WaltzerWiygutGarside LAW FIRM robert@wwglaw.com Robert B. Wiygul Partner / / February 3, 2020 Ñf Katherine Collier, Executive Secretary Mississippi Public Service Commission 501 N. West Street, Suite 201A Jackson, MS 39201 Re: ZÛ2p ÛË N.... Docket No. 2019-UA-231 Mississippi Power Company's Notice of IRP Cycle Pursuant to Commission Rule 29 Dear Ms. Collier: Enclosed please find the original and twelve (12) copies of the Sierra Club's Response to Mississippi Power Company's Opposition to Interventionin the above referenced matter. For your convenience, I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope and copy of the first page of the Pleading, which I would appreciate your file stamping and returningto me. Please do not hesitate to contact me a if you have any questions. Robert B. Wiygul RBW/mn ec: All parties of record (by electronic or U.S. mail) 1011 IBERVILLE DRIVE I OCEAN SPRINGs, MS 39564 I **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** P 228.872.1125 I F 228.872.1128 BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 2019-UA-231 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY EC-120-0097-00 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY'S NOTICE OF IRP CYCLE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 29 IN RE: SIERRA CLUB'S RESPONSE TO MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENTION I. INTRODUCTION Mississippi Power's attempt to keep the Sierra Club and other interests from intervening in this process is, in one understandable. The Sierra Club, representing its members in the sense, Mississippi Power service area, occasions provided the Commission with has on numerous evidence and technical analysis that is protective of the ratepayer but contrary to the financial interests of Mississippi Power and its corporate parent, the Southern Company. In many this evidence that was was not developed or cases supplied by any other party, including the staff of the Commission. Mississippi Power's self-interest would certainly dictate that the company attempt to limit however possible the Sierra Club's participation in this proceeding. Mississippi Power's motion should • be denied for legal and policy reasons. The Sierra Club and its members have interests that may be adversely affected, and those interests have been clearly demonstrated in past dockets. • Preventing ratepayers and other parties appearing through organizations discriminates against lower and middle income ratepayers without the resources to individuallyhire attorneys and technical consultants. • The Commission's rules provide broad eligibility for intervention, and Mississippi Power's claims would contradict their substance and intent. 1 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** • Mississippi Power's claims are also contrary to the language and intent of the Ratepayer's Bill of Rights. • Refusing to allow parties like the Sierra Club to intervene as parties will deprive the Commission of information necessary to perform its role, which is to stand in the place of the market to protect the ratepayer from for-profit monopolies like Mississippi Power. • Mississippi Power's claim that refusing intervention to technically knowledgeable parties is necessary to protect the ratepayer company that in recent years has is implausible, particularly coming from spent literally billions of dollars on a unnecessary projects. The ratepayer will benefit from the Sierra Club's analysis and commitment of resources. H. THE SIERRA CLUB AND ITS NEMBER$ HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN THE IRP DOCKET, AND MISSISSIPPI POWER'S ATTEMPT TO EXCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME RATEPAYERS LIKE THE MEMBERS OF THE SIERRA CLUB Mississippi Power suggests without evidence that the Sierra Club's intervention is "designed to enrich themselves or their members as The company further suggests that the Sierra Club opposed to representing the public interest." is an "out of state interest" that will run up the tab for ratepayers and then "move on to the next state," having "no skin in the game." MPC opposition at ¶ 3. This unfortunate language evokes knows perfectly well it an ugly xenophobia, and Mississippi Power is not true. Sierra Club explained in its Motion to Intervene that: The Sierra Club represents approximately 1700 members statewide with substantial interests in energy policy, control of the negative externalities associated with energy sources, minimizing negative impacts to the environment, and insuring that ratepayers do not pay for poor choices by utilities. These interests specifically 2 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** include appropriate management of integrated Power Company. Historically the Commission has resource planning by Mississippi permitted intervention on motions like this requiring detailed legal briefing and factual assertions. This is a one without salutary practice that encourages full development of factual records, and full transparency in the Commission's It business. has very little downside in that parties do not ordinarily subject themselves to the expense and time commitment of a proceeding unless they have real and concrete interest. a Mississippi Power knows perfectly well that Sierra Club members include Mississippi Power ratepayers who have a direct interest in Mississippi Power's planning process, and cannot otherwise afford to participate as individual members. We note again that the Sierra Club routinely participated in Mississippi Public Service Commission proceedings for expending a lot of money and time. There ratepayers. The Sierra Club area. Sierra Club is has is no question that advocacy has over a decade, been good for has staff and members in the state and in Mississippi Power's service here representing the interests of itself and those members, and it is not going anywhere. Sierra Club attaches declarations to this motion in the Commission should not require such process. As Julia to pay O'Neal explains, a these proceedings herself. Declaration As a and has a Ocean Springs