No, Wind Turbines Didn’t Keep Texas Grid Online

January 9, 2014 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, renewable energy, wind energy 

Wind energy kept Texas powered earlier this week, according to supporters of the renewable energy power source.

Plunging temperatures as a result of the polar vortex pushed energy generation across the country above normal winter levels, including Texas:

ERCOT said demand for electricity today reached 55,486 megawatts between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. That’s short of the record winter demand of 57,265 on Feb. 10, 2011, which produced rotating outages, and lower than peak demand during last month’s run of low temperatures, said ERCOT spokeswoman Robbie Searcy.

The demand for electricity in Texas nearly pushed the grid to begin triggering rolling power outages:

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the electric grid in most of Texas, briefly issued an Energy Emergency Alert 2 early Monday morning, the last step before rotating power outages would be implemented. ERCOT canceled the warning about possible outages shortly after 9:30 a.m.

But the loss of just one more large power plant could have pushed the grid over the edge, Dan Woodfin, ERCOT director of system operations, told reporters on a conference call. The grid lost two big power plants to weather-related problems and some others to other problems, totaling about 3,700 megawatts of power, Woodfin said.

Texas made up the deficit between demand and supply by tapping energy sources outside the state:

During that time, the state imported about 800 megawatts from the nation’s eastern power grid, and another 180 megawatts from Mexico. A megawatt is roughly enough to supply about 200 Texas homes during a period of peak electricity use, although demand in Texas peaks during the summer as air conditioners fire up.

For about an hour during the emergency alert period, wholesale power prices hit the state’s regulatory ceiling of $5,000 per megawatt-hour, Woodfin said. That’s about 100 times the $50 per megawatt-hour price generally seen.

Why did Texas need to seek out of state electricity when, as was trumpeted by wind energy supporters, wind was filling in?

Wind could not fill the gap created by increased demand from the cold and the drop in capacity due to outages from plants–both scheduled and unscheduled.

The Energy Reliability Council of Texas monitors the production of wind energy in the Texas grid and produces daily “wind integration reports” (WIR) that carefully illustrate:

Hourly averages of actual ERCOT load vs. wind output, and total installed wind capacity
Actual average wind output as a percentage of the total installed wind capacity
Actual average wind output as a percentage of the ERCOT load
Weekly graph of the ERCOT load vs. actual wind output

The first graph from the January 6 WIR shows that at the very moment energy demand in Texas began to increase in the early morning hours Monday, actual wind output began to plummet precipitously.

Wind production falls well below 2,000 MW and remains there for most of the rest of the daylight hours on Monday, picking up again only as night returns:
ERCOT Load vs Wind Input2

In the next graph, ERCOT’s detailed hourly picture shows wind output falling below 20 percent of installed capacity by 7am, the same hour as power plants totaling 1,350 MW went offline.

Actual Wind Output as Percentage of Installed Wind Capacity

Actual wind output as a percentage of ERCOT’s total load declined from approximately 15 percent at midnight to around just 5 percent by 7am, as the peak of the surge of demand was felt, and remained below the 10 percent threshold until after 11pm Monday.

Actual Wind Output as Percentage of ERCOT Load

So, instead of bailing out the Texas grid, the intermittent source was reduced to a trickle on a near-record setting day for the state of Texas.

The Institute for Energy Research found the same results:

But even though early morning is generally a good time for wind generation, on Monday morning only 17 percent of ERCOT’s wind capacity (1,782 megawatts of the approximately 10,400 megawatts of wind capacity) were operating at that time. According to Fuel Fix, this means that “on Monday [wind] only contributed about 3.2 percent of electricity used during peak demand. It is obviously a judgment call whether 17 percent of capacity and 3.2 percent of total generation is indeed “massive quantities” of wind or merely middling amounts.

Winter energy demand is lower than summer peak demand–when Texans reasonably clamor for air conditioning–and more than 10,000 MW of generation for the state’s grid was offline Monday for routine, scheduled maintenance:

Electric supplies on Monday tightened after more than 3,700 megawatts of generation was forced to shut overnight Sunday and early Monday, Dan Woodfin, ERCOT’s director of system operations, told reporters. The forced outages came on top of nearly 10,000 MW of generation that was already shut for the season or for planned maintenance, he said.

Woodfin said about 1,800 MW of the 3,700 MW of the forced outages were weather-related, including two large power plants in north central Texas that he declined to name.

