing Langley Gulch to proceed on the
4 schedule that they have developed. The intervenors are
5 basically asking you to delay the date at which such a
6 certificate would be granted and to throw the review of
7 the necessity for a base load resource back into the IRP
8 process and at the same time improve the transparency of
9 the procurement process.
10 If you were to view the issue in those
11 terms, basically what we're looking at is what are the
12 requirements that wouldn't be met in 2012 if you were to
13 agree with the intervenors. Several production requests
14 have dealt with updates of load forecasts and in response
15 to Staff Production Request No. 85, a spreadsheet was
16 provided that showed estimated energy and capacity
17 requirements for the next 20 years. If we're looking at
18 what are the effects of delaying in 2012, I put in the
19 table in the middle of page 5 a small table there that
20 just compares month by month what the Company projects
21 its energy balance and capacity balance to be. The
22 numbers on the top line are in average megawatts, on the
23 bottom line are in megawatts of generating capacity.
24 Black lines -~ black numbers indicate a surplus. Red
25 numbers indicate a deficit.
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
397 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 The first thing that I see in looking at
2 this is that in 2012, the shortfalls are, as they have
3 been in the past, seasonal in nature. They're primarily
4 in energy and they're only secondarily in peaking
5 capaci ty, leading one to believe that a baseload facility
6 is required. If you would be so good as to turn to the
7 table on page 7, I think there are some deficiencies in
8 the way the Company has prepared the energy estimates.
9 What you'll see on seven is a table where
10 the center column, the one with the blue header, shows
11 their estimates on energy/resource balance in July of
12 2012. In the right-hand column under the red header is
13 their estimate of peak capacity balance and the bottom
14 line is the minus 198 for peak and minus 547 for energy
15 aligned with the numbers that were shown on page 4.
16 There are a couple of ways in which the
17 energy estimates caught my eye. First, if we look at the
18 fifth line down, we see that the forecasted load for that
19 month is 2,590 average megawatts and I recognize that
20 this is under unusual conditions. We're showing here
21 70th percentile, energy 70th percentile load, but that
22 number of 2,590 is 27 percent higher than the actual
23 number that was experienced in 2008. That's a pretty
24 dramatic increase. If we look further down at each of
25 the places where two red cells are compared side by side
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
398 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 and we run up from the one at the bottom, in the peak
2 area, they indicate they expect, and I think it's
3 wonderful that they do, to be able to reduce peak
4 irrigation load by 176 megawatts, but there's no
5 reduction in energy.
6 Now, irrigators are pretty much running
7 24/7 on this hot 70th percentile heavy load. Actually,
8 peak is 95th percentile. It i S a one in 20-year hot
9 summer. Those peakers are running, those irrigators are
10 running 24/7. When they shut down to give you this peak
11 demand, they don i t have some way that they can shift that
12 load over to other periods on their pumpers. They were
13 running 24/7 anyway. To the extent that there i s any
14 reduction in peak demand, it has to produce some
15 reduction in energy, but the numbers don't display that.
16 Go up to the next line. The peakers are
17 shown as running at 416 megawatts and that's their
is capaci ty and it's fantastic we've got them, but
19 similarly, if they run any hours out of the month, the
20 average energy from peakers is not zero. As a matter of
21 fact, if you had an unusually heavy economic growth
22 between now and 2012 that somehow got you back up to this
23 2,590 level and that was coincident with a particularly
24 hot summer and low water year, you could run the peakers
25 24 hours a day. You could get that much energy out of
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
399 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 them. I know there's not zero.
2 On the transmission, they're assuming that
3 on the particular hour during the month when they
4 experience their highest load, they'll be able to rely
5 on 315 megawatts of imports, but during the course of the
6 entire month, they won i t be able to rely on anything more
7 than the absolute base firm transmission capacity they
8 have available to them. For the last several years
9 they i ve gotten several hundred megawatts in imports
10 during July. To suggest that the amount of transmission
11 that's available to them is 115 is not a reasonable
12 assumption, and finally, on the purchase from Montana
13 PP&L, PL&L, the 83 megawatts that they get on mid-peak
14 and peak times from Montana, there's no conceptual reason
15 why that Jefferson-Montana link couldn't be run more
16 heavily during the off peak period. The average doesn't
1 7 have to be 43 or 45.