ratepayer who does not was have the time of Julia O'Neal, Exhibit local business owner, Louis Skrmetta Kemper plant abundance of caution, but believes high barrier for participation in she is an for dirty or wasted energy, and she an added into rates. Mr. Skrmetta saw a has a utility'splanning does not want to or resources to participate have in 1. major increase in his power bill after the observed the impacts of climate change specific interest in moving away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy. He 3 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** is very interested in ensuring that rates do not increase and relies Declaration of Louis Skrmetta, Exhibit Kathy Egland is a on Sierra Club to protect 2. fixed income retire educator in Gulfport who Power's actions, including the Kemper debacle. Ms. Egland Mississippi Power's opposition reflects a that states has followed Mississippi she hopes that misunderstanding of how keeping intervenors out would impact ratepayers. She testifies that MPC ratepayers do not have the resources participate as interests. his individuals in matters like this one. She the ability to participate in processes like this to belongs to the Sierra Club because it has Declaration of Katherine Egland, Exhibit one. 3. Mississippi Power's implicit assertion that organizations may not intervene to represent the interests of their members is fundamentally discriminatory as a matter of policy. No serious observer would suggest that Mississippi Power's individual ratepayers have the resources to hire an attorney and technical consultants. Exhibit 3. One in five of Mississippi Power's customers lives in poverty. Barring the ratepayers from acting through organizations to protect their just wrong legally, it interests is not Power trying to get the Commission to prevent the vulnerable, defenseless, exploited and is is fundamentally unjust. As Ms. Egland states, "Mississippi excluded from participating or being represented in their lives." Exhibit a process that is critical to their health and 3. The Commission should not endorse the practice of silencing low and middle income ratepayers by denying them the right to join organizations and appear before the Commission. This is particularly so since adopting this position would represent a radical departure from the Commission's historical treatment of intervention. 4 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** III. THE COMMISSION'S RULES PERMIT REASONABLE INTERVENTION,AND THE COMMISSION HAS ROUTINELY GRANTED INTERVENTION IN DOCKETS LIKE THIS ONE The Commission's rules broadly allow for intervention of any person "when the movant has a substantial interest relating to the property, transaction issue and the movant matter impair or is so has or Exhibit Power's 4. bad matter that practical recognized that the Sierra Club meets this reasonable test in The Sierra Club decisions and as a her ability to protect that interest." RP 6.121. Commission proceedings by granting intervention in See outcome of the proceeding at situated that the disposition of the proceeding may impede his The Commission or has has 14 different proceedings in the past decade. acted to protect ratepayers and others from Mississippi drawn "the Commission's and Staff's attention to might otherwise have gone unnoticed or not a particularized been given sufficient consideration or evidentiary support." Order Consolidating Issue and Denying Intervention, Docket Nos. 2014UA-5 through 2014-UA-18, at 6-7 (April 1, 2014) ("2014 Order"). Most recently the Commission granted, with the acquiescence of Mississippi Power, the Sierra Club's intervention in In re Mississippi Power Company's Reserve Margin Plan, Docket We note that many of the No. 2018-AD-145. economics of legacy assets, be that intervention must granted in be in the Reserve Margin Plan docket load projections and the like will - Integrated Resource Plan docket. There intervention should issues one is no be the same as - those in this principled reason that the interest necessary for docket and not the other; indeed efficiency would dictate granted in both dockets. In 2008, Sierra Club intervened in Docket. No. 08-AD-158, a docket to consider adoption of integrated resource planning in the State. Sierra Club presented testimony from four experts to help advise the Commission on best practices in planning, 5 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** including "public involvement right from the beginning" of No. 08-AD 158 a planning process. Closing Argument of the Sierra Club Part (September 12, 1 Dkt at 3, 2008). In 2009, Sierra Club intervened in Mississippi Power's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and actively challenged through expert testimony, motions, cross examination, briefing, and appeals, Mississippi Power's skewed assumptions that favored building the failed Kemper IGCC coal project. Among other Mississippi Power had not conducted a comprehensive integrated "the Company's procedure for soliciting skewed to its issues, resources to meet its our expert testified that resource planning process, and identified need has been heavily preferred outcome." Schlissel Direct Testimony at 2, Dkt. 2009-UA-14 (Dec. 7, testified that Mississippi Power's cost estimates were underestimated, 2009). Our expert also that its natural forecasts were too high, and that there was ample available capacity in the gas region for purchase. Id. at 2-4. The Sierra Club later intervened and participated in several subsequent dockets regarding Kemper with expertise and critique that "might have otherwise gone unnoticed." As predicted, the Kemper plant went functioned as a functioning as wildly over coal plant at all), natural a gas gas expensive pollutioncontrol devices company's natural gas prices were at a expert budget to the tune of $7 billion dollars (and never prices plummeted and even with Kemper plant, and Mississippi Power In 2010, Sierra Club intervened in our is now significantly long on capacity. docket regarding Mississippi Power's request to add Plant Daniel, and submitted expert testimony that the too high. Docket No. 10-UA-279. In a recent docket evaluating the prudence of MPC's recent multi-million retrofit investment in Plant Daniel, the I Commission likewise recognized Sierra Club's interest in participating in such resource decisions. Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Docket 2019-UA- 6 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** 116 (order filed Oct. 28, 2019). Sierra Club has also intervened and participated extensivelyin the Commission's dockets considering energy efficiency standards and establishing metering rule, and submitted three rounds of comments a net the Integrated Resource Planning on Rule. Sierra Club's status as an organizationwith members who ratepayers also entitles it to intervention.Right 18 are Mississippi Power of the Mississippi Ratepayers Bill of Rights permits ratepayer intervention as of right. As the Commission acknowledged in previous Orders denying intervention, "recognizing the Commission's policy decision expressed in Rule Ratepayers' Bill of Rights, if utility and identified its an entity sought to intervene as a rate-paying customer of interest in the proceeding then there would be 18 a of the specific little ground for opposition." 2014 Order at 9 & Order Consolidating Issue and Denying Intervention, Docket No. 2016-UN-32 & 13, 2016). It 33 (May is universally accepted that organizations like Sierra Club have standing to represent their members in legal proceedings, so long as the members themselves have the necessary interest. Among other interests in the subject matter, Sierra Club represents the interests of its members who are ratepayers, as detailed above and in the attached declarations. The few matters where the Commission has denied intervention are readily distinguishable from the current IRP docket. These include utility applications for energy efficiency quick start one Order from 2014 regarding plans and the two Orders from 20 16 addressing intervention in utilities' net metering compliance filings. The Commission's denial of Sierra Club's intervention in the net metering compliance filing turned filing, as well ensure as the fact that in such that the tariffs are a compliance docket, "the on Sierra Club's late only purpose of this docket consistent with the Commission's Final Net Metering and 7 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** is to Interconnection Rules'" Order Denying Intervention, Dkt. 2016-UN-32 & 33 at 11-15 (June 29, 2016). Similarly, in the 2014 Order the Commission found that Quick Start docket to ensure that the was intended utilities' plans complied with the filing requirements in the rule and they intended to allow for "quick regulatory approval followed by implementation."20l4 Order were at 7- 8. A planning docket is an entirely different matter, the Commission emphasized, as "[a] high degree of transparency provides important protection for the Commission and ratepayers against potentially unnecessary and costly capital expenditures and long-term operational costs." Docket No. 2018-AD-64, Final Order In short, Sierra Club of resource decisions has at issue at 5. for over a decade demonstrated a full record regarding past Mississippi Power's proposals. The unstated reason that Mississippi Power Sierra Club closely scrutinizing its does not want planning process is because where necessary the Sierra Club were is not organization would be granted intervention in involved in this docket. Under Mississippi law, application, (2) ... have an as a St. a serious question that the Sierra judicial case raising the issues movant to intervene must: ... "(1) be so ... make timely situated that practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect interest, and (4) his interest must not already v. a is no interest in the subject matter of the action, (3) disposition of the action may Madison HMA, Inc. effectively pointed out the subject to the rules of the courts, e.g., Molden v. Miss State Dept. ofHealth, 730 So. 2d 29, 40-41 (Miss. 1998), there as an has better for the shareholder than for the customer. While the Commission Club substantial interest in the kinds in this docket, and has made significant contributions in assisting the Commission's development of Company's plans that a be his adequately represented by existing parties." Dominic-Jackson Mem'l Hosp., 35 So. 8 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** 3d 1209, 1215 (Miss. 2010)). Mississippi Power not seriously contest that the disposition impair or that this intervention filing does not contest was of Mississippi Power's IRP "may, impede" Sierra Club's ability to protect timely, and it could as practical matter, interests. Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 399, its 344 (5th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). Here, the denial of intervention "may" impede Sierra Club's and its members' interests, some of whom are MPC customers, in avoiding the costs of MPC's continued investment in expensive and increasingly uneconomic generation assetscosts that will necessarily be passed on to ratepayers. It would likewise prejudice Si,erra Club's and its members' interests in investing in clean, affordable renewable resources, which would lower electric system costs and result in environmental benefits. Conversely, continued investment in obsolete fossil fuel facilities, or neglect of energy efficiency opportunities, will result in environmental impacts inside and outside the MPC service area. Moreover, the denial of intervention could impair Sierra Club's recognized interest in specific proceedings, like those relating to the continued operation of the uneconomic coal fired units at Plant Daniel. Indeed, in evaluating the prudence of MPC's recent $65.5 million retrofit investment in Plant Daniel-a wants to that resource runs only 25% of the time and which the co-owner retire-the Commission recognized Sierra Club's position and interest in participating decisions that will in precisely the same kinds of resource Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity at 28, 2019). MPC has Docket No. even argued that 2019-UA-ll6,forecloses a 13, be at issue here. Order Granting Docket 2019-UA-ll6 (order filed Oct. failure to intervene in the Reserve Margin Plan docket, challenges to future resource specific decisions. Mississippi Power Response in Opposition to Sierra Club's Motion to Require Supplementation at 3-4, Docket 2019-UA-116 (filed Sept. 30, 2019). 