The American Wind Energy Association was quick to tout wind’s contributions:

Then in Texas, the more than 2,000 MW of wind output on Monday morning was the critical difference keeping heaters running as the grid operator struggled with numerous outages at conventional power plants. More than 13,000 MW of conventional power plants were down for maintenance, while another 2,000 MW of conventional power plants experienced unplanned outages, forcing the grid operator to resort to emergency procedures. In a similar incident two years ago, wind energy earned accolades from the grid operator for helping to keep the lights on as dozens of conventional power plants failed in another cold snap.

Other outlets like ThinkProgress, also pushed wind’s contributions.

“Demand remained high on Tuesday, but increased output from West Texas wind farms enabled the state to avoid an emergency scenario,” said ClimateProgress, TP’s climate blog.

Even Al Armendariz, the former Environmental Protection Agency regional director whose promises to “crucify” oil and gas producers resulted in his abrupt resignation, joined in congratulating wind:

Calling coal, gas, and nuclear “unreliable” Armendariz dinged the “old stuff” of traditional power generation–the Luminant Comanche Peak 1 nuclear was at 72 percent of capacity, according to Reuters, both Monday and Tuesday–while neglecting to mention that all day Monday, actual wind output for ERCOT as a percentage of total wind capacity never even managed to reach 70 percent during any one hour, and fell short of 50 percent in at least 20 of the 24 hours that day, according to ERCOT’s reports.

Armendariz currently works for the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign.

Print Friendly

Progressive criticism of PUC nominee Vaad is about ALEC rather than energy

January 8, 2014 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, HB 1365, New Energy Economy 

Progressive left logic: Progressives want to destroy ALEC. Moderate Republican PUC nominee Glenn Vaad has been a member of ALEC. Therefore progressives want to destroy Glenn Vaad even though he has supported increasing Colorado’s renewable energy mandate and fuel switching.

The progressive left’s criticism of Governor John Hickenlooper’s appointment of former State Representative Glenn Vaad (R-Mead) to Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) appears to part of a coordinated national campaign against the American Legislative Exchange Council rather than Vaad’s record on energy policy, which is more in line with Democrats than free market conservatives. Vaad is awaiting State Senate confirmation, which is likely to happen sometime this week.

ALEC is a nonpartisan voluntary membership organization for conservative state lawmakers “who share a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty.” ALEC promotes such dangerous ideas like reducing excessive government spending, limiting the overall tax burden, choice in education, and market-based approach to renewable energy sources. As a state lawmaker, Glenn Vaad was a member.

The progressive left is obsessed with ALEC. In May 2013 several progressive organizations with ties to Colorado met to “coordinate their attack plan” as the Washington Free Beacon reported:

Leading progressive organizers met on May 10 to coordinate their attack plan against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), discussing ways to pressure corporations into abandoning the group for its small-government advocacy and turn against what they call the “vast, right-wing conspiracy.”

The participants, including representatives from such far-left groups as Common Cause, Color of Change, and ProgressNow, met for lunch in a conference room at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The Free Beacon quoted Aniello Alioto of ProgressNow Colorado, summing up the strategy on attacking ALEC, “Never relent, never let up pressure, and always increase.”

By law, the three-member PUC cannot have more than two members from any one party. With Republican member James Tarpey retiring and the other two members Pam Patton and Chairman Joshua Epel being Democrats, that means the Governor had to find a qualified applicant within the Republican Party.  In theory, he could have looked for someone inside the Constitution, Libertarian, or Green Parties, but it’s likely that the qualified applicant pool was rather shallow.

So Governor Hickenlooper selected a very moderate Republican Rep. Vaad, who has the necessary qualifications as a former Weld County Commissioner and longtime employee of the Colorado Department of Transportation. Vaad’s 2011 Colorado Union of Taxpayers’ rating (a conservative legislative scorecard) was a modest 50 out of 100. Only nine House Republicans scored lower.

When it comes to energy policy, the environmental left should be pleased with Vaad’s nomination. As a state representative, Vaad co-sponsored HB07-1281, the bill to increase Colorado’s renewable mandate to 20 percent. He also sponsored then Governor Bill Ritter’s crowning jewel of his “new energy economy,” the controversial fuel-switching bill HB10-1365, which got nearly unanimous approval from the Democrat caucus but proved quite divisive for Republicans.