18 If you made those four adjustments, A
19 through D that I just listed and they're on your handout
20 on page 6, there is no shortfall in energy in any month
21 through 2012. The risk you face is this 198 capacity
22 shortfall and for that to happen, for you to actually
23 face that big of a shortfall, we'd have to have an
24 exquisite V-shaped recovery to get us back up to
25 consumption at the level that they're showing on the
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
400 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 line, that 3,622 peak megawatts and that resumption in
2 economic acti vi ty would have to be coincident with the
3 one year in 20 when we have the hottest weather in July,
4 and in the meantime, we would have had to have made no
5 addi tional progress on upgrading air conditioning or
6 getting more irrigators to participate in rewards that
7 would bring them up to the levels that PacifiCorp has
8 already achieved.
9 If you choose to be persuaded by the
10 argument that Idaho Power needs Langley Gulch in 2012,
11 it's a just-in-case inventory in July of 2012 and I think
12 that's a thin justification for spending $425 million.
13 Generally, decisions on where to allocate resources are
14 reviewed in the IRP process. The last time the CCCT was
15 reviewed was in 2006. It was not reviewed in the 2008
16 update. It sure wasn't reviewed in 2009. Back in 2006
17 our economy was still growing very rapidly. The
18 executi ve and legislative branches at the federal level
19 were not receptive to any reduction in C02 emissions.
20 Idaho Power had a balanced portfolio that included adding
21 fossil fuel, but also geothermal, combined heat and power
22 and wind generation to meet their load growth.
23 The cost and regulatory environment we
24 face now and the one that's projected in 2012 is
25 dramatically different than the one that justified this
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
401 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 baseload path back in 2006. If you look at the natural
2 gas prices that Karl Bokenkamp used in his Exhibit 1 to
3 his March 6th testimony, the numbers that he used to
4 analyze the bids in the RFP process, that stream of gas
5 prices is 57 percent higher than the gas prices were in
6 2006 when they justified the CCCT, the last time it was
7 reviewed.
8 In February 2009, IRPAC meeting, the
9 Company handed out resource cost estimates that showed
10 that a CCCT like the one at Langley Gulch would produce
11 power at a levelized cost of 12 cents a kilowatt-hour,
12 12.6, actually. Now, the Company argues -- provides
13 several arguments for why they believe the resource is
14 required. One of those is that it's needed for new
15 customers and in this respect, I think my experience with
16 WPPSS is relevant. If you remember back in the 1970's,
17 power in western Washington where the WPPSS participants
18 primarily resided was selling at a penny a kilowatt-hour
19 and load growth was dramatic. This is pre-Boeing bust.
20 The small utilities that primarily made up
21 the backbone of the WPPSS grouping were convinced that
22 they were facing high single digit annual compound growth
23 rates, they were going to need a lot more power, so they
24 collectively agreed to build five nuclear plants more or
25 less simultaneously. When those plants started coming
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
402 HECKLERPublic
.
.
.
Ion-line, people -- there were significant cost overruns
2 as you would imagine in that large of a construction
3 process. When those plants started coming on-line, it
4 was recognized that the power they were going to produce
5 was going to cost four times the going rate. It was
6 going to be four cents a kilowatt-hour, not the penny,
7 and at four cents a kilowatt-hour, this prospective
8 demand growth dried up. The proj ects were mothballed.
9 Well, the ratios we're facing here are
10 pretty much the same. The folks that look at tables and
11 go wow, I want to come to Idaho because industrial
12 customers get power for three cents a kilowatt-hour, if
13 you could do a Hoku on them and they're required to pay a
14 marginal cost of power for everything over 25 megawatts
15 and they see that oops, it i S not three, it's 12 cents a
16 kilowatt-hour, they might not be so interested in coming
17 here, at least not for the cheap power.
18 I don't think that the demand from new
19 customers is a very substantial argument. The Company
20 also argues that it needs new resources in the Treasure
21 Valley and it can co-locate Langley Gulch with this load
22 area. What they haven't done is provide a good estimate
23 of how much their Treasure Valley demand could be reduced
24 if they were to actively and aggressively upgrade the air
25 condi tioning. We've never found out how much
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
403 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 cost-effective air conditioning efficiency opportunities
2 there are because the Company acts as if cost effective
3 means limited to the amount of money I've got in the
4 rider fund.
