On April 9, the Commissioners of the Colorado PUC held a three hour informational meeting with presentations from Xcel, the collective solar parties, the Colorado Energy Office, the Office of Consumer Council, and Western Resources Advocates. The outlines of the process will start to firm up in May, but the parties laid out some general ideas for process and substance in PowerPoint presentations before a packed house.
As a quick recap, remember that this matter spun off from the 2014 RES compliance docket at the motion of the Colorado Energy Office. Their argument was, essentially, that if the value of solar was going to be debated it should get its own hearing instead of being stuck in the compliance plan almost as a sideshow. The CEO argued that severing the issues would “increase transparency and allow stakeholders from across the state to participate in the dialog related to incremental costs, net metering incentives, and solar energy rates.” (CEO motion 21 Jan 2014) The commissioners deliberated on the motion at their weekly meeting on January 29 and granted that motion shortly thereafter with much hand wringing about the structure of the new proceeding.
In response to that hand wringing, the commissioners held this informational meeting with the parties directed to discuss their “recommendations on the substantive issues the Commission should address in this proceeding, objectives the Commission should meet, and the best procedures satisfying those objectives.” (Decision No. C14-0294 in proceeding 14M-0235E) Continue reading Colorado PUC takes the next bite at Net Metering→
“we don’t know whether the climate really is changing”
while discussing the impact of the 2013 flood and the plans for continuing to rebuild.
Tell Governor Hickenlooper that you agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening – and is anthropogenic. We need our governor to know that we should be planning for the future – with adaptation strategies to plan for increasing natural disasters, such as floods and wildfires, and mitigation strategies, such as increasing renewable energies and shutting off fossil fuel burning power plants.
There was a bill in the legislature trying to reverse the 2012 Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that denied the right to exercise eminent domain for pipelines carrying oil.
UPDATE 4/2/14: !2:00 p.m. flash! We’ve just learned that this bill was “postponed indefinitely”, or killed, this session. The battle is not yet over. Industry will not quit and neither will the humans.
UPDATE 4/2/14: SB-93 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on March 13th. The second reading in the House will be on Friday, April, 4th – there is still time to contact your state Representatives to stop this bill. Our non-partisan message is that this is a property rights issue.
UPDATE 3/19/14: SB-93 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on March 13th.
UPDATE 3/12/14: We now know that this bill will go to the House Judiciary Committee TOMORROW 3/13. Our non-partisan message is that this is a property rights issue. It’s still best to contact your Representative below, but if you can also reach out to any of the members of the Committee, that would be helpful: House Judiciary Committee
In 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court held that the statutory language of 38-5-105 did not encompass a petroleum pipeline company and that therefore the petroleum pipeline company was not entitled to exercise eminent domain. This authority was used by petroleum companies for decades before the Supreme Court weighed in. In particular, the Court said that a statute must authorize condemnation expressly or by necessary implication in order for a governmental entity to exercise the power of eminent domain. (Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., 2012 CO 36, 284 P.3d 42 (Colo. 2012)). The practical outcome of the decision was that the statute authorizes condemnation for the construction of electric power infrastructure only, not for petroleum pipelines. The proposed language of SB14-093 will permit condemnation for pipelines carrying petroleum products.
Not Too Late to Urge Colorado Senators to reject the appointment of Glenn Vaad for PUC Commissioner
While Vaad’s ties to ALEC are important, most legislators may care more about his record. We also now understand that the nominee expressed an agnostic position regarding climate change. This view was given at a meeting with partner organizations and is absolutely untenable. Vaad has a record of voting against clean energy policies. He voted:
Against increasing the Renewable Energy Standard (HB1001) in 2010
Against Energy Efficiency Requirements (HB 1107) in 2008
Against Prohibiting Restrictions on Energy Efficiency (HB 1270) in 2008
Against Oil and Gas Commission Reconfiguration (HB 1341) in 2008
The PUC regulates telecom and transportation as well as utilities and his other votes indicate he won’t effectively regulate industry for the public good. To check out Vaad’s full voting record see VoteSmart.org.
Coloradans approve of new GHG regulations. Help us show the EPA this is true Comment Now
The EPA is in the final stage of rulemaking on how they will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new electric generation plants, including coal, natural gas, petroleum coke, and other fossil fuels. There have been over 2.5 million comments on the proposed rule, so get your voice heard and tell the EPA to ensure that the GHG emission standards are strict and properly reflect the negative health and climate impacts.
Summary of the Major Provisions of the Proposed Rules:
This action proposes a standard of performance for utility boilers and IGCC units based on partial implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the BSER. The proposed emission limit for those sources is 1,100 lb CO2/MWh. This action also proposes standards of performance for natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines based on modern, efficient natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) technology as the BSER. The proposed emission limits for those sources are 1,000 lb CO2/MWh for larger units and 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for smaller units. At this time, the EPA is not proposing standards of performance for modified or reconstructed sources.