But Vaad’s actual legislative record doesn’t seem to matter. To the progressive left, his appointment is more about ALEC than Colorado’s PUC as the far-left Colorado Independent reports:

Groups opposed to Vaad’s appointment say he has not just been an ALEC member but an officer. They point to documents and reports posted by consumer-advocacy groups like Common Cause and progressive-politics organizations like the Center for Media and Democracy that show Vaad was Chair of the ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development task force while he was serving in the state legislature in 2011 and 2012 and that he had been accepting ALEC “scholarships” every year he was in the legislature dating back to 2006.

According to a press release from Gabe Elsner, executive director at the Energy and Policy Institute, quoted in the Independent:

There is a clear conflict of interest…In the past year, ALEC’s utility and fossil fuel members lobbied lawmakers in at least 15 states to introduce legislation repealing Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. Now ALEC is launching a new wave of attacks on clean energy policies like solar net metering… There’s a real threat that Mr. Vaad will serve ALEC’s special interest members instead of Colorado families.

Well first, Rep. Vaad hasn’t been in the state legislature since the spring of 2012, and Mr. Elsner is talking about 2013. Also, there is no evidence that Vaad ever introduced legislation to repeal the renewable energy mandate. In fact, as stated earlier, he did just the opposite. (Although he did oppose HB10-1001, the 30 percent renewable mandate bill). Furthermore, he was on the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development task force not the Energy, Environment and Agriculture.

Progressive left logic: Progressives want to destroy ALEC. Moderate Republican PUC nominee Glenn Vaad has been a member of ALEC. Therefore progressives want to destroy Glenn Vaad even though he has supported increasing Colorado’s renewable energy mandate and fuel switching.

The bottom line is that the opposition to Glenn Vaad is about attacking ALEC rather than Vaad’s qualifications or his perspective on energy policy. So the progressive left is willing to sacrifice about the best appointee they can hope for in order to “never let up the pressure, and always increase.”

I did call Glenn Vaad for comment but as of posting he has not returned the call.

Print Friendly

Obama Administration Ramps Up Renewables, Extends Wind Energy ‘Takings’ On Eagles

December 10, 2013 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: renewable energy, wind energy 

A pair of energy policy moves made by the Obama administration at the end of 2013 could have an impact far beyond the end of second term, drawing criticism from natural resource proponents and environmentalists alike.

Last week, the White House issued a memorandum targeting a requirement of 20 percent of all energy consumed by Federal agencies to come from renewables:

Section 1. Renewable Energy Target. (a) By fiscal year 2020, to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable, 20 percent of the total amount of electric energy consumed by each agency during any fiscal year shall be renewable energy.

(b) Agencies shall seek to achieve the renewable energy consumption target set forth in subsection (a) of this section by, where possible, taking the following actions, which are listed in order of priority:

(i) installing agency-funded renewable energy on-site at Federal facilities and retain renewable energy certificates;

(ii) contracting for energy that includes the installation of a renewable energy project on-site at a Federal facility or off-site from a Federal facility and the retention of renewable energy certificates for the term of the contract;

(iii) purchasing electricity and corresponding renewable energy certificates; and

(iv) purchasing renewable energy certificates.

The memorandum details a stepped approach, with year-over-year minimum targets to reach the 20 percent benchmark:

(i) not less than 10 percent in fiscal year 2015;

(ii) not less than 15 percent in fiscal years 2016 and 2017;

(iii) not less than 17.5 percent in fiscal years 2018 and 2019; and

(iv) not less than 20 percent in fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year thereafter.

Naturally, the President’s move has drawn opposition. The mandate will put pressure on the markets for both traditional energy sources and renewables , and could put consumers on the hook for higher energy costs with the Federal government picking energy winners and losers, according to The Daily Caller.

But a move to extend the life of one renewable energy source–in this case, wind–by granting a six-fold extension to ‘takings’ permits issued to wind farms that allow the accidental killing of bald and golden eagles has united opponents normally at odds: Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and groups like the National Audubon Society and Natural Resources Defense Council.

A sampling, from Politico:

It’s baldly un-American, Vitter said Friday.

“Permits to kill eagles just seem unpatriotic, and 30 years is a long time for some of these projects to accrue a high death rate,” said the Louisiana senator, who is the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and one of Congress’s most outspoken critics of wind.