5 There are alternatives that could be
6 available to ratepayers at lower cost than Langley Gulch
7 and unfortunately, these haven i t been reviewed wi thin the
8 IRP process. You i ve got the ability to make sure they
9 are reviewed so that an apples-to-apples comparison could
10 be provided.
11 Finally, on the public interest, it's
12 probably fairly obvious that I think that other
13 alternatives should be considered before the CPCN would
14 be granted. If you did focus, if you did have the
15 utility focus on ways that it could address its peak load
16 problem by subsidizing air conditioning and with that
17 probably heating efficiency for its residential and
18 commercial customers, you'd have a way to insulate those
19 customers from some of the higher rate prices that are
20 inevitably coming when we get charges for carbons and
21 renewable credits and all the other things that are
22 likely coming down the line.
23 The table on the bottom of page 9 is based
24 on data provided by Rich Haener of Idaho Power. It is
25 response to Staff Request No. 37. That's where the
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
404 HECKLER
Public
.
.
.
1 second column comes from, the annual percentage capacity
2 utili zation proj ected for the facility. The natural gas
3 prices over in the fourth column, second column from the
4 right, are taken from Karl Bokenkamp i s testimony, Exhibit
5 1. Those are the prices that the Company used to
6 evaluate RFP responses. If you just multiply them
7 through, you see that Langley Gulch will result in as
8 little as 63 million, but at times as much as $212
9 million being sent out of state every year to buy natural
10 gas.
11 Now, if this went back to the IRP process
12 and the Company were to compare the cost of the energy
13 produced by a gas plant with the CO$t of energy from
14 another resource like wind, I think they'll find that
15 domestic Idaho wind resources are dramatically lower
16 cost. They don't result in a total of $2.9 billion being
17 sent out of state over the first 20 years. On the
18 contrary, they provide employment in the state. They
19 provides taxes in the state. They provide payments to
20 landowners in the rural portions of our state.
21 The legislature recognized that fossil
22 fuels aren't produced here. We consume them and when we
23 do, we send money out of the state and I'm not saying
24 that that is the overwhelming, but I think that was one
25 of the factors they considered when they put in their
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
405 HECKLERPublic
.
.
.
1 hierarchy for new electric resources. Their hierarchy
2 was first, do efficiency. Second, do renewables and if
3 those won't meet your requirements, third, do fossil
4 fuels. If you grant the CPCN without forcing the Company
5 to go back through the IRP, the result of your decision
6 is inconsistent with the intent expressed by the
7 legislature in the 2007 energy plan.
8 Finally, I don't know if this is legally
9 enforceable, doesn't the public have a right to rely on
10 your orders? When you told the Company Idaho Power must
11 diligently and vigorously pursue all available, cost
12 effective DSM, conservation and pricing options that
13 could potentially displace or defer the need for
14 additional future peaking generation, I read that
15 language as being a directive. It didn't say, you know,
16 do it if you want. You told them they must do it, so
17 what if they haven i t followed your direction?
18 What if a iocal heating and air
19 conditioning executive saw your Order in 2006 and said,
20 you know, I can see the future, too, and I know that out
21 in this state, in the Idaho Power service territory,
22 we've got 100,000 old SEER 7 and SEER 8 inefficient air
23 conditioners and eventually the Company is going to have
24 to subsidize those and he built his business plan based
25 on the assumption that there would be additional business
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
406 HECKLER
Public
1 to upgrade those air conditioners, did he have a right to.2 rely on your direction?
3 I don't think the Company has followed it.
4 Based on the production request, you certainly wouldn't
5 think so. When one of the intervenors, I refer to ICL
6 Production Request No. 17, asked the Company about its
7 use of pricing options to constrain peak demand, Michael
8 Youngblood stated, "The Company has not performed any
9 analysis indicating the projected decreases in customer
10 demand requirements from differentiated pricing and
11 dynamic pricing by year for the years 2010 through 2016."
12 When they were asked a similar question
13 about how many average megawatts and peak megawatts of.14 potential efficiency were available if the
15 cost-effectiveness test were set at the Langley Gulch
16 level of 12 cents a kilowatt-hour, Pete Pengilly
17 responded that such an analysis has not been performed.
18 Now, maybe these responses are just artful drafting by
19 counselor maybe they were less than optimal drafting by
20 the intervenor. Maybe the studies have been performed,
21 but the request was not specific enough to compel their
22 disclosure. Perhaps the studies have not been performed.
