Category Archives: Colorado

Blocking the Sun

The solar industry is growing rapidly in the U.S. and becoming increasingly popular among U.S. citizens as an obvious solution for clean, affordable power.

However, Environment America and Frontier Group recently released this report which reveals that at least 17 fossil fuel backed groups and electric utilities are working aggressively to slow the growth of the solar industry by undermining key environmental policies.

This work is well funded and being done largely behind the scenes, making it very dangerous, but hopefully state decision-makers will resist these efforts in favor of progressive legislation which serves the burgeoning solar industry.

blocking-the-sun

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clears way for rural clean energy

In a decision yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected a proposed fee from Tri-State Generation and Transmission that would have acted as a serious barrier to rural electric utilities like Delta-Montrose (located in West-central Colorado) from accessing local clean energy by making it uneconomical.

This decision is expected to help communities across the West develop their own local sources of clean, affordable energy – creating jobs, reducing emissions, and investing in local economies!

In March, Clean Energy Action and its supporters submitted a petition, joining approximately 120 individuals and organizations led by Delta-Montrose to urge the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to protect rural access to clean, affordable energy.

On June 16th, FERC responded, rejecting Tri-State’s penalty because it would “undermine the Commission’s prior order in Delta-Montrose” by making the cost of accessing local clean energy prohibitively high.

In FERC’s previous Tri-State and Delta-Montrose decision (last year’s Delta-Montrose proceeding) the Commission  ruled that Delta-Montrose was not only allowed but obligated to purchase electricity from qualifying local renewable energy facilities. In its decision, FERC relied on the 1978 Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), which seeks to “encourage cogeneration and small power production” from renewables.

In turn, Tri-State responded by attempting to impose a penalty to recover revenues it claimed would be lost if rural communities began to rely on local sources of clean energy.

FERC ruled that the proposed lost revenue penalty “should be rejected” because it “undermine[s] the Commission’s prior order finding that, under PURPA, Delta-Montrose must purchase” energy from qualifying local facilities.

In doing so, the Commission has essentially reaffirmed and clarified last year’s decision that local access to clean energy should be prioritized and protected. This anxiously-awaited decision is widely seen as an important step forward for communities working to developing local sources of wind, solar, and geothermal!

Mon. 6/27: A Community Discussion About Our Energy Future with Alice Jackson, Xcel VP for Rates and Regulatory Affairs

Please join Clean Energy Action and Empower Our Future for:

A Community Discussion About Our Energy Future with

Alice Jackson, Xcel VP for Rates and Regulatory Affairs

Monday, June 27th
7 pm
First Presbyterian Church
1820 15th St, Boulder 
(Corner of Canyon and 15th)
This will be an excellent opportunity to hear Xcel’s top PUC witness discuss all that is going on at Xcel and to share with her the concerns of the Boulder community about climate change, decarbonizing our electricity, supporting competition in the solar industry and our vision for a livable future.

Leeds School of Business: Xcel’s proposed wind project to add 7,000 jobs, over $1 billion to GDP

An analysis of the economic impacts of Xcel Energy’s proposed Rush Creek Wind Project indicates that the proposed investment in wind generation would produce net economic benefits for the state of Colorado.  The study was prepared by the Leeds School of Business and funded by Xcel Energy.

Investing in 300 wind turbines made in Colorado that collectively produce 600 megawatts of wind energy would reduce “future generation of electricity using gas-fired and coal-fired resources.” Along with investments “in purchasing and erecting the wind turbines, the project will include the creation of access roads, pouring of foundations, installation of transmission lines, and construction of substations.” In total, the study projects that these investments will result in a projected net increase of 7,136 jobs (Table 1, page 6) in Colorado.

Reductions in operating expenditures, “notably – fuel costs,” will result in lower revenue requirements for Colorado ratepayers as wind generation lowers the projected revenue required to generate electricity by 0.7% (Table 3, page 12). From 2016 through 2040, the study projects that the combination of these savings for consumers and investment in renewable generating capacity  will increase Colorado’s projected GDP by over $1 billion (Table 1, page 6).

You can access the full study here.

 

Xcel profits up sharply, profits from Colorado have more than doubled since 2005

Today Xcel Energy reported first quarter net profits of $241 million dollars, a sharp increase over first quarter 2015 net profits of $152 million, putting the Minneapolis-based company on track for yet another year of roughly $1 billion dollars in net profits.

Colorado communities typically account for between 40% to 50% of Xcel’s net profits (see page 8 of Xcel’s latest annual report).  2015 was no exception. Last year, Coloradans sent over $468 million in net profits alone to Xcel, 47% of Xcel’s $984 million 2015 net profits on electricity and natural gas sales (see page 34 of Public Service Company of Colorado’s 2015 annual report).

A decade ago, Coloradan’s sent Xcel only $214 million in net profits (see page 23 of Public Service Company of Colorado’s 2006 annual report).  In other words, in a span of 10 years, Xcel’s net profits from Colorado have more than doubled. A significant portion of that growth can be attributed to the combined expenditures of approximately $1.5 billion on aging coal plants on which Xcel receives both “return of” and “return on” those expenditures. Indeed, Xcel’s 2015 annual report states that increased net profits in 2015 were he “primarily due to the [Clean Air Clean Jobs] rider.”

In Xcel’s last report to the city of Boulder, Xcel stated that Boulder accounted for about 5% of its revenues (see item 9 on page 11 of Xcel’s 2010 report to the Boulder). Assuming that’s still the case (and that Boulder has a proportional contribution to Xcel’s net profit), approximately $25 million in after tax net profits alone was sent from Boulder to Xcel in 2015.

Imagine what Boulder – and Colorado – could do if a larger percentage of those millions of dollars remained closer to home, creating jobs and building a renewable energy-dominated 21st-century utility. Instead, Coloradans dollars are literally going up in smoke (Colorado spent roughly $250 million burning coal at Xcel plants in 2014, according to the Energy Information Administration’s Form EIA-923 fuel cost data) or heading off to Minneapolis to pay for Xcel’s expenditures on coal plants.

CEA_coal_graphic