9 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** With respect to adequacy of representation, the general rule show only that the "representation of [its] interest may that showing should 538 n.10 (1972) Forest Serv., be treated as minimal." Trbovich be v. intervenor must United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, (quotation omitted and emphasis added); see also WildEarth Guardians 573 v. U.S. F.3d 992, 996 (10th Cir. 2009).' Representation "may be inadequate," and thus identical," Trbovich, 404 U.S. at 636, Brumfield, 749 F.3d 345; at see or is a "related, but not of Ga., also Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank be 297 F.3d inadequate where interests "may diverge though, at this moment, they appear to especially true where there are where the parties' interests "may not align precisely." 416, 425 (5th Cir. 2002) (representation may even an inadequate; and the burden of making intervention is appropriate, where the interests of the existing parties future, that is share common ground . . . ."). This °n the is history of adversarial proceedings between the governmental body and the prospective intervenor. E.g., Utah Ass 'n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th Cir. 2001). Sierra Club easily meets that minimal burden. First, Sierra Club's specific and longstanding interests in avoiding MPC's continued investment in highly-pollutingfossil resources, and its interests in investing in affordable renewable energy, cannot the Commission, as a be decision maker in the process. The Commission adequately represented by has the job of representing all interests, including the interests of the "public utility" itself, not just those of the Sierra Club. For example, the Fifth Circuit the interests of an has found that the federal government did not adequately represent intervenor where the government "must represent the broad public interest," "Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 24 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure use virtually the same language to describe the requirements for intervention of right and permissive intervention," the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "it is useful for [courts] to look to the federal judiciary for guidance" in I Because evaluating motions to intervene. State Tobacco Litigation, 958 So.2d 790, 806, n.16 (2007). 10 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** and not just the interests of the intervenors. Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Sierra Club See Sierra Club v. Glickman, F.3d at 110; Sierra Club 82 Glickman, 82 F.3d 106, l10 (5th Espy, 18 F.3d 1208 (5th Cir. 1994). This is true even v. where the government and intervenor may share Club v. common v. positions in a matter. See, e.g., Sierra Espy, 18 F.3d at 1208; Kneeland v. National CollegiateAthletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1288 (5th Cir. 1987). In addition, while Sierra Club Club has a great respect for the Commission and the Staff, Sierra has specific position and expertise, and has frequently introduced evidence and positions developed by the Staff.2 The discussion above demonstrating the role Sierra Club that were not has played in prior dockets, and what it has contributed to those dockets, further evidence that its interests here would not be adequately represented by the Staff and the Commission. IV. FULL FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT IS CRITICAL TO THE IRP PROCESS The Mississippi Supreme Court of the marketplace by which other has emphasized that the Commission "is the counterpart are businesses measured." State ex. rel Allain v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 435 So.2d 608 (Miss. 1983). Markets operate by collecting all the information they can, not by cutting off their sources of information. Yet that is just what MPC wants the Commission to do. Prior Commission orders recognize the value added by intervenors, noting that intervention "promotes, among other things, efficiency and thoroughness because a party with particular interest will be motivated and can be expected to present evidence to protect that vested interest, drawing the Commission's and Staff's attention to might otherwise have gone unnoticed support."20l4 Order 2 MPC at 6-7. This is or not more true than of Mississippi law particularized matter that or evidentiary in the IRP process. different from the "general public interest." This concept of intervention, and in any case the assertion is factually incorrect. also asserts that the Sierra Club's interest is no does not form a developed part a been given sufficient consideration nowhere a 11 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** In the Commission's Final Order adopting the Integrated Resource Planning and Reporting Rule the Commission stated that rules was to ensure of one its "primary motivations" for adopting the "a high degree of transparency" to provide "important protection for the Commission and ratepayers against potentially unnecessary and costly capital expenditures and long-term operational costs." Dkt. 2018-AD-64, Final Order at 5. The Commission emphasized that "the [IRP] Rule establishes a transpareht process that allows stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to participate and that fosters the development of sound administrative record." Id. at a 7-8. The Commission weighed the recommendations of the utilities, with those of Sierra Club and others, and struck a balance, agreeing that "the process 'must include meaningful participation options for these stakeholders to provide input into the