23 If that's the case, I wonder how close the
24 Company has come to complying with the direction you.25 provided them back when they last asked for a CPCN for a
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
407 HECKLER
Public
1 peaker. Langley Gulch is expensive. The most compelling.2 argument for its immediate procurement is that it's
3 needed as a peaker in 2012. You told the Company in 2006
4 that they were supposed to focus on al ternati ve methods
5 for obviating the need for this kind of peaker. They
6 don i t appear to have fully complied.
7 I think it i S prudent that you deny their
8 request and send the Company back to review its need for
9 the CCCT in the context of a larger IRP process. If you
10 don i t agree, would you please consider at least the
11 following: No.1, for all future IRP processes require
12 that they look at all cost-efficiency opportunities and
13 all renewable resources before they procure new fossil.14 fuel generation and don't allow them to determine the
15 extent of cost effectiveness based on the rider funding.
16 Cost effectiveness should be based on a comparison of the
17 cost of the efficiency upgrade to save power compared to
18 the price of making or buying that power.
19 No.2, as they look forward if they
20 anticipate that prices are going to be higher in the
21 future, put a feedback loop in their estimate of demand.
22 I don't think that exists right now. We're likely to
23 have dramatically higher prices in the future. Those
24 higher prices will kill some demand. That reduction in.25 demand will change the resources they have to plan for.
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
408 HECKLERPublic
1 It's been asked by members of the advisory council that.2 feedback be provided to them on what future prices are
3 implied by the resource planning that i s being done. I
4 think you should require that that information be
5 provided to them and finally, I think it reasonable for
6 you to expect that their rates and their planning groups
7 do a better job of melding their acti vi ties. It's
8 reasonable to expect that the Company has the ability to
9 take its plans for future rates and\pricing signals and
10 integrate those in such a way to show their effects on
11 estimated demand. Thank you.
12 COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Kline, before I.14 ask if you have cross on this, I'd like to ask a couple
15 of questions of the witness if that i s acceptable to you
16 in the order of cross.
17 MR. KLINE: Certainly.
18
19 EXAMINATION
20
21 BY COMMISSIONER KEMPTON:
22 Q Mr. Heckler, what position do you hold on
23 the advisory council to Idaho Power?
24 A None..25 Q Do you sit in on any of the meetings that
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
409 HECKLER ( Com)
Public
1 they have?.2 A With very few exceptions, I've sat in on
3 every meeting since before they had an advisory
4 council.
5 Q And have you been in a position of
6 providing advice to Idaho Power either through contacts
7 on the advisory councilor through your own personal
8 communications with the Company?
9 A Yes, I have.
10 Q Your presentation as far as coming in from
11 a public hearing is somewhat unique, at least in my
12 experience, and admittedly, I don't have a lot of time on
13 the Commission, but the information that you have.14 presented aligns itself in many of the discussion areas
15 that are going on in the main technical hearing and my
16 inclination is to ask if you would be averse to making
17 yourself available as a witness in presenting this
18 information so that it can be -- first of all, we've
19 accepted it as an exhibit and that exhibit, by the way,
20 has a number on it, 901. It's the only other exhibit
21 that we have so far that's listed and given an exhibit
22 number other than what's done by the parties that are
23 directly involved in this technical hearing.
24 The information that you present is.25 challenging. It's directly related to information that
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
410 HECKLER (Com)Public
1 has been reviewed and is part of the testimony of.2 basically all of the intervenors, Idaho Power itself as
3 the applicant and the Staff, the Commission Staff, as the
4 part that it plays in this technical hearing. If
5 requested by the applicant in this case, would you be
6 averse to appearing as witness and defend your testimony
7 wi thin the technical hearing itself?
8 THE WITNESS: A business requires me to be
9 out of town Thursday and Friday. It's possible that I
10 could be available for a portion of the day tomorrow. I
11 would prefer that if counsel has questions that he
12 address them to me this evening. If that's not
13 acceptable to you, I'll try and make myself available if.14 you can give me an idea of the time tomorrow.
15 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: II ii leave that to
16 counsel. One of the issues, of course, is that everyone
17 would have an opportunity to take a look at this at some
18 point tomorrow morning because it needs to be available
19 to everybody if it's going to be submitted. I'm not
20 suggesting that you participate in that fashion. I'm
21 simply leaving it as a question for counselor counsel
22 can simply cross at this point and so, Mr. Kline, it's
23 now in your court, so to speak.
