Feed In Tariffs–Germany Shows They Work; California Study Underscores the Promise

Submitted by Leslie Glustrom on July 15, 2010 – 6:58pm

Feed In Tariffs are the policy that Germany has used to drive a very robust wind and solar market in a country that has very little sunshine! Now over 60 countries are proceeding with Feed in Tariff policies and these are leading to almost miraculous levels of renewable energy installations and investments.

The name derives from the “tariff” or rate that is paid for small generators to “feed-in” renewable energy to the grid. The development of Feed In Tariff or FIT policy has allowed the development of renewable energy to become a business proposition–instead of just a desire to do what is right.

Wind pioneer Paul Gipe has followed the development of FIT policies around the world and keeps an excellent catalogue of developments on his website at http://www.wind-works.org/articles/feed_laws.html.

One article on Paul Gipe’s website notes that using FIT policy, Germany installed more solar photovoltaic systems in the first quarter of 2010 (714MW)than the United States installed in all of 2009 (approx 435 MW)! That is just one of the examples of the power of FIT policy. Go here to read the details.

Also, on July 7, 2010 a study from Daniel Kammen’s group at the University of California-Berkeley underscored the benefits that a FIT policy for California would have–for meeting the Renewable Portfolio Standard, for creating jobs, for increasing state revenues and for stimulating new economic development. Read the summary of the California study here.

Information on FITs can also be found on the website of the Alliance for Renewable Energy.

In Colorado, a group has begun discussing the development of FIT policies for Colorado, holding meetings, workshops and posting key studies. Workshops on Feed In Tariffs are being hosted by Community in Power. An evening talk and all day workshop are scheduled for July 21-22, 2010 in Boulder and should be very informative. Your attendance is encouraged, or if you can’t make it (as I can not) then try reading some of the articles at the above links. They will make you smile–and perhaps drool…:)

Decarbonization for Boulder-Is It Feasible?

Submitted by Leslie Glustrom on May 11, 2010 – 10:39pm

What is meant by decarbonization and could Boulder actually do it?

Decarbonization is a relatively recent term that in this case refers to reducing the carbon content of Boulder’s energy, starting with electricity as the first step. The second step would be to decarbonize the transportation system by moving to electric powered vehicles using the highest level of renewable energy possible. After that, there will be many steps to full decarbonization, but as with any large project, the way to begin is to take the first step–which in this case is decarbonization of the electric supply.

According to the City of Boulder’s Climate Action Plan, about 57% of the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions can be attributed to electricity use–with 46% of that being for the commerical and industrial sectors and 11% with the residential sector. By lowering the carbon content of Boulder’s electric supply–or “decarbonizing,” significant reductions can be made in greenhouse gas emissions.

A group of citizens with representation from a number of community groups has suggested that Boulder set a goal of 30% decarbonization by 2012 and 80-100% decarbonization of the electric supply by 2020. There is also a team of people working with the City Staff as the “Decarbonization Tech Team” to explore these possibilities.

Reproduced below is a summary sheet addressing the feasibility of decarbonizing Boulder’s electric supply.


Stepwise Decarbonization–Is it Feasible??

References available from Leslie Glustrom 303-245-8637 lglustrom at gmail.com
Version 1.1 April 30, 2010

Colorado Has Abundant Wind and Solar Resources

Colorado has over 20 times the amount of wind and solar potential needed to power the state, according to analyses done by the National Renewable Energy Lab and the Governor’s Energy Office.(1) In addition, Colorado has significant methane, biomass, geothermal, efficiency and waste-to-energy resources available for potential development.

Colorado Has Thousands of MW of “Wrench Ready” Clean Energy Projects

In April 2009, Xcel (in Colorado) received over 15,000 MW of wind, solar and other renewable energy bids. (2)

Xcel was looking for about 1,000 MW and so will leave approximately 14,000 MW of clean energy projects sitting in notebooks. Bids submitted to Xcel needed to be fully engineered and to show access to the land, the wind turbines or solar panels, the ability to finance and permit the project and a method of transmitting the electricity to market.  