Sounding a similar theme, National Audubon Society CEO David Yarnold said it’s “outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of America’s symbol, the bald eagle.” He indicated his group may sue the administration.

The rule also drew criticism from Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who said it “sets up a false choice that we intend to fight to reverse.”

“This rule could lead to many unnecessary deaths of eagles. And that’s a wrong-headed approach,” she said. “We can, and must, protect wildlife as we promote clean, renewable energy. The Fish and Wildlife Service missed an opportunity to issue a rule that would do just that.”

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell defended the rule change.

“Renewable energy development is vitally important to our nation’s future, but it has to be done in the right way. The changes in this permitting program will help the renewable energy industry and others develop projects that can operate in the longer term, while ensuring bald and golden eagles continue to thrive for future generations,” Jewell said.

The National Wildlife Federation and the American Bird Conservancy also criticized the move. Conservationists had also hoped to postpone the takings ruling earlier this year when they lobbied the White House, asking for more time to learn more about the way wind energy interacted with wildlife, and particularly, birds and bats.

“The question is what is the science telling us about how to prevent eagle takings, and we’re still waiting for the science to tell us how that works,” Defender of WIldlife’s Julie Falkner told The Hill in August.

At least 67 eagles of both types have been killed by wind turbines since 2008, according to government biologists. One wind site in California sees approximately 60 eagle deaths per year, the AP found, and a new site in Wyoming could register the same death toll each year once it is up and running. A proposed Maryland wind farm could see 20 fatalities a year, and developers have pulled back temporarily, citing the need to study the impact on eagles in the area before completing the project.

A 2012 peer-reviewed study estimated that Federal statistics provided in 2009 of 440,000 birds killed per year may have been off by as much as 30 percent, putting the figure closer to 575,000 birds and nearly 900,000 bats killed annually with current installed wind capacity.

Those deaths were kept quiet, and the push for the rule change came as much from corporate pressure as it did from an administration willing to accept energy tradeoffs, according to the Associated Press’s Dina Capiello:

An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration’s reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. President Barack Obama has championed the pollution-free energy, nearly doubling America’s wind power in his first term as a way to tackle global warming.

But all energy has costs, and the administration has been forced to accept the not-so-green sides of green energy as a means to an end.

Print Friendly

‘Devastating’: Despite Majority Support, ‘Fractivists’ Plan Statewide Fracking Ban; MoveOn Joins Effort

November 20, 2013 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: Hydraulic Fracturing, Legislation 

DENVER—Calls for a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing in Colorado have escalated following the passage of a handful of local moratoria, even as a majority of Colorado voters continue to support the drilling method.

A Quinnipiac poll from November 19 conducted just two weeks after voters in Boulder, Lafayette, and Fort Collins—and possibly Broomfield—voted for moratoria in their municipalities, 51 percent of Coloradans surveyed support the use of fracking as an extraction method, versus 34 percent who were opposed.

A combined 56 percent of all surveyed viewed fracking as “very” or “somewhat” safe, including Republicans and independents.

The impact of a total ban on fracking would be tremendous, as a report from the Business Research Division of the Leeds School of Business at the University of Colorado at Boulder concluded in July 2013.

More than 111,000 jobs were created, generating $3.8 billion in wages, or 2.8% of Colorado earnings. The average direct jobs—over 51,000 in all—received $101,171 in wages in 2012, more than double Colorado’s average wage ($50,339), the report said.

In addition to the impact on Colorado’s economy, the report’s authors also demonstrated the enormous contribution of the oil and gas industry to state and local government. Nearly $1.6 billion in severance, property, ad valorem, royalty, income, and sales taxes were paid to the state in 2012, including $600 million in property taxes alone.

According to CBS4Denver’s Shaun Boyd, approximately $500 million of those taxes go to Colorado schools. Those funds would be in jeopardy if voters or the state legislature enacted a statewide fracking ban.

Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, told the National Journal Daily the consequences of such a ban would be dire.

“A statewide ban would be devastating for the state’s economy. If we were to lose the oil and gas jobs that we have, it would be just catastrophic for our economy…. The idea of a statewide ban on fracking—that is such a draconian response, because there are a lot of areas, the vast majority of areas, where oil and gas development is taking place across the state that people are pretty happy with it,” King told NJD.