24 MR. KLINE: Thank you. Well, of course,.25 this, as you say, is not a technical hearing. It's the
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
411 HECKLER (Com)
Public
.
.
.
1 nature of providing input from the public, but certainly,
2 the material presented by Mr. Heckler is technical
3 material. Rather than me tonight trying to spend a long
4 time getting him to answer cross-examination, I would
5 prefer that our experts in the field have an opportunity
6 to review this material and then have an opportunity to
7 present you with testimony that rebuts what Mr. Heckler
8 says. There are lots of things that Mr. Heckler says
9 that are just plain wrong and that we have the
10 opportunity and I think you need to hear that from the
11 folks that do this kind of work and have expertise, so if
12 he wants to come tomorrow and present his testimony, we
13 could ask some cross-examination questions, but I would
14 like to have the opportunity, perhaps at the close of the
15 case, to bring in folks after they i ve had a chance to
16 read it and rebut it.
17 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Are you stating,
18 then, I would like to have a position from you, so are
19 you stating that it's sufficient, both necessary and
20 sufficient, I guess, in this case to have a chance to
21 address this in the technical hearing and that the
22 parties in the technical hearing be provided with Exhibit
23 901 for their consideration tomorrow morning?
24 MR. KLINE: Certainly, if you are going to
25 consider this testimony or this statement as technical
CSB REPORTING.
[phone]
412 HECKLER (Com)Public
.
.
.
1 evidence in this proceeding, then I think our technical
2 witnesses should have an opportunity to review it and
3 rebut it, so yes, I think that's the right way to do
4 it.
5 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Well, the exhibit
6 is what the exhibit is and it is technical and I believe
7 because of the nature of it that it needs to be
8 introduced into the technical forum.
9 MR. KLINE: I agree.
10 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Do you have any
11 questions of Mr. Heckler at this point in time?
12 MR. KLINE: No, I will save them.
13 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Woodbury?
14 MR. WOODBURY: I appreciate Mr. Heckler's
15 analysis, comments, recommendations. Certainly, if the
16 Commission doesn't grant him, I guess, party status,
17 which the Commission has the right to do, his testimony
18 would be given less weight as public testimony and
19 parties wouldn i t have the right to cross-examine, so I
20 think that the Commission has great latitude and
21 flexibility in how to handle this, so I have no questions
22 of Mr. Heckler at this time. Thanks, Mike.
23 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Miller.
24 MR. MILLER: I guess I would just echo
25 Mr. Woodbury's comments. I don't know at this point
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
HECKLER (Com)Public413
.1 whether Mr. Heckler is going to be available and able to
2 respond to the questions from the Company tomorrow, but I
3 do agree with the Chairman that this is very technical
4 information. I found it very worthwhile and I do think
5 that it would be beneficial for all parties to be exposed
6 to it.
7 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Ms. Bridge.
8 MS. BRIDGE: For the sake of not being
9 redundant, I'll just say I also agree that it's technical
10 and would agree that if he could come back tomorrow that
11 would be best.
12 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Okay, because of
13 the unusual nature of the testimony, I'd like to take a.
.
14 five-minute recess.
15 (Recess. )
16 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: You are free to
17 step down.
18 (The witness left the stand.)
19 MR. HECKLER: I appreciate the freedom
20 that in stepping out you did give me a little bit of time
21 to think. Under no conditions do I want to be a party.
22 If my comments have less value as a member of the public
23 than technical testimony, fine, so be it. I've said my
24 piece and my participation has ended.
25 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you very
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
414 HECKLER (Com)Public
.
.
.
1 much. Our discussions, as you might imagine, dealt with
2 due process for the applicant and the Commission agrees
3 that the applicant has to have an opportunity for
4 rebuttal because it is technical information. Staff,
5 al though they may have changed their position as they go
6 forward because of the hearing process, has a conditional
7 recommendation that's in play and they should also have a
8 chance to consider the information and to take positions
9 one way or the other, so Exhibit 901 has been entered for
10 the record, so Exhibit 901 that has been admitted to the
11 record will be provided tomorrow morning.
12 (Public Exhibit No. 901 was admitted into
13 evidence. )
14 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: I would appreciate
15 it, Mr. Kline, if you would take the information and get
16 enough copies that can be provided to the parties
17 tomorrow so that they have that information as well.