Thousands of MW of Clean Energy Projects Could be Built in 2011-2012

Of the bids submitted to Xcel Energy in Colorado in April 2009, over 6,000 MW of wind and over 1,000 MW of solar was proposed for development in 2011 and 2012. Clearly, these are “wrench ready” bids. (3)

Modeling Analyses Indicate that Renewable Energy Is Now Cost Competitive

Adding more renewable energy to Xcel’s system is likely to drive system costs down, not up according to Xcel’s modeling of the bids it received using the assumptions approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. As the costs of fossil fuels rise and as efforts to address pollution from fossil fuel burning increase, the costs of operating fossil fuel generating resources mounts while the costs of renewable energy resources fall. This means that shifting to renewable energy can not only be cleaner, it can help reduce the cost of electricity in the 21st century. (4)

Setting “Stretch” Goals Drives Innovation and Economic Success

The entire history of human civilization is driven by the setting of “stretch” goals—and the individuals, companies and countries that set those goals and meet them invariably profit tremendously. China has strong clean energy goals. The United States is caught in policy gridlock in Washington DC. Every utility in the United States will need to decarbonize in the next 1-2 decades. Either our country will fall into mass chaos or the companies and communities that foresee this need and align themselves according will profit immensely from this need. Will this be Boulder or some other community?

Is There an Electric Provider Willing to Partner withBoulder in Meeting These Decarbonization Goals?

At the present time, it is unclear whether Boulder’s present electricity provider, Xcel Energy, is willing to partner with Boulder in meeting the decarbonization goals that are needed to address climate change, drive economic development and avoid fossil-fuel driven utility rate increases. If Xcel Energy does not want to become a willing partner in this effort, citizens will suggest that it is time to find a new electricity provider and not renew the Xcel franchise agreement that expires in late 2010.

References on the reverse side.

References for Stepwise Decarbonization—Is It Feasible  v 1.1 2010-04-30

1) Information on Colorado’s potential for wind and solar can be found in the Governor’s Energy Office report, Connecting Colorado’s Renewable Resources to the Markets, available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/documents/2007-12-21_CO_%20SB91_Task_Force_Report.pdf . Information on the 96 GW of wind potential in Colorado is on pages 8-11. Information on the over 200 GW of Concentrating Solar Power potential is on pages 12-15 and 63 and 64. See especially the bullets at the bottom of page 64. Colorado’s peak electric demand is presently under 12 GW.

2) Information on the 15,000 MW of clean energy bids submitted to Xcel in April 2009 can be found in the “30 Day Report” (submitted May 2009) and the “120 Day Report” (submitted August 2009) to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in Docket 07A-447E, the 2007 Resource Plan. The reports can be downloaded fromhttps://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI.Show_Docket?p_session_id=&p_docket_id=07A-447E .

3) For the information on bids ready for development in 2011 and 2012, see pages 4 and 5 in the 30 Day Report submitted in May 2009 in the 07A-447E Resource Plan Docket. The report can be downloaded from https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI.Show_Docket?p_session_id=&p_docket_id=07A-447E.

4) Information on Xcel’s modeling of the April 2009 bids can be found in Figures 15 and 16 in the “120 Day Report” submitted in August 2009 to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission  in the 07A-447E Docket. The report can be downloaded from

https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI.Show_Docket?p_session_id=&p_docket_id=07A-447E .

Further information and references available from

Leslie Glustrom at lglustrom at gmail.com or 303-245-8637.

Colorado’s Magnificent Clean Energy Potential–Xcel’s 2009 “RFP”

Submitted by Leslie Glustrom on May 9, 2010 – 2:13pm

In April 2009, Xcel Energy received the results of its “Request for Proposals,” or “RFP,” for filling future generation needs on its Colorado system. In the midst of a brutal economic crisis, Xcel received over 15,000 MW of clean energy bids–even though it had only sought about 1,000 MW. For reference, Xcel’s peak system demand with a 16% reserve margin is usually between 7,000 and 8,000 MW.