resource plan's development,' but leaving the resource planning decisions." Id. at The Commission 15. plainly did not intend for the Commission staff, the Commission itself and the attorney general to suggests. See utility with the "ultimate responsibility for be the only possible involved stakeholders, MPC opposition at p. 3-4, 6. a Mississippi Power now In fact, Mississippi Power's current position represents a stark reversal from its comments repeatedly espoused the benefits of as on the proposed IRP rule, in which the Company robust and transparent process, asserting that "the public will not only benefit from additional certainty surrounding future utility plans, but will also be allowed to participate in future, related proceedings." Dkt.18-AD-64, MPC August 1, 2018 Comments at three sets 6; see also February of comments participation standard it on 15, 2019 Comments the proposed IRP rule now does § III. Nowhere in Mississippi Power's the Company suggest the restrictive proposes, and it should not be permitted to do 12 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** so now. It bears emphasis that if the standard is what MC claims, no one would ever be permitted to intervene. Sierra Club has gained significant expertise on issues that will be presented in this docket by participating in IRP dockets nationwide and will bring its expertise to bear in this proceeding to assist the Commission's full, fair, and efficient consideration of the issues Sierra Club's staff and consultants have extensive experience in resource at hand. planning, analyzing the potential for cost effective renewable energy, demand response, energy storage, and energy efficiency. Sierra Club routinely intervenes and is extensivelyinvolved in resource similar dockets in a planning and number of states, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Sierra Club's recommendations Commissions; for example, the Kentucky Staff Report on are favorably cited by the Companies' 2011 IRP cited approvingly to several recommendations made by the Sierra Club.3 Full participation in this docket help fully develop is necessary to probe into Mississippi Power's filings and the record for the Commission. Though Rule 29 contemplates the informal exchange of information in workshops, Sierra Club provide critical information or even that it will ability to obtain discovery and participate and its members' interests in as a be has no assurance permitted to that Mississippi Power will fully participate. Without the full party, Sierra Club cannot protect its interests avoiding expensive and highly-pollutingresource decisions and Staff Report (Mar. 13, 2013), In re 2011 Joint Integrated Resources Plan of Louisville Gas & Electric Company Kentucky Utilities Company, Case No. 2011-00140, at 23-24 (noting that the Commission had already accepted the Environmental Intervenors' suggestion that LG&E and KU should commission a market potential study for DSM, with Staff again encouraging the same); id. at 41 (agreeing with the Environmental Intervenors that LG&E and KU should have considered the impact of potential carbon rules; stating the next IRP should respond to Environmental Intervenors' comments regarding selection of the target reserve margin). 3 and 13 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** advocating for affordable energy efficiency and renewable options. As Mississippi Power itself concedes, and the rule makes clear, many of the Company's proceeding will be automatically carried effectively "eliminat[es]" the need for efficiency and DSM riders, Comments § as well as a over resource to the Company's decisions in this formularyrate plans, which separate inquiry into Mississippi Power's energy certain cost recovery mechanisms. See MPC Feb. 15, 2019 I; see also IRP Rule 400. In sum, Mississippi Power does not articulate any legitimate reason for excluding Sierra Club from the current docket. The company requests, MPC opposition at ¶ costs. Further, 3, but it does asserts that it will incur a cost in responding to data not provide any documentation of these claimed if MPC is providing the information necessary for the staff and the Commission to evaluate its resource planning, the marginal cost of providing it to the Sierra Club is extremely modest. What a is really expensive to the ratepayer portfolio of expensive excess has to resources that don't capacity that Mississippi Power is a poorly informed IRP process that results in fully benefit has now. What spend some time responding to data requests, is the ratepayer, saves a money, like the portfolio of even if Mississippi Power collaborative IRP process where stakeholders like Sierra Club bring experience and expertise to help identify least cost resource options.' Mississippi Power's goal in opposing Sierra Club and other group's motions to intervene is to silence opposition and prevent any ratepayers from participating in the planning process. The Commission should reject that attempt and permit the intervention. Indeed Mississippi Power should think about saving ratepayer money and the Commission's time by not employing their high cost lawyers to oppose the common sense intervention of Sierra Club in this docket. 