18 We i II discuss tomorrow morning about a time that we can
19 try and work this into the session and address the
20 issues.
21 MR. KLINE: Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Does that satisfy
23 your concerns?
24 MR. KLINE: It does. What I will do as I
25 indicated is I'll have our folks take a look at this
CSB REPORTING
(208) 890-519ß
415 COLLOQUY
.1 material. It is possible that we will conclude that
2 there really isn't anything in here that isn't already
3 being presented in the record in the proceeding by the
4 other parties. If we come to that conclusion, we'll let
5 you know in the morning and it may be simply being able
6 to ask Mr. Heckler a few questions may be sufficient.
7 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: That i s fine, but it
8 was presented as -- I'm sorry?
9 COMMISSIONER SMITH: He's not going to be
10 here.
11
12
13.
.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: No, I wasn't --
MR. KLINE: I1m sorry, I misunderstood.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: There wasn't an
14 intent on our part necessarily to bring Mr. Heckler back
15 and make him a party or even a perception of being a
16 party in the case. It is what it is. He's presented in
17 a public hearing and it's a public hearing document.
18 It's not a part of the wasn't presented as part of the
19 technical hearing, but it will be incorporated for
20 consideration in the technical hearing.
21 MR. KLINE: I'll distribute the copies in
22 the morning and I suspect we can handle it pretty
23 efficiently.
24 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: And Mr. Heckler,
25 you had a question.
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
416 COLLOQUY
.1 MR. HECKLER: I have an electronic copy in
2 my hand if that could be of any assistance to anybody to
3 disseminate the information.
4 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Okay, Mr. Woodbury
5 indicated an interest.
6 MR. WOODBURY: That's fine. Actually,
7 I'll make the copies.
8 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: So thank you,
9 Mr. Heckler, for your testimony. Actually, you've seen
10 something very interesting here tonight because you've
11 seen in a public hearing testimony that was so technical
.
.
12 in nature that it has to actually be incorporated for due
13 process into the regular hearing. It doesn i t happen very
14 often. It hasn't happened since I've been at the
15 Commission, but nevertheless, that's what has taken
16 place.
17 Julie Pipal and, of course, Julie, none of
18 this is meant to intimidate you. The process was a
1 9 little different this time.
20
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
417 COLLOQUY
.
10
11
12
13.
.
1 JULIE PIPAL,
2 appearing as a public witness, having been duly sworn,
3 was examined and testified as follows:
4
5 EXAMINATION
6
7 BY MR. WOODBURY:
8 Ms. Pipal, please state your full name,Q
9 spell your last name.
A My name is Julie Pipal, P-i-p-a-l.
Q And what is your address?
A I have a question about that. I'm here
representing an organization. Would you like my home
14 address or my organization i s address?
15 Q What is your home address?
16 A 2367 East Meadowgrass Street, Meridian,
17 Idaho.
18 And what organization are youQ
19 representing?
20 A The Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce.
21 Q Okay,and do you know their address?
A 250 South 5th Street,Suite 300,Boise.
Q All right,you may give comments.
A Thank you.Commissioners,my name is
Julie Pipal and I'm the director of legislative affairs
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
418 PIPAL
Public
1 for the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce. I am here this.2 evening to testify in favor of the Langley Gulch proj ect.
3 Besides my public statement, the Chamber has submitted
4 testimony in advance.
5 We have carefully evaluated energy
6 resource issues and their impacts on our community. We
7 strongly support public policy that encourages energy
8 efficiency and responsible energy use by businesses,
9 consumers and government, including sustainable operation
10 and design in buildings. We support public policy that
11 promotes the development of additional energy
12 infrastructure, including distribution and transmission
13 facili ties and environmentally responsible generation to.14 meet short-term and long-term energy needs. We also
15 support public policy that accommodates economic
16 development within our community; therefore, we support
17 timely construction and operation of Langley Gulch.
18 Currently, Idaho Power relies
19 significantly on its hydroelectric generation; therefore,
20 its operations can be significantly affected by water
21 conditions. We want a more stable baseload resource.
22 The addition of this plant to Idaho Power's generation
23 portfolio will enable us to more realistically encourage
24 economic development. That stable base load resource.25 supports continued research and development of
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
419 PIPAL
Public
.