A Denver Business Journal article on the bids is here and a graph showing the bids is attached.

Of the bids received by Xcel, over 7,000 MW of wind and solar bids were proposed for development in the 2011 and 2012 time frame as indicated in Xcel’s May 2009 “30 Day Report” on the bids in the 07A-447E Docket at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.

Xcel’s Analysis of the bids indicates that adding more renewable energy to the system as we head into a carbon-constrained world is likely to lower system costs, not raise them as shown in Figures 15 and 16 of Xcel’s August 2009 “120 Day Report” on the April 2009 bids.

Both the 30-Day Report and the 120 Day Report on the April 2009 RFP bids were prepared as part of Phase II of Xcel’s 2007 Resource Plan found in Docket 07A-447E at the Colorado PUC with full details available at https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI.Show_Docket?p_session_id=&p_docket_id=07A-447E .

While replacing fossil fuel resources needs to happen in a considered fashion to ensure system reliability, it is clear that Colorado has magnificent renewable energy resources and an abundance of project developers ready to turn these resources into clean electricity.

As we unleash the entrepreneurial abilities of Colorado’s clean energy developers, we will also help to keep Colorado’s energy dollars in the state, creating jobs, tax revenues and multiplier effects.

Presently, well over $100 million leaves the State of Colorado annually to pay for coal deliveries from Wyoming. With abundant wind and solar in the state, it appears that the amount of money leaving the state to pay for coal could be significantly reduced.

Coal is in for a Bumpy Ride and Final Decline

Submitted by Anne Butterfield on April 21, 2010 – 1:37pm

More coal miners have lost their lives from cave-ins, explosions and lung disease since 1900 than all the Americans who died in World War II. – Ralph Nader There is a moment in the progress of any high altitude flight when the engines let off and the craft pitches down slightly; that is the beginning of the long descent for landing. In the past three weeks, our nation crossed a line in how we think about coal, and it now seems coal’s long flight of dominating how we produce electricity has embarked on a final decline. A pivotal lightning strike hit the industry on April 5, in the probably avoidable explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia. Lit up in the glare of the news cycle was Don Blankenship of Massey Energy whose union busting and campaign of appealing safety violations has led, probably, to the explosion in his mine. That’s the view loudly proclaimed by AFL-CIO president and former president of United Mine Workers Richard Trumka, who can cogently claim the disaster was propelled by the lack of union vigilance in the mine in question. Preceded by 53 safety violations in March and over 450 the previous year, the accident launched two federal investigations sought by West Virginia Senators Rockefeller and Byrd — who are otherwise quite protective of the industry — and a campaign of inspecting all mines in West Virginia was ordered by Governor Joe Manchin. A Wall Street law firm has joined the pushback posse, seeking to know if Massey violated SEC regulations by failing to disclose risk properly to investors. Another investor group dubbed Change to Win is calling for the ouster of Blankenship. It’s been joined by New York State’s Comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli, who has direct control of over 300,000 shares of Massey stock through that state’s common retirement fund. There is nothing like a mass casualty incident to focus our politics, and the small chance of coal state pols voting for clean energy jobs and a climate bill is inching higher, especially as the national focus on coal’s danger may lead eyeballs to stumble upon a recent study by Downstream Strategies showing what Appalachians know in their guts that the region’s coal reserves are in decline and the region needs diverse economic development immediately. Severe local turbulence can lead to loss of altitude, but more distant control can call for descent, too, in the form of federal regulation. Just days before the Montcoal catastrophe, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules to curb the practice of mountain top removal mining that is poisoning waterways and flattening Appalachia. It was denounced by Friends of Coal as a big job-killer, their usual line, as the industry hates all job losses that they do not effectuate from their own corporate offices. Also, later this month the EPA is scheduled to release new regulations for the handling of coal ash waste, the long awaited comeuppance for the spill of biblical proportions that cloaked eastern Tennessee at Christmas of 2008. The regulations could impose serious costs on the industry. As forces of scrutiny and regulation converge on the coal industry to reduce some of its hazards, they will push the price of the black rock appropriately upward. And as celebrated environmentalist Lester Brown has said, the free market is fine so long as prices tell the truth about costs. We need coal to be priced according to it costs, and politics is moving in that direction, particularly as we look west. Citing the city’s home rule authority as their clout, Chicago’s City Council has joyfully presented an ordinance to regulate the emissions of two coal plants inside the city limits, and if that fails, to call for the plants’ retirement. Chicagoans suffer twice the asthma-related hospitalizations than the national average. Here in Boulder we too have home rule authority and are feeling a strong push to delay the signing of a new franchise agreement with Xcel Energy in favor of a new business arrangement crafted for decarbonization. This week all nine members of the City Council opined in a study session that times are changing and so must our energy production. Focusing on how coal is becoming less reliable, Councilwoman Susie Ageton put it forcefully: “We’ve got to make the shift – we’ve got to do it.” Maybe she knows that Colorado’s coal fields are faltering; the state hit peak production six years ago and “force majeure” has shut down mines four times since 2007. As for the motherlode of coal up in Wyoming, the most recent US Geological Survey assessment of coal in the Gillette Field of the Powder River Basin (which provides about 40 percent of our nation’s coal) found that only 6 percent was economically accessible. And The Bureau of Land Management has stated that major mines in the PRB have less than a ten year life span. Future mine expansions will face compelling geologic and other challenges. (For more on coal supply constraints go…..) So no one, especially the coal industry, should be surprised that Governor Ritter will sign legislation calling on Xcel Energy to reduce by 80 percent the nasty pollutants of key coal plants along the Front Range, with overt instruction to consider natural gas and low emitting sources as replacement for coal. We’re seeing the decline of coal. There may be air pockets to bump the industry back up and sharply down in its trajectory, but the fact is the 150 year flight is just plain running out of gas. And with Colorado in the forefront, many American communities are preparing for a smooth landing. A version of this column appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera.