4 - 14 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** - Respectfully submitted this 316 day of January, 2020. Mississippi Chapter Sierra Club By: Robert B. Wiygul Waltzer Wiygul & Garside 1011 Iberville Drive Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Tel: (228) 872-1125 Fax: (228) 872-1128 robert@wwalaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Wiygul, counsel for Sierra Club I, Robert B. do hereby certify that in compliance with RP6.122(2) of the Commission's Public Utilities Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules"). (1) An original and twelve (12) true and correct copies of the filing have been filed with the Commission by United States Postal Service this date to: Katherine Collier, Executive Secretary Mississippi Public Service Commission 501 N. West Street, Suite 201-A Jackson, MS 39201 , (2) An electronic copy of the filing has been filed with the Commission via e-mail to the following address: efile.psc@psc.state.ms.us (3) An electronic copy of the See This the filing has been served via e-mail to the following address: attached Exhibit A 31"* day of January, 2020. ¡l Robert B. 15 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** Wiygul (MS Bar #7348 EXHIBIT A amart12@entergy.com ahall4@entergy.com Alexander C. Martin Il Alicia S. Hall Crjstal Utley Secoy cutle@ago.state.ms.us Forest Bradley-Wright Frank F. Farmer forest@cleanenergy.org Heather Reeves Jeremy C. Vanderloo hreeves®balch.com jvande1@entergy.com Joshua smith Katherine Collier Joshua.smith@sierraclub.org Katherine Hamilton katherine@aem-alliance.org Leo Manuel Ricky Cox Imanuel@balch.com Robert B. Wiygul Robert C. Grenfell frank.farmer@psc.state.ms.us katherine.collier@psc.state.ms.us rcox@balch.com robert@wwglaw.com rgrenfe@entergy.aom ssshurde@southemco.com Shawn S. Shurden Simon Mahan Tad Campbell Tianna H. Raby Virden Jones simon@southernwind.org tad.campbell@mpus.ms.gov -traby@entergy.com • virden.jones@psc.state.ms.us **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** DECLARATION OF JULIA O'NEAL 1. My name is Julia O'Neal. I live at 231 Holcomb Blvd., Ocean Springs MS 39564 (mail: P.O. Box 165, Ocean Springs, MS 39566), 2. I am over 21 years of age and have personal knowledge of everything in this declatation. I could competently testify to these matters if called 3. I am presently a as a witness. lifetime member of the Sierra Club; I have been a member since 2010 and I am active in the state chapter executive committee. I support the Club's position on the importance 4. I am a of long-range utility planning both nationally and statewide. customer of Mississippi Power and my bills are typically around $70 in both the winter (I have gas heat) and the summer. Before installing solar panels, my bills were around $200 in the summer. panels in early 2019. My house is small, tight and efficient, and I installed solar (I have had the efficiency audit that the Mississippi Public Service Commission's Efficiency Rule made possible). 5. Mississippi Power's planning process has more renewable and cleaner some a direct effect on me. I, too, want to plan for future; I may switch to an electric vehicle (EV) for a a car at point and I already have an electric moped. I trust Sierra Club to protect me from solar tariffs and to protect our 2.5 cent "adder" - even though we are only given cost "avoidance" in exchange for what our distributed generators send back to the grid. 6. I am interested in ensuring that Mississippi Power gives fair consideration to investments in clean generation, demand response, energy storage, energy efficiency, and renewable energy-allof which produce safe and sustainable jobs while reducing both electric system costs for both customers and utilities and reliance **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** on dirty, climate-threatening generation. For the electricity I use beyond what my panels generate, I want to know that the best in renewables and efficiency is being deployed. I don't want to pay for dirty or wasted energy. 7. I believe that Mississippi Power's planning process needs close scrutiny by the Commission and interested stakeholders that are resources to assist the Commission. willingto contribute the time and Mississippi Power's poor planning resulted in the failed experimentalKemper IGCC coal plant that we never needed in the first place and that cost ratepayers billions of dollars. Sierra Club provided critical information to the Commission in the Kemper proceedings, predicting that cost overruns and gas futures would be much lower than the company's projections. 8. I expect the Sierra Club to represent my interests in the upcoming proceedings. I do not have the time or resources to participate 9. as an individual in these proceedings. Mississippi Power's proposed actions would keep folks who don't want to hire lawyers or participate themselves from having any effective way to participate in Commission proceedings that affect them. 10. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregonig is true and correct. DATED: January 29, 2020 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPIPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 2019-UA-231 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY EC-120-0097-00 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY'S NOTICE OF IRP CYCLE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 29 IN RE: DECLARATION 1) My name is , OF LOUIS P. SKRMETTA Louis Skrmetta. I live at 520 Beach Boulevard Unit 608 Biloxi, Mississippi 39530. 2) I am over 21 years of age and have personal knowledgeof everything in this declaration. I could competently testify to these matters if called 3) I am an as a witness. active member of Sierra Club; I have been involved with the Club for over 20 years and I have been a member of the state Executive Committee for over 10 years. I initially joined the Sierra Club because I admired their involvement in challenging the proposed project to place gas drilling rigs in the Mississippi Sound and next to the Mississippi barrier islands. 4) I am the owner and operations manager of a business that provides ferry service within the Gulf Island National Seashore. Both my business and I are customers of Mississippi Power. My residential bills average around $300/month and my companies' bills average around $1500/month. The various parts of my business (including dockside vessels, ticket operations, and the warehouse) spend a lot of money with Mississippi Power. 5) I am interested in the Mississippi Powers' IRP process because I want to an accelerated path towards clean energy and solar power. This want to be sure is is a see them invest in specific interest that I adequately represented. Personally and in my business, I impacts of climate change, and we must transition away from fossil fuels. As **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** seeing the am a local business owner, I was am also involved with very invested in ensuring that rates do not increase. Previously, I provided public comments during the Kemper County IGCC planning and process because of my interest in its large financial and environmental impacts. 