.
.
1 cost-effecti ve renewable energy resources, including, but
2 not limited to, wind, solar, geothermal and bioenergy.
3 Development of these energy options will lead to new
4 industries and reduce the need for traditional generation
5 in the future.
6 In addition, the proj ect itself will have
7 a posi ti ve impact on our economy. It will create both
8 short- and long-term job opportunities through the
9 construction of the facility and ongoing operations and,
10 therefore, on behalf of our more than 1,500 members in
11 the Treasure Valley, I urge your approval of the
12 certificate of public convenience and necessity for
13 Langley Gulch, and I would be happy to stand for
14 questions.
15 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you,
16 Ms. Pipal. Mr. Kline?
17 MR. KLINE: I don1t have any questions.
18 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Woodbury?
19 MR. WOODBURY: Staff has no questions
20 either. Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Miller?
22 MR. MILLER: No questions. Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Ms. Bridge?
24 MS. BRIDGE: No questions.
25 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you,
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
420 PIPAL
Public
.
.
.
10
1 Ms. Pipal, you may step down.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 (The witness left the stand.)
4 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Clay, Rod Clay.
56 ROD CLAY,
7 appearing as a public witness, having been first duly
8 sworn, testified as follows:
9
THE WITNESS: My name is Rod Clay,
11 C-I-a-y. I live at 311 Elder Street in Nampa, Idaho, and
12 I represent myself and Plumers and Pipe fitters Local
13 Union 296 in Meridian, Idaho.
14 MR. WOODBURY: Okay.
15 THE WITNESS: Basically, I guess, I'm here
16 to say my support of the power plant. You know, we're in
17 a recession right now. I keep hearing that as far as why
18 we i re having downturns in the power and stuff, but what
19 gets us out of these recessions. I' ve lived here all my
20 life in Idaho. I i ve watched us rej ect power plants time
21 after time. I've watched them be builtin Boardman,
22 Oregon. I've watched them be builtin Vallej 0 or --
23 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Valmy.
24 THE WITNESS: Valmy, Nevada, and, you
25 know, to me, we i re los ing jobs. We tal k about export ing
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
421 CLAY
Public
1 or importing coal and stuff. We're importing power from.2 the Power Company by not building these plants in this
3 area. Coal-fired or cogen plants, the cogeneration
4 plants, are the modern ones that we're coming to. We're
5 building them allover the country. They're very
6 efficient. They're the way to go. To me, right now I
7 sit here and some of the people I've seen at all the
8 other meetings, too, we don i t want nuclear power plants.
9 we want the dams breached, we don't want wind turbines
10 because theyl re ugly and then solar panel, that's going
11 to take too much acreage to get enough power to do it, so
12 basically, this is one of our last options that we have.
13 The chances are right now we have a.14 22-inch pipeline that goes right through the middle of
15 Idaho. They're talking of building a 42-inch pipeline
16 coming from Wyoming that's going to jump right across our
17 border. That's more than enough gas to do this.
18 Currently we have 565 members through our union. We have
19 half of them out of the work. That is how bad the times
20 are in this recession. This job according to Idaho
21 Power's information, it could be 120 construction jobs
22 for approximately two years and 18 full-time employees.
23 One thing I'd like to hold them to as it
24 says local employees and that i s what I i d like to see them.25 do is make sure that we do carryon to our local
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
422 CLAY
Public
.
.
.
23
1 employees, because I look at this in a different way. I
2 guess to me, there's a lot of things out there and I
3 worry about our rates and everything else, but I've seen
4 rate increases year after year and we're not building a
5 power plant. We're being charged by these power plants
6 on other states that are getting their tax dollars out of
7 them and their money out of them, so what I would like to
8 see is this plant be built here. Our membership is all
9 in favor of it. I have approximately 40 members that
10 live right in the New Plymouth area that would just love
11 to have jobs right there at home, so there's, I guess, my
12 main concerns.
13 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you,
14 Mr. Clay. Mr. Kline.
15 MR. KLINE: No questions.
16 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Woodbury.
17
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION
19
20 BY MR. WOODBURY:
21 Q Mr. Clay, do I recall seeing written
22 comments filed?
A Yes, actually, I i ve sent some of the
24 written comments in to you guys basically asking for the
25 one thing, Idaho plant, Idaho people build it.
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
423 CLAY (X)
Public
.