The goal of a statewide ban was thrust out of the shadows by Tuesday’s unveiling of a new ad from Americans Against Fracking, featuring what the Denver Post called “B and C-list celebrities” demanding Gov. John Hickenlooper act to ban fracking.

Among the groups backing the video are the Environment Media Association, Environment America, Food and Water Watch, Frack Free Colorado, Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, and New Yorkers Against Fracking.

The national effort follows on the heels of Frack Free Colorado’s site-scrubbing of ties to another national organization, Water Defense.

But plans for a fracking ban were hushed during and shortly after the conclusion of the campaign for the local moratoria, as indicated by statements made by Food and Water Watch’s Sam Schabacker following the November 5 election.

In an interview with KUNC, Schabacker said the election results left “all options” on the table in Colorado. But his celebratory press release on November 6 did not mention plans for a statewide ban, even as the national website of FWW calls for a ban in Colorado, and even a national ban.

The group’s calls for banning go beyond other calls by environmental groups for regulations on fracking, “to make it safer, more transparent and cleaner.”

Proposed emission regulations, such as the one made earlier this week, are not enough for Schabacker, in an interview New York Times columnist Joe Nocera.

Nocera asked Schabacker about the rules Hickenlooper announced on Monday. Schabacker rejected the decision made by groups like the Environmental Defense Fund to push for regulation rather than a complete ban. Schabacker told Nocera that EDF efforts were a “smoke screen” giving the oil and gas industry “a veneer of respectability.”

“We believe that fracking is inherently unsafe and should be banned,” Schabacker said.

But Schabacker admitted that the tactic of underplaying the desire for a statewide ban in favor of short-term efforts like the municipal moratoria gives groups like FWW the opportunity to push against fracking—and chew into the support indicated by the Quinnipiac poll.

As the National Journal reported, “Schabacker’s group is willing to accept temporary moratoriums so communities can spend time learning about the potential impacts—and so national organizers can drive more opposition to fossil-fuel development outright.”

Not just a ban on fracking, but the end of the entire oil and gas industry.

“Shane Davis, a self-described ‘fractivist’ whose full-time job is to mobilize people against fracking—and oil and gas drilling writ large—focuses mainly on the public-health and environmental concerns. Ultimately, though, he is fighting to end fossil-fuel production altogether,” according to the National Journal.

“Fractivism around hydraulic fracturing is so critical, and it’s moving at a really fast pace,” Davis told NJ. He pointed to climate change, declaring it a “climate crisis.”

National organizations such as MoveOn have recently announced support for “fractivists” with their #FrackingFighters campaign. Applicants are eligible for $500 in grants, materials, and training to oppose fracking. MoveOn’s efforts target individual activists and small groups with an annual budget of no more than $50,000. It was unclear how many grants would be issued.

“#FrackingFighters is a project of MoveOn.org Civic Action to support and develop the leadership and capacity of grassroots individuals and organizations to win victories that protect our communities, our water, our air, and our climate from the destruction caused by hydraulic fracturing—also known as fracking—and the entire fracking lifecycle,” MoveOn wrote.

Print Friendly

Pandora’s Promise: if you care about kids, go nuclear

November 8, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive 

By Dr. Robert Applegate

The opening scene of the documentary Pandora’s Promise brings viewers face-to-face with nuclear power plant protestors screaming scary things like “the nuclear industry is a death industry.” Then it moves to a nuclear energy supporter walking around the destroyed nuclear power plant in Fukushima with the filmmaker Robert Stone asking are you still “pro-nuclear?”

At this point I was unsure where this film would take me. If this was a movie really about how nuclear power is clean and safe and our only option to combat climate change, or was this more of a movie trying to balance opinions rather than present fact.  When the movie did jump into the facts of nuclear power, it did not disappoint. Explaining, for example, that one pound of nuclear fuel (about the size of your finger) holds the same amount of energy as 5000 barrels of oil.

The movie provides an overview of the origins of the hysteria over nuclear energy.  It exposes the baby boomers who came of age during the height of the Cold War with elementary school duck-and-cover drills just in case the Soviets dropped the bomb.  As a result, an entire generation, arguably the most influential generation, associated the word “nuclear” with bombs and destruction.  Add this irrational fear to the lack of understanding of how and where electricity comes from, and the nuclear power industry was set up for failure by the 1980’s.