6) Mississippi Power's actions financially hurt actions in Kemper County, we saw a the poorest states in the union and a me and the broader community. Based on their major increase in our power bill. Mississippi is one of place that doesn't need any more financial burden on its ratepayers. 7) I believe that the Sierra Club's involvement in this lRP has the resources and and I sticking the ratepayer with $6 billion in have continued admiration for their commitment to protecting the natural landscape of Mississippi and the Mississippi 8) I important because the Sierra Club the expertise to provide needed oversight for the public. I know what the Sierra Club has done in the past to oppose Kemper County, is gulf coast where I was bom and raised. declare under penalty of petjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: January 3 l, 2020. 78.*•. .• S '. :O? ID 109867 ', : MAILE T. NGUYEN : Louis Skrmetta # 2 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** I I BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 2019-UA-231 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY EC-120-0097-00 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY'S NOTICE OF IRP CYCLE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 29 IN RE: DECLARATION My name is Katherine Egland. I Gulfport, Mississippi. I I am a am a am a retired educator, and I am a long time resident of am a member of the community that has to for electric power the Commission determines that Mississippi Power costs to the ratepayer. As decade, EGLAND Mississippi Power customer and a member of the Sierra Club. Mississippi Power ratepayer, and I whatever OF KATHERINE ratepayer I have followed Mississippi Power's actions a including the saga over pay can pass on the past of the Kemper power plant. I have been advised of Mississippi Power's motion to prevent the Sierra Club intervening in this docket. It would be easy to read that action as smug and arrogant. But I hope that it is just that Mississippi Power does not have a clear understanding of what keeping reasonable organizations like the Sierra Club out of the decision making process means to its customers. Energy costs are a particular concern for the elderly, very young, ill and people on fixed incomes. Homes may have cooling bills in the summer of up to $300-400 per month. A 16% increase in this bill, or $48-64, represents money that could have been used for food, medicine other necessities. Like for our a lot of people my husband and I carefully planned, worked and saved for decades retirement. As retirement. Despite our a result I was able to take an early retirement at the time he reached full conservation and efficiency efforts, rising energy costs continue to represent a significant chunk of the budget of our fixed monthly income. We especially worry **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** or about some of our friends and relatives who have taken drastic measures to keep their energy costs a within their much lower incomes and budgets. I few of them even chose to can tell you from personal experience that largely eliminate the use of their central air and heating system in an effort to keep their energy costs to manageable amounts within their monthly incomes. I am also a volunteer with an organization which partners with emergency agencies in disaster preparedness training for local churches with many minority, low income and elderly members. Our organization promotes community sustainability and resilience. One common thread in speaking with various church members throughout our training is concern about meeting rising energy costs. I am aware of people in my to choose between their energy Rising power bills can own community in South Mississippi who bill, food, medical care relegate ratepayers to inhumane are at times forced and life preserving prescription drugs. living conditions. Mississippi has the highest percentage of minority residents with the lowest income per capita than any other state in the nation. The poverty rate in Mississippi Power's service over area is in the high teens up to well 20%. Mississippi Power Company Power and the government who These are people who need to be are can seems to be saying that the only people besides Mississippi participate in utility planning are individual ratepayers. struggling to pay their utility bills and keep up with necessities. They able to act together through groups like the Sierra Club to make their voices heard. They can't hire lawyers and technical people. They can't take days off work to Mississippi Power is come to Jackson. trying to get the Commission to prevent the vulnerable, defenseless, exploited and excluded from participating or being represented in health and their lives. 2 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** a process that is critical to their One reason I belong to the Sierra Club things like this integrated that is resource is that I know they will participate I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 316' party in planning process. They have a perspective and knowledge useful to the Commission, and I know it protects my interests. Executed this the as a day of January, 2020. Katherine Egland 3 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** MS PSC List of Matters Title Docket No. DE Summary of SC lookemem Proceeding Ol-UN-548 NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY TO CHANGE RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE IN ITS CERTIFICATED AREAS IN THE TWENTY-THREE COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN MISSISSIPPI Intervened, Intervention Aoproved. 