13
. 14
1 MR. WOODBURY: Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: That was my only, I guess,
3 concern.
4 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Miller.
5 MR. MILLER: No questions, and thank you
6 for the testimony.
7 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Ms. Bridge.
8 MS. BRIDGE: No questions. Thank you.
9 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you, Mr.
10 Clay.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 (The witness left the stand.)
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: John Weber.
15 JOHN WEBER,
16 appearing as a public witness, having been first duly
17 sworn, testified as follows:
18
19 THE WITNESS: My name is John Weber. I
20 reside at 3025 North Five Mile Road, Apartment 203,
21 Boise, Idaho, 83713. I'll keep this short. I'd like to
22 thank the Staff of the PUC for their research and I would
23 like to thank the Commissioners for their deliberate and
24 thoughtful past decisions. I believe building the
.25 Langley Gulch gas plant may be a good decision. I
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
424 WEBER
Public
.
.
.
1 believe it could be a good decision if it's used to firm
2 up new wind generation or to replace the Boardman plant
3 operation if that plant will be shut down in the future.
4 In reading Idaho Power's annual report, it
5 states on December 17th, 2008, PGE proposes amendments to
6 the ODEQ, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
7 proposal including an al ternati ve decommissioning of the
8 coal-fired unit at the Boardman plant subject to RH BART
9 by the end of 2020 in lieu of installing S02 emissions
10 controls by 2014.
11 I've been participating in Idaho Power's
12 IRP meetings. They were put on pause several months ago.
13 I believe at least one of the reasons for this was to
14 update future demand forecasts. I believe approving the
15 construction of this before approving the 2009 IRP is
16 much like picking an engine for a vehicle without knowing
17 what that vehicle will look like and what it will be used
18 for.
19 In summary, I believe the 2009 IRP should
20 be completed and approved before ruling is made on this
21 gas plant. If this gas plant is still part of the 2009
22 IRP, it shoulÒ navigate the PUC process as quickly as
23 possible. That's all I have.
24 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you,
25 Mr. Weber.
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
425 WEBER
Public
.1
2
3
4
5
6 you.
7
8
9
10 Mr. Weber.
MR. KLINE: No questions.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Woodbury.
MR. WOODBURY: No comment, thank you.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Miller.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: No questions, thank
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Ms. Bridge.
MS. BRIDGE: No questions.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you,
11 (The witness left the stand.)
12
13.14
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Kershner.
MR. KERSHNER: No comments.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Okay; so you're not
15 signing up to testify, then?
16
17
MR. KERSHNER: No.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: All right. Is
18 there anyone else who would like to testify that hasn It
19 signed up because you certainly may and this would be the
20 time and place. Okay, do I see somebody moving?
21
22
23
24
25.
426 WEBER
Public
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
.
.
.
16
17
18
19
1 JOHN SIMMONS,
2 appearing as a public witness, having been first duly
3 sworn, testified as follows:
4
5 THE WITNESS: My name is John Simmons,
6 S-i-m-m-o-n-s. I live at 9949 West Mossy Cup Street in
7 Boise. I guess the only thing I want to say is I've been
8 laid off from work at Micron for about three,
9 three-and-a-half months and I need a job and I've been
10 working on my golf game, but that doesn i t pay very well,
11 so I'd like to see this power plant built so that myself
12 or some of my brothers in the union could go back to
13 work. That's all I have to say.
14 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Kline.
15 MR. KLINE: No questions.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Woodbury.
CROSS-EXAINATION
20 BY MR. WOODBURY:
21 Q If the power plant is built, do you have a
22 skill that could be used?
23
24
25
A I'm a licensed pipefi tter.
MR. WOODBURY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Mr. Miller.
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
427 SIMMONS (X)
Public
.
.
.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 MR. MILLER: No questions, thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Ms. Bridge.
3 MS. BRIDGE: No questions.
4 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Thank you,
5 Mr. Simmons. Please step down.
6 (The witness left the stand.)
7 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: So last call, if
8 there is anybody. All right, there being no other
9 persons in attendance who wish to testify, the Commission
10 has finished its business for the evening and I'd like to
11 thank all of you for attending and especially to those of
12 you who testified and with that, this hearing is
13 adj ourned.
14 (The Hearing recessed at 8: 10 p.m.)
CSB REPORTING
[phone]
428 COLLOQUY