Pandora’s Promise does a decent job of talking about how the accessibility of energy is directly correlated to quality of life.  People live longer and better lives when they can access power easily and inexpensively. Stone should have made this a bit stronger, especially since the movie is directed at environmentalists and why they need to reexamine nuclear power as an option to improving the quality of life in the developing world.  The two billion people globally without electricity don’t just need a clean environment; they need access to clean, reliable, and affordable power.

My favorite part came when Stone tours the globe with a dosimeter (a radiation-meter), showing people what physicists know; radiation exists naturally everywhere and in everything, and our bodies deal with it every day with no increased cancer risk.  What’s funny, and trust me the irony is not lost on physicists like me, Stone even shows a group of protesters having a “banana break” in which one is handing out bananas to eat while they are screaming about the horrors of radiation. Many people, except misguided protestors, know that a Geiger Counter (a machine that measures radiation) next to a banana is quite noisy because bananas have a lot of naturally occurring radiation.

Contrary to popular myth, deaths from nuclear power are incredibly low. No one in the U.S. has died from a nuclear power related accident, including any radiation leaks, and this is pointed out in the film.  Roughly 50 people did die at Chernobyl as a result of the accident there, but that isn’t even close to the nonsensical “millions” number that one protester cites. The film crew braved Chernobyl revealing how the plant kept working nearly 10 years after the accident and how people went to work every day there with no increased cancer risk.

Stone also addresses the difficult topic of nuclear waste with a straightforward quote from an environmentalist who flat out says, “Nuclear waste is not an environmental issue” because there is simply very little of it.

The movie has an optimistic ending, talking about the future and how the newer reactor designs are incapable of melting down.  Peaceful nuclear power is helping to reduce the number of nuclear warheads through recycling – 16,000 in the past 10 years recycled and now used to power cities.  Bottom line: don’t fear nuclear power. We need it to combat carbon emissions and raise two billion people out of poverty.

I know this is tough for old-school environmentalists but Pandora’s Promise tried to be gentle with this message to the eco-left: your heart is in the right place, but your facts are wrong. Please reexamine your point of view, and you will change your mind.  Do it for the sake of the kids you are trying to save.

To hear more about my take on Pandora’s Promise, listen to my review on the Amy Oliver Show on News Talk 1310 KFKA.

Now, go hug a nuclear power plant operator.

Dr. Robert Applegate has a PhD in Applied Physics from the Colorado School of Mines, has worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and is an advocate for science in public policy.

Print Friendly

Fracking Bans: A Postmortem

November 8, 2013 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, Hydraulic Fracturing, Legal, Legislation 

A contentious battle between anti-fracking activists such as Our Broomfield and supporters of the energy gathering method, including the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, will have to wait just a bit longer for the dust to settle in Tuesday’s election.

Broomfield’s Question 300, a 5 year prohibition on the use of hydraulic fracturing and associated activities, will go to an automatic recount some time next week depends on the outcome of settling the remaining outstanding ballots. The measure was defeated by a mere 13 votes in the initial count:

Yet there is a wild card in the recount process — there are still eight days for military and overseas ballots to be returned, and deficiencies in some Broomfield ballots, such as questions about signatures or first-time mail voters who did not include a copy of their ID — need to be addressed. Those ballots could change the final tally and impact a recount, said Andrew Cole, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office.

If such a small margin remains, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office told the Broomfield Enterprise an automatic recount would be triggered, using the “one half of one percent difference” rule.

The proposed fracking bans elsewhere across the state–Fort Collins, Lafayette, and Boulder–amounted to public relations window-dressing for anti-fracking activists in areas where hydraulic fracturing typically has not occurred in the past, or where the possibility of new developments would soon take place.

“Boulder and Lafayette were nothing more than symbolic votes. Lafayette’s last new well permit was in the early 1990’s and Boulder’s last oil and gas well was plugged in 1999,” Colorado Oil and Gas Association president Tisha Schuller told The Colorado Observer.

As for Fort Collins, The Coloradoan blasted the measure there in a pre-election editorial for making the city a “pawn” in a “potentially costly environmental position statement” that “smacks of agenda-based partisanship” in a city that has few natural resources and is already ninety percent off limits to oil and gas development, even before the 5 year moratorium goes into effect.

Following the passage of the three measures, the Denver Post expressed disappointment in what it dubbed an “irresponsible agenda” in the form of the anti-fracking opponents’ real desire for a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing, disguised as local grassroots referenda.

“Symbolism needn’t be coherent,” the Post said.

Neither was the reaction to support of hydraulic fracturing when Zev Paiss, part of Frack Free Boulder, equated families who depend on natural resource development to terrorists:

“The scientists and their families who work on weapons of mass destruction depend on that regular paycheck too.”

In addition, that irresponsible symbolism will likely trigger big dollar lawsuits from the state:

Gov. John Hickenlooper told CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd he will sue any community that bans fracking. He says the state constitution splits surface and mineral rights and bans violate that. State law also gives the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission rule-making authority, not local governments.

That didn’t seem to faze anti-fracking activists like Josh Fox, who tweeted:

That the symbolic fracking war pitted David–grassroots, underfunded fracking opponents–against the Goliath known as the oil and gas industry became part of the campaign narrative in all four measures, something the Wall Street Journal noted:

Colorado, with its long history of energy extraction, would be a bigger test of whether the oil and gas industry and its supporters can surmount growing opposition from some communities and national environmental groups.

As Colorado Peak Politics concluded, the successes emboldened not a rag-tag coalition, but a mightily funded effort to launch “frack wars across Colorado.”

Those big dollars, in a post collected by Peak, point to under-the-table, “dark” money being spent to support the bans. The decentralized attacks on fracking in Colorado can be traced, in part, to smoke-and-mirrors, DC-based outfits like Center for Western Priorities, according to the Washington Examiner.

With both sides claiming victory–and with Broomfield’s results hanging in the balance for a few more weeks and possible lawsuits looming on the horizon–2013’s fracking bans may only be a prelude to more municipal proposals, and possibly a statewide measure in 2014, according to the Denver Business Journal.

Print Friendly

EPA Carbon “Listening Tour” Set to Hit Denver Tomorrow

October 29, 2013 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, Hydraulic Fracturing, Legislation, New Energy Economy, renewable energy 

DENVER–After a slight delay due to the government shutdown in early October, the Environmental Protection Agency began its 11-city “listening tour” seeking input on carbon pollution regulations last week, with an all-day session schedule for Denver on Wednesday.

“The agency is expected to solicit ideas on how best to regulate carbon emissions from the more than 1,000 power plants now in operation – the cornerstone and arguably the most controversial part of the Obama administration’s strategy to address climate change.

The EPA will use a rarely employed section of the federal Clean Air Act, known as section 111(d), and will rely heavily on input from states to craft a flexible rule that can be applied to states with different energy profiles,” Reuters reported.

Session attendees wishing to offer comments will be afforded three minutes to speak at the regional listening sessions, and will include speakers from think tanks, government agencies, state officials, and business groups supporting and opposing the EPA’s planned regulation.

A variety of carbon-cutting schemes–some already in place in a number of different states–will be defended against questions of affordability and reliability of electricity offered in its place, according to reports.

Critics have blasted the EPA for skipping states that power their electricity needs with coal, The Hill reported earlier this month.

House Republicans criticized the EPA decision to hold the meetings at the EPA regional offices, claiming that the EPA was “conspicuously” avoiding coal-heavy states.

“Despite being the most impacted, all of these states are missing from EPA’s tour schedule. That means Americans that may be the hardest hit by EPA’s regulations will need to travel hundreds of miles to ensure their concerns about electricity prices and the impacts on their jobs are heard,” the Republicans wrote.

The EPA will be holding sessions in Chicago, Dallas, and Philadelphia–each in a state in the top 10 of coal production in 2011, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Colorado houses the Region 8 EPA office and ranked 11th in the 2011 figures. Wyoming, which will not host an EPA listening tour stop, ranked first, with approximately 40 percent of the nation’s coal output that same year.

There will be no EPA listening sessions in West Virginia or Kentucky, the second and third-ranked states. Those three states combined to produce 62.2 percent of U.S. coal production in 2011.

Groups opposed to the EPA’s plans will be hosting a rally dubbed “Enough Already” on the west steps of the state Capitol at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Groups include the Independence Institute, Colorado Mining Association, and a variety of other organizations. A complete list of speakers is available via the Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

Anyone interested in attending one of the remaining sessions can sign up here.

Print Friendly

Unrealized Value: Colorado’s Energy Development on Federal Land

September 18, 2013 by jlongo · Comments Off
Filed under: Legal, Legislation, New Energy Economy 

IB-F-2013 (Sept. 2013)
Author: Brandon Ratterman

PDF of full Issue Paper

Introduction:
Relative to other states in the Rocky Mountain region, Colorado is underutilizing its federal land for energy development, specifically for oil and gas development. On average, the states in the Mountain West region produce 40 percent of their oil, and 50 percent of their natural gas on federal land. Meanwhile, Colorado produces 10 percent of its oil, and 20 percent of its natural gas on federal land.

Print Friendly

Think of economic impact before banning fracking

August 28, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Hydraulic Fracturing 

By Brandon Ratterman

Around the nation, self-described environmentalists have made hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and their perceived negative impact on the environment growing points of contention. In Colorado this debate led to several community-based moratoriums and talks of a statewide ban on fracking. But if a few organized, anti-fracking organizations realistically want to shut down an entire industry, they need to acknowledge the economic effects of those actions. Luckily, the University of Colorado (Boulder) recently published the economic and fiscal benefits of Colorado’s O&G industry, which is summarized in the paragraphs below.

In 2012, the O&G industry contributed a total of $29.6 billion to Colorado’s economy in direct and indirect activities. Of the total,  $9.3 billion is directly related to oil and gas production, which requires the most efficient extraction technology (hydraulic fracturing) to be competitive.

The value added from the O&G industry supports 111,500 Colorado jobs.  Of those jobs, the 29,000 employees that are directly involved in drilling, extraction and support jobs earned over twice as much as the average Colorado employee. In total, the O&G industry paid almost $6.5 billion in wages to Coloradoans in 2012.

The oil and gas industry also provided benefits to those outside of the industry through state and local funding. In 2012, Colorado state and local governments, school districts, and special interests received a total of $1.6 billion in revenues from the O&G industry. Of that $1.6 billion, O&G severance tax—which is a fee for extracting a non-renewable resource—contributed $163 million alone.

The economic and fiscal benefits from the oil and gas industry need to be remembered as statewide actions are considered. If the plan to ban fracking across Colorado is implemented, tens of thousands of Coloradans will be without a job. Likewise, the Colorado economy will be without tens of billions of dollars in revenue, of which over one billion will be cut in state and local government(s), schools and special interests. With effects of this magnitude, it would be advisable for Coloradans to disregard documentaries in this matter and independently research the environmental effects of “fracking.”

Brandon Ratterman is a research associate with the Energy Policy Center.

Print Friendly

FERC nominee Ron Binz the flipper

August 2, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: HB 1365, renewable energy 

By Amy Oliver Cooke and Robert Applegate

As Ron Binz campaigns to be confirmed as the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, much of the emphasis has been on his position as an activist for what he considers to be low or no carbon energy sources, predominantly Big Wind. (Forget the fact that wind requires an enormous amount of carbon emissions in the manufacturing of gigantic wind turbine.)

But Binz’s no carbon advocacy is hypocritical.

While Binz now advocates for lowering carbon emissions, he was instrumental in shutting down Colorado’s lowest carbon emitting power source, the Fort St. Vrain nuclear plant, which eventually converted to natural gas – a technology he now calls “dead end” when it comes to carbon emissions.

As head of the Office of Consumer Council (OCC), Binz successfully argued before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that the power plant did not work correctly and that the shareholders of the company running the plant must pay for the capital costs rather than customers using the electricity.  (This is when Binz cared about ratepayers)

More stringent regulations and the burden of the extra cost upon the shareholders ultimately forced the plant to close as a carbon free, nuclear power source.  This “regulating to death,” as stated by previously employees of the plant ultimately came at the cost detriment of electricity customers who paid for the decommissioning and subsequent recommissioning as a carbon emitting natural gas plant.

His position on natural gas has flipped too. In 2010, as chair of the PUC Binz took a lead role in negotiating the terms of the controversial fuel switching bill HB 1365 titled “Clean Air; Clean Jobs Act.” At that time, Binz championed a mandated fuel switch from coal to natural gas. Apparently Binz thought natural gas was a clean fuel in 2010 but isn’t now.  Too bad ratepayers didn’t know that in 2010. It would have saved them more than $1 billion dollars, but then Binz’s concerns for consumer costs have flipped too.

Print Friendly

« Previous PageNext Page »