Big Wind and Solar Oppose Clean Energy

February 13, 2015 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, Legislation, preferred energy, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy 

By Lexi Osborn

In the upcoming weeks, House Bill 1118 will be up for debate in the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. This bill eliminates the restrictions on the hydroelectricity and pumped hydroelectricity that can be counted as a “renewable energy resource” to meet Colorado’s renewable energy standard.

Currently, hydroelectricity is only counted towards the renewable energy standard if newly built facilities have a nameplate rating of 10 MW or less, or, if they are built before January 2005, with a nameplate rating of 30 MW or less. Fully including hydroelectricity would allow Coloradoans to take advantage of the 1169 megawatts of existing hydroelectric capacity. Eighty-two percent of that capacity is currently not considered “renewable” by Colorado standards because those facilities have a capacity of 30 MW and were built before 2005.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) categorizes hydroelectricity as clean, renewable energy, and the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) determined that it produces air emissions on par with wind and solar. There is no justifiable environmental reason to keep these restrictions in place.

It may then come as a surprise that there are clean energy supporters who are actively fighting against this bill. Conservation Colorado, the Colorado Cleantech Industries Association, and the Distributed Wind Energy Association are all opposing the inclusion of hydroelectricity as a renewable energy resource despite the EPA’s evaluation. These organizations all claim to have commitments to developing and expanding clean energy in our society, making it hard to justify their opposition. So, why exclude hydroelectricity? Why impede clean energy if their missions are to protect the environment and limit carbon emissions?

Conservation Colorado has claimed that the current restrictions are necessary because the construction of large-scale hydroelectric facilities is damaging to the environment. But, the restrictions aren’t protecting the environment. The restrictions limit the ability of people to use already existing hydroelectric facilities to comply with the renewable energy standard. All these restrictions do is force Colorado to leave out hydroelectric sources in its renewable energy portfolio, giving preferential treatment to wind and solar industries. This ends up costing ratepayers millions of dollars in compliance costs.

The only real reason they want to exclude hydroelectricity is because it threatens their market share. Last year, an almost identical bill, HB 1138, was shot down because wind and solar advocates testified that their industries would struggle if they had to compete with hydropower, which already supplies 23 percent of the electricity to rural co-ops. They claimed the bill would negatively affect jobs in the solar and wind industries that benefit from the renewable energy mandate.

Their testimony makes it all crystal clear – they are not true champions of the environment and clean energy. If they were, they would be embracing the power and potential of hydroelectricity. Sadly, they only appear to be using legislation as protectionist measure, jealously guarding their market share.

Lexi Osborn is a Future Leaders intern. She graduated from Northwestern University with a degree in political science.

Audit confirms our findings: mismanagement in state energy office

January 29, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

A 2011 Independence Institute paper was the first to suggest that the Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) needed a serious dose of transparency due to its inability to clarify how it spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Colorado’s State Auditor validated our findings in a recently released audit.

Colorado’s Office of the State Auditor blasted the Governor’s Energy Office (GEO), now called Colorado’s Energy Office (CEO), for shoddy accounting and management practices within the formerly off-budget agency.

Among the criticisms the report levels at the CEO:

  • CEO was unable to demonstrate that $252 million spent over the past six years was spent cost-effectively.
  • CEO does not calculate or maintain a comprehensive, annual budget or budget-to-actual data for any of the 34 programs administered during Fiscal Years 2007 through 2012. As a result, CEO could not determine the total cost or the total amount spent for any of its programs.
  • CEO program managers have not been required to manage programs within a budget, though they are responsible for requesting and justifying program expenditures.
  • Of the eight programs we reviewed in-depth, staff responsible for three programs could not identify the program’s goals or say whether the goals had been achieved.
  • Of the 22 contracts we reviewed, 20 had incorrect or missing information in CMS, the state contract database; six were missing required performance elements; and 13 were missing required contractor progress reports.
  • Of the 59 payments to contractors we reviewed, 10 totaling $1.5 million were not supported by adequate evidence of contractor progress on contract deliverables.
  • Of the 40 travel and other expenditures we reviewed, 16 lacked appropriate approval and justification documentation. For example, in one instance CEO incurred $25,000 for a cost supported only by the statement, “2008 Membership.” In another instance, CEO paid $1,500 for an ex-employee to attend training after termination, without documentation demonstrating how the cost was reasonable or necessary.
  • CEO does not maintain consistent, centralized data-keeping systems to support programmatic work, and has not established an operational framework that includes guiding policies and procedures, or staff training and supervisory review.

Toward the end of the nearly 50-page report, the State Auditor concludes:

Overall, we found deficiencies in CEO’s management policies and practices, including deficiencies in CEO’s internal accounting and administrative control systems. All together, the issues we identified lead us to question CEO’s ability to implement programs and projects successfully.

The State Auditor’s finding are consistent with, perhaps even worse than, what former Independence Institute intern Kyle Huwa discovered in Summer 2011 when he researched three years worth of spending within the Governor’s Energy Office.  In his paper titled “Governor’s Energy Office Needs a Dose of Sunshine,” which served in part as the catalyst for the audit, Huwa wrote:

  • The Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) of the State of Colorado spent a total of $121,652,884.75 from January 2008 to November 2010. This report aims to clarify and provide transparency to the GEO’s spending. Despite best efforts, the exact nature of many of the expenditures remains unclear.
  • Total Expenditures (minus some salaries) during this period: $121,652,884.75
  • Expenditures that could not be identified and GEO did not clarify: $9,021,060.23
  • Expenditures on cell phones: $51,629.22
  • Expenditures on travel: $455,656.06
  • Expenditures to corporate entities: $27,337,389.78
  • GEO received $15,797,032.91 from the Colorado “General Fund – Unrestricted”
  • “Off-budget” status means little legislative oversight

Based on his research, Huwa suggested that:

The Colorado State Legislature should ask the Office of the State Auditor to conduct an audit of the GEO to ensure proper use of funding and adherence to its stated purpose; and the Legislature should also consider structurally changing the long-term oversight measures in place to guarantee continued accountability and transparency in the GEO.

Shortly after the paper’s release in 2011, State Representative and Legislative Audit Committee member Cindy Acree told CBS4 in Denver that she would call for an official audit “to uncover everything the office is doing” especially in light of the unaccounted for $9 million of taxpayer money.

These problems occurred during Governor Bill Ritter’s administration when former state legislator Tom Plant headed up the agency. Plant released a statement at the same time defending his tenure: “There are not missing funds. All funds, revenues and expenditures can be fully accounted for.”

Based on the State Auditor’s findings the energy office under Plant was mismanaged in every area.

Plant still works for the state and his old boss Bill Ritter. Both men are at Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins where Ritter earns $300,000 as the Director of the Center of the New Energy Economy, while Plant pulls in roughly $72,000 as a part-time Senior Policy Advisor according to CSU’s faculty salary database.

How Long Will Hick Equivocate on Energy Policy?

January 4, 2011 by williamyeatman · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

On energy policy, Governor-elect John Hickenlooper is perhaps the most masterful politician I’ve ever encountered.

Coal, climate change, costs…these matters engender passions. They get people riled up. So it’s an awesome political trick that Hickenlooper has been elected mayor of this country’s finest city, and then governor of this country’s finest state, without revealing what he thinks on energy policy.

Hick’s record is maddeningly equivocal. He’s a geologist, who used to work in the hydrocarbon business, so you know he has the experience to be serious.  Yet his energy legacy as Denver mayor is a silly, toothless Climate Action Plan, designed primarily for grandstanding.

Read more