I am an Xcel user and customer living in Minneapolis, and a citizen deeply concerned about the need to transition rapidly to clean, renewable energy. I have some concerns about Xcel being granted an extension on their IRP filing. I support the granting of the extension on the condition that Xcel Energy uses the extra time appropriately. It's efforts on community engagement have left much to be desired, and it's modeling process cannot adequately account for likely developments in the future of energy consumption and production in Minnesota. If the PUC grants an extension to XCel, it should address these concerns:

1. XCel must use a more effective model of resources other than power-plants. These would include distributed generation (for example, from rooftop solar owners like me), demand-side alternatives, and improvements to the transmission and distribution of electricity. These can all significantly reduce demand peaks and overall energy use. For transparency, Xcel should also disclose the relative shareholder benefit based on projected utility-owned assets in its scenario analyses.
2. XCel Energy's current stakeholder process is not accessible for the average energy user, or even a highly engaged citizen such as myself. Xcel must deeply engage with the community it serves with a process that integrates our needs, visions and feedback. It should not just present plans based on already defined objectives and assumptions. There should be a process that targets the general community, with opportunities for engagement outside of normal working hours in transit accessible locations and throughout XCel's territory. They should be run by trusted community organizations experienced in participatory processes, include measures such as childcare that allow parents and non-English speakers to take part in a meaningful way.
3. XCel must commit to a planning process that is centered on the PUC. It is not appropriate for XCel to propose or support legislation that circumvents the PUC's oversight role. The commission must make this clear.

As an Xcel customer in Minneapolis, I have some concerns about Xcel being granted an extension on their IRP filing. I support the granting of the extension on the condition that Xcel Energy uses the extra time to get engagement and modelling processes right in ways I feel it has fallen short before. In supporting an extension request, I feel that Xcel must:

1. Integrate more effective modelling of non-power plant resources including distributed generation, demand-side alternatives, and transmission solutions into Integrated Resource Planning and utility modeling. These resources can serve a significant role in reducing peaks and overall energy use. For transparency, Xcel should also disclose the relative shareholder benefit based on projected utility-owned assets in its scenario analyses.
   

2. Facilitate deep and meaningful public engagement that actively integrates community needs, visions and feedback instead of presenting plans based on already defined objectives or assumptions. I do not feel that Xcel Energy’s current stakeholder process is accessible for average energy users, or even highly engaged energy users like myself. There should be a process targeted at the general community, run outside of traditional working hours in transit-accessible community centers throughout Xcel territory, ideally run by trusted community organizations experienced in participatory processes and including resources, ways to participate, and targeted outreach to non-English speakers in Xcel Energy’s customer base, as well as childcare for parents.
   

3. Commit to the Commission-centered IRP resource planning process as the appropriate venue for utility resource planning. The Commission should make clear that it expects that Xcel will not propose or support legislation that preempts the Commission.