03-UN-898 NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY TO CHANGE RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE IN ITS CERTIFICATED AREAS IN THE TWENTY-THREE COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN MISSISSIPPI Intervened, Intervention Approved 08-AD-477 ORDER ESTABLISHINGDOCKET TO CONSIDER STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007, SECTION ll l(d) OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT Intervened, Intervention Aoproved, Submitted Comments, Submitted 2 sets of Direct Testimony by 2 Experts, Presented Witness, Testimony at Hearing (16 USC §2621) 08-AD-158 PROCEEDING TO REVIEW STATEWIDE ELECTRIC GENERATION NEEDS Reply Testimony, including of: exhibits, -Preliminarv Testimotw Carl Pechman/ReplvTestimonv Pechman, -Preliminarv Testimonv William Steinhurst/Steinhurst Replv Testimony, -Replv Testimonv Ezra Hausman, and -Preliminarv Testimonv Hale Powell/Replv Testimonv Powell; Sierra Club Closing Argument (pt_L, 2) Direct and - - - 09-UA-14 10-UA-279 PETITION OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AUTHORIZINGTHE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF AN ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION FACILITIES,ASSOCIATED GAS PIPELINE FACILITIES, ASSOCIATED RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND RELATED FACILITIESIN KEMPER, LAUDERDALE, CLARKE, AND JASPER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI PETITION OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AUTHORIZINGTHE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF ENVIRONMENTALCONTROL EQUIPMENT AND **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** Intervened, Intervention Approved, Submitted a series of data requests, testimony, motions, expert testimony and cross-examinationat hearing, briefing and appeal of decision to Mississippi Supreme Court Intervened, Intervention Approved, Filed data requests and motions, expert testimony and cross-examination at hearing, briefing RELATED FACILITIES ON THE VICTOR J. DANIEL ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY IN JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI 10-AD-259 PROPOSAL OF THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO AMEND THE PUBLIC UTILITIES RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CONCERNING FILING OF 10-AD-2 Filed Petition to Intervene,Limited Intervention Allowed (unable to provide testimony/cross examine) CONFIDENTIALINFORMATION ORDER ESTABLISHINGDOCKET TO INVESTIGATETHE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND STANDARDS. Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Approved, Filed 3 Sets of Comments (3/22/2010, 9/16/2011, 2/1/20 13), 1 Response to Enterev's Motion, Set of Public Comments, & Request for Discoverv/Rebuttal Comments 1 1 I l-AD-2 ORDER ESTABLISHINGDOCKET TO INVESTIGATETHE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF NET METERING PROGRAMS AND STANDARDS. Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Approved, Participated in Preliminary Workshop, Filed 5 Rounds of Comments Final Version - Report PETITION OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR FINDING OF PRUDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE GENERATING FACILITY Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Acoroved, filed motions and Direct/Rebuttal Testimony by Expert (David A. Schlissel), Withdrew Intervention 13-UN-39 IN RE: NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR A CHANGE IN RATES TO ESTABLISH A RATE MITIGATION PLAN IN CONNECTION WITH THE KEMPER COUNTY IGCC PROJECT. Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Approved, Withdrew Intervention 13-UN-14 NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR A CHANGE IN RATES RELATED TO THE KEMPER COUNTY IGCC PROJECT Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Aporoved, Filed motions 14-AD-165 THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED RULE ON CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING FOSSIL-FUEL FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS UNDER SECTION 11l(d) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Approved, Submitted Round of 13-UA-189 **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** 1 1 Comments I 14-UN-10 NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY TO ESTABLISH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY QUICK START PLAN AND COST RECOVERY RATE CLAUSE Denied 14-UA-18 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY QUICK START PORTFOLIO PLAN Filed Petition to Intervene,Intervention Denied 16-UN-32 16-UN-33 (Consolidated) NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY TO ESTABLISH THE RENEWABLE NET METERING ENERGY RATE Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Denied 17-AD-112 ENCOURAGING STIPULATION OF MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE KEMPER COUNTY IGCC MS ChapterFiled Petition to Intervene, lntervention Aporoved, Filed 2 data PROJECT. requests (1,_2), Submitted 2 sets of Filed Petition to Intervene,Intervention Testimony with l Expert Witness, Filet Round of Comments and Statement of 1 Issues 18-AD-64 COMMENTS ON ORDER ESTABLISHING DOCKET TO INVESTIGATE THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING RULE Filed Petition to Intervene,Filed 3 of Comments Final Order 19-UA-116 PETITION OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF THE ASH POND, CONSTRUCTION OF LOW VOLUME WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES,AND CONVERSION OF BOTTOM ASH COLLECTION FACILITIES FOR THE PLANT VICTOR J..DANIEL ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY IN JACKSON COUNTY,MISSISSIPPI Filed Petition to Intervene, Intervention Aoproved. Filed Motion to Require Supplementationof the Order & Revised Scheduling Order, Filed Comments on Proposed Order, Filed Expert Testimony 19-UA-231 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY'S NOTICE OF IRP CYCLE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 29 Filed Petition to Intervene 19-UA-232 ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC'S NOTICE OF IRP CYCLE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 29 Filed Petition to Intervene **MSPSC Electronic Copy ** 2019-UA-231 Filed on 02/03/2020 ** by 1 Expert. Final Order Rounds