Comanche 3–The Billion Dollar Mistake

Xcel has spent over $1 Billion to build the new 750 MW Unit 3 coal plant in Pueblo (which Xcel refers to as “Comanche 3”) and they are presently trying to bring the coal plant on line. Yet, there are a growing number of signs that the coal plant is a “Billion Dollar Mistake.”

The coal plant has been plagued by engineering and noise issues which are discussed in a recent report to the Colorado PUC here. There is a Powerpoint (starting on page 7 of 35) included in the “Verified Report” at this link which details the problems that Xcel has been experiencing with leaking steam tubes, boiler pumps that won’t work and a high pitched noise that is causing tremendous disturbance to local residents who are becoming depressed and distraught, with many of them moving into hotels (which at least Xcel is paying for) because they can not bear the noise any longer and the sleep deprivation has become too much. Of course moving into a hotel is also a tremendous disturbance to one’s life and the residents’ health issues are becoming exacerbated by the continuous noise that disrupts their sleep and creates serious additional stress.

You can read the comments of the local citizens who are being affected by the noise issue on the PUC website under Docket 10M-135E.

Operating the coal plant will cost approximately $1 billion per decade and add large amounts of CO2, mercury and other pollutants to the environment. Soon Colorado will have to decide whether it is worth putting good money after bad when it comes to the coal plant or whether the money spent operating the plant would be better spent building out the renewable energy infrastrucuture that will keep Colorado powered in the 21st century as coal and pollution control (and likely carbon) costs mount.

Here is a report detailing the history and the expected future costs of operating the coal plant attached.

Xcel has received three rate increases in the last four years totalling over $300 million dollars of additional annual revenue paid by Colorado rate payers and the largest driver in these back-to-back rate increases has been the Unit 3 coal plant.

More information is available on request.

Colorado’s Billion Dollar Mistake

Colorado’s_Billion_Dollar_Mistake_Unit_3_Pueblo_v 1[1]

Accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy