October 15 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: Che Guevara inspires fracking bans, another EPA spill in Colorado, AG Coffman vs. Gov. Hickenlooper

Be sure to check out and like our Energy Cheat Sheet page on Facebook for daily, up-to-the minute updates that compliment our weekly “best of” on the I2I Energy Blog.

Want to guess who the anti-energy, anti-fracking activists in Colorado have adopted as their patron saint, so to speak? None other than the murderous Communist revolutionary, Che Guevara:

At Monday’s “direct action” in Denver, protesters displayed signs with messages including “Ban Fracking Now,” “Keep Fossil Fuels in the Ground,” and “End Fracking—Renewables 100%.”

“What we have is an energy revolution that is at our feet, and we are the boots on the ground that this revolution wants to be. We are the energy of change,” said Shane Davis, who runs the Fractivist website, in Saturday’s opening speech at the Holiday Inn Stapleton.

He encouraged the anti-fracking movement to draw inspiration from Argentine Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, a leading figure in the communist overthrow of Cuba.

“This is the time when we need to shake the political and economic fracking industry’s empire and their rule over global fossil-fuel energy consumption,” Davis said. “Fifty years ago, Che Guevara, a revolutionary humanitarian, fought similarly against ruling forces that were harming local communities.”

The Statesman’s Valerie Richardson recorded at least two different groups’ efforts to secure anti-fracking measures in 2016, with more than two different measures–a constitutional amendment and a measure to give localities veto powers over development.


Speaking of fracking and one of the most persistent myths extolled by anti-fracking proponents–groundwater contamination:

Some of the same researchers who previously claimed that groundwater in the Marcellus region was being contaminated by shale development released a new study this week finding no evidence that hydraulic fracturing fluids have migrated up into drinking water – consistent with what independent scientists and regulators have been saying about fracking for years. The new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, led by researchers at Yale, includes Robert Jackson (now with Stanford University) and Avner Vengosh, who were both behind the Duke studies that purported to find widespread contamination from shale development. But as their new study explains,

We found no evidence for direct communication with shallow drinking water wells due to upward migration form shale horizons. This result is encouraging, because it implies there is some degree of temporal and spatial separation between injected fluids and the drinking water supply.” (p. 5; emphasis added)


Colorado is catching legal heat for attempting to export its regulatory schemes, like the state’s renewable energy standard, forcing other states to follow “extraterritorial regulation”:

In April, 2011, E&E Legal sued the State of Colorado due to the unconstitutionality of the state’s renewable energy standard. As the case was working its way through the 10th Circuit, the Colorado legislature rushed to amend the law in an attempt to fix the most blatant unconstitutional provisions. They did not, however, cure all the problems.

Dr. David W. Schnare, lead attorney and E&E Legal’s General Counsel, noted at the time the Colorado legislature attempted to correct the RES, “This bill appears to remove some but not all of the unconstitutional elements of the statute. However, it also mandates new unconstitutional requirements by increasing the renewables standard to levels that, that like the current statute, cannot be justified when balanced against the harm they cause to interstate commerce.”

Specifically, the Legislature kept the sections that authorized Colorado to tell electric generating companies what means they had to use to sell “renewable” energy into Colorado, including companies that operated in other states and in some cases where the electricity they made did not and could not even reach Colorado. This is known as “extraterritorial regulation” and is prohibited under the Constitution.

Colorado is not alone in its efforts to tell other states how to regulate. California has the hubris to tell egg producers in Iowa what size chicken pens have to be. They have also told Canada how to make goose liver. Indeed, there is a growing effort for states to try to export their regulations onto other states.

Explained Schnare, “a state may not project its legislation into other states and may not control conduct beyond the boundaries of the State.”


The Environmental Protection Agency’s raft of new regulations has sprung a leak with the aptly named Waters of the United States rule:

Chief Justice John Roberts may have salvaged ObamaCare, but lower courts are proving to be more skeptical of executive overreach. On Friday the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stopped the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Water Rule on grounds that it probably exceeds the agency’s legal authority.

The EPA rule, issued in May, extends federal jurisdiction over tens of millions of acres of private land that had been regulated by the states. In August a federal judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction in 13 of the 31 states that have sued to block the rule, and the Sixth Circuit has now echoed that legal reasoning by enjoining the rule nationwide.

Ohio, Michigan and 16 other states challenged the rule, and a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled two to one that the “petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims” and that a stay is needed to silence “the whirlwind of confusion that springs from the uncertainty” about the rule’s requirements.

As the Wall Street Journal noted, the most recent and significant threat to the waters within the United States came from the EPA itself:

The court also shot down the Administration’s argument that “the nation’s waters will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately implemented and enforced.” As it happens, the single biggest recent injury to U.S. waterways is the EPA’s own Colorado mine disaster that turned the Animas River a toxic orange and flushed toxins into rivers across the Southwest.(emphasis added)


And the irony of the EPA threat to the nation’s waterways continued, as last week the agency triggered yet another spill in Colorado:

“Once again the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] has failed to notify the appropriate local officials and agencies of the spill in a timely manner.” These are the words of U.S. Congressman Scott Tipton (R-CO) of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District in response to another toxic spill resulting from EPA activities at an abandoned mine in western Colorado.

According to the Denver Post, an EPA mine crew working Thursday at the Standard Mine in the mountains near Crested Butte, triggered another spill of some 2,000 gallons of wastewater into a nearby mountain creek. Supporting Tipton’s remarks to Watchdog Arena, the Denver Post report states that the EPA had failed to release a report about the incident at the time of its writing.

Unlike the Gold King Mine, where on Aug. 5, an EPA mine crew exploring possible clean-up options, blew out a structural plug in the mine releasing over 3 million gallons of toxic waste into the Animas River, the Standard Mine is an EPA-designated superfund site, where the federal agency has been directing ongoing clean-up efforts.

yeah epa***

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan gets bipartisan pushback from Senators in Mississippi and North Dakota:


Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s efforts on behalf of the state in battling overreaching EPA regulations has earned a great deal of visibility given the state’s party split between constitutional offices, with Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper spearheading Clean Power Plan implementation, and the Republican Coffman pushing back, rendering Hickenlooper a “spectator,” according to the Wall Street Journal:

Colorado’s wide-ranging litigation efforts, for example, have been spearheaded by GOP Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, who was part of a state coalition that won a ruling last week blocking Interior Department rules for hydraulic fracturing on public lands. She also had Colorado join a group of 13 states that won an August ruling blocking an EPA plan putting more small bodies of water and wetlands under federal protection. And Ms. Coffman recently said she would have Colorado join the suit against the EPA greenhouse-gas rule, expected to be filed as soon as this month.

“The rule is an unprecedented attempt to expand the federal government’s regulatory control over the states’ energy economy,” Ms. Coffman said in announcing her decision.

Mr. Hickenlooper, the governor, didn’t encourage the attorney general to join any of the cases; in fact, he is focusing on implementing the regulations, said spokeswoman Kathy Green. “The governor’s approach has been to work collaboratively and avoid costly lawsuits wherever possible,” she said.

Kansas pushes back against EPA Clean Power Plan, changes state renewables mandate to voluntary

Unlike Colorado’s failed attempt to provide state oversight to proposed Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan” regulations, Kansas’ legislature has passed requirements for any CPP state implementation plan, including no plan at all, should it conflict with ongoing litigation against the EPA’s power to bring forth the CPP:

Kansas governor Sam Brownback (R) signed a bill setting parameters for how the state complies with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan.

The bill, HB 2233, requires state agencies responsible for drafting a state implementation plan (SIP) to examine potential electricity rate impacts that may arise from complying with the EPA rule to address CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The law mandates that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment identify ways to avoid unreasonable costs under a best system of emissions reductions, which may include emissions trading or emissions averaging across the generation fleet. Brownback signed the bill into law on 28 May.

The law creates an oversight committee of state lawmakers that will track the progress of and vote on the SIP. The Clean Power Plan Implementation Study Committee will run from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2017.

Like other states such as New Mexico, Kansas state agencies have called the EPA’s CPP into question, “citing concerns over its legality, federal overreach into grid reliability and a limited timeline for implementation.”

Those concerns have prompted Kansas to join other state attorneys general in legal challenges targeting EPA’s ability to bring forth regulations like those under the CPP:

Attorney general Derek Schmidt (R) is among 19 state attorneys general who have called on EPA to withdraw its proposed CO2 standards for new power plants, and the state is participating in two lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan proposal.

The new law allows state regulators to not submit a plan if the attorney general determines that such a plan would conflict with Kansas’ legal position in current or pending legal challenges against the rule.

In testifying for Colorado’s Electricity Consumers’ Protection Act (SB 258), attorney Mike Nasi outlined possible legal objections to the EPA’s proposed rules.

Colorado’s SB 258 would have tasked the Public Utilities Commission, with input from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, as well as approval from the state legislative body, with creating a CPP SIP for the state that considered costs and required a full, public, and deliberative process rather than unilateral executive agency rulemaking from CDPHE under the Governor John Hickenlooper’s direction.

With the defeat of the bill, Governor Hickenlooper announced that, unlike Kansas’ measured approach, Colorado would capitulate to the EPA’s CPP and push forward with state implementation.


Colorado environmentalists and renewable energy advocates enjoy touting other states’ efforts on issues including renewable energy standards and renewable subsidies.

But this year, Kansas modified its RES, making the mandate a “voluntary goal”:

Kansas governor Sam Brownback (R) yesterday signed into law a bill converting the state’s renewable energy standard to a voluntary goal.

The bill, SB 91, replaces the state’s standard, which required 20pc renewable energy use by 2020, with a voluntary target on the same timetable. SB 91 also exempts existing renewable energy facilities in the state, mostly wind farms, from property taxes and gives new renewable energy facilities a 10-year property tax exemption.

Wind accounted for 21.7pc of Kansas’ generation mix in 2014, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
While the bill was supported by some state wind industry and business groups, environmentalists have criticized it, saying it should have at least called for a higher voluntary goal to give utilities “something to aspire to.”

In a free market, utilities and others involved with energy production will voluntarily move to where the market leads–they will “aspire to” serve their customers with an energy fuel mix that best suits the state’s and individual utility’s needs and consumer’s wants.

Government should not be picking energy or electricity winners and losers, and moving from a legal mandate to voluntary guidelines is a step in the right direction for free market energy, as is limiting a property tax exemption from permanent to a sunset at 10 years.

Energy Policy Center testimony on SB 44

Energy Policy Center analyst Michael Sandoval offers testimony on behalf of Senate Bill 44 before the House Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs on March 2, 2015.

Testimony as prepared:

Testimony on behalf of


March 2, 2015

State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee

Mr(s). Chair and Members of the Committee,

My name is Michael Sandoval. I am an Energy Policy Analyst for the Energy Policy Center at the Independence Institute.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on behalf of SB 44.

At the Independence Institute, we are agnostic on energy resources. It is our strong belief that the choice of energy resources should come from the demands of the free market, and not from the preferences of policymakers, lobbyists, or special interest groups.

The goal of the Energy Policy Center is to promote a free market in energy production, where no protections, subsidies, or regulations result in energy winners and losers. We advocate that government remain neutral, which then encourages a level playing field. That is the best way to ensure that consumers reap the benefits of a healthy energy market – where competition, lower prices, and more options provide the foundation for affordable and most importantly, reliable energy.


SB 44 affords utilities the flexibility they need to meet electricity demand in the most cost effective way. SB 44 is an energy freedom bill that does not preclude utilities from incorporating wind, solar, or other alternative energy sources in order to achieve a minimum percentage of electricity that electric service providers must generate. Rather it allows utilities to achieve that mix in a way that does not force them to rush to comply in coming years.

SB 44 would eliminate the step-increases mandated by previous legislation that would negatively affect utilities’ ability to respond to customer demands and force ratepayers to contend with ever increasing costs of energy in Colorado.

The most recent numbers from the Energy Information Administration indicate where Colorado sits vis-à-vis its neighbors when it comes to the average retail price of electricity to the residential sector. As of November 2014, Colorado ranks 27th, with a residential retail cost that exceeds that of New Mexico, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah, and Idaho.

According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, in 2013 Colorado renewable portfolio standard of 30 percent by 2020 is the highest in the entire Rocky Mountain region, trailing only the west coast state of California.

The Independence Institute believes SB 44 addresses concerns about the state’s market-skewing renewable portfolio standard’s impact upon utilities and ratepayers. The step-change increases in the state’s renewable energy mandate over the course of the next few years will result in higher costs for utilities and ratepayers alike.

These increased costs will likely result in job losses, higher costs for consumers, and a loss of competitiveness for Colorado businesses in comparison to neighboring states without or with lower renewable energy standards. SB 44’S 15 percent figure would bring the state more in line with states throughout the Mountain region.

Again, aligning minimums between investor-owned utilities and cooperative electric associations will level the playing field that will keep electricity rates competitive, but will not prevent individual providers from exceeding those minimums with a market mix of conventional and alternative sources, including wind and solar, that best fits their own market profile and satisfies the needs of their customers.

In conclusion, SB 44 gives utilities the flexibility to adjust power sources as needed and respond to needs of consumers—and not the demands of special interests—from 2015 and thereafter.


As I stated at the beginning it is the strong belief of the Independence Institute that the choice of energy resources should come from the demands of the free market, and not from the preferences of policymakers, lobbyists, or special interest groups and we believe that SB 44 is consistent with that principle.

Thank you.

2012 snapshot of New Energy Economy’s cost to ratepayers

January 21, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

The numbers are in, and they aren’t pretty. Four of the largest cost driving pieces of legislation enabling Colorado’s New Energy Economy cost Xcel Energy ratepayers nearly half a billion dollars in 2012 alone. Adding insult to injury, some of the electricity produced wasn’t needed in the first place according to a just released report from the Independence Institute’s energy policy analyst William Yeatman. So Xcel ratepayers paid handsomely for electricity that ended up as surplus.

Using Xcel’s regulatory filings Yeatman determined:

  • In 2012, the New Energy Economy cost Xcel ratepayers $484 million – more than 18 percent of Xcel’s total electricity sales. Based on 1.4 million ratepayers, the New Energy Economy cost $345 per ratepayer in 2012.
  • Due to a depressed economy, there is an oversupply of electricity generation onXcel’s system, which means Xcel ratepayers spent $484 million on the New Energy Economy in 2012 in order to obtain electricity that they did not need

Yeatman also breaks down the cost by each of the four pieces of legislation, which includes the renewable energy mandate and its massive $343,000,000 cost. It’s clear that State Representative Max Tyler’s and former Governor Bill Ritter’s fanciful promise of a two percent rate cap is much different in reality.

Prior to the New Energy Economy, Colorado worked on a least cost principle meaning utilities were to deliver reliable power to ratepayers in the most cost effective manner. When it comes to renewable mandates and the New Energy Economy, state lawmakers would be wise to remember economist Milton Friedman’s words, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Will state legislature cave to Xcel and eco-left…again?

April 26, 2012 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, HB 1365, New Energy Economy 

Colorado already has the most expensive electric rates of all neighboring states and the second highest in the Rocky Mountain West, with projections to go even higher in the near future.  Now, a bill just introduced into the state senate threatens to make Colorado’s energy rates even more expensive. The following is a column from the Colorado Consumer Coalition about the dangers of SB 178. Senator Kevin Lundberg offered an amendment that would have achieved the bill’s supposed primary purpose and saved consumers money, but it was voted down as the column details.

Colorado consumers—from Denver down to Pueblo and all across the state—could wind up paying even more for their electricity following a troubling development at the legislature this week.  An obscure bill just introduced on Tuesday with almost no warning, only days before the end of the 2012 session, would pull the rug out from under the state’s public utilities and turn their long-term energy planning inside-out. And ratepayers would be left holding the bag.

Senate Bill 178 would scrap a key feature of Colorado’s renewable-energy mandate, on which utilities have based their plans and projections for years to come; the change would force them to get even more of their electricity from pricey renewables like wind and solar power than the law now requires. Specifically, the bill would take away a break that utilities have been able to pass on to consumers as they strive to meet costly state mandates to derive 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030.

The break to ratepayers was enacted in 2004 along with the mandates because those who had been advocating for the shift to a greater reliance on alternative fuels also realized such a seismic change doesn’t come cheaply. And it’s neither fair nor even possible to make hard-pressed home- and business owners bear the whole burden. So, the policy’s authors not only placed a 2-percent cap on year-to-year rate increases due to the increased cost of renewables, but they also wrote the law to give extra credit to utilities for switching to alternative energy sources. That gave the utilities greater flexibility in meeting the statutory standards for renewables so consumers wouldn’t have to dig so deeply into their pockets.

Now, SB 178 aims to monkey-wrench that delicate balance. By revoking the extra credit for switching to renewable energy after 2015, the bill effectively would require the public to rely on an even higher percentage of renewable energy sources than most of the state’s utilities had anticipated. The result would be to wreak havoc with the balance sheets and strategic plans of the utilities, for-profit and nonprofit alike. They’d have to scramble to acquire more renewable sources for power and, inevitably, pass the cost on to the public through higher power bills.

Not surprisingly, when the bill was unveiled Wednesday at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, lawmakers got an earful from representatives of some of those utilities as well as other stakeholders—many of whom had only heard of the legislation a few days earlier and, in some cases, only hours prior to the hearing. And they told lawmakers point-blank what would happen if the bill were enacted.

“This bill will result in increased costs to… members and their customers,” said Thomas Dougherty, representing Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a wholesale electric power supplier owned by 44 electric cooperatives and serving 900,000 Coloradans.

Ratepayers of Black Hills Energy, which serves the Pueblo region, would be dealt a major blow by the legislation, the company’s Wenday Moser told lawmakers Wednesday.

“We are very concerned about Senate Bill 178 because we are concerned about our ability to meet the renewable energy standard,” Moser said. “As of now, Black Hills is marginally meeting the standard…We are struggling to meet that standard.”

Dougherty had noted in his testimony that even though the law caps renewable-energy cost increases at 2 percent a year on power bills, that increase in an of itself still can pack a punch for consumers. And Moser made clear that the cap really won’t spare consumers at all over the long run.

She pointed out that companies such as hers simply will be forced to assess that extra 2 percent “for many more years” until recovering the added costs of the additional renewables. After all, the utilities are legally bound to attain the renewable-energy standard; it’ll just take them longer to recover those costs from consumers.

Why this bill at this time—out of the blue like this? What possibly could have motivated some lawmakers to propose such a reckless policy for so little gain—at a time when Colorado already is well on its way toward greater reliance on renewable energy?

A representative of Attorney General John Suthers told the committee at Wednesday’s hearing that his office wasn’t behind the bill but had endorsed it because of concerns about a provision in the current law allowing the extra renewable-energy credits for purchases of Colorado energy but not for renewables originating outside the state. That, the AG’s rep said, set up Colorado for a constitutional challenge in court.

Fine, responded a skeptical Sen. Kevin Lundberg, of Berthoud—then why not simply extend the same extra credit to any acquisition of renewable energy from outside Colorado as well? Lundberg was told the attorney general would in fact be fine with that alternative, so Lundberg proposed it as an amendment to the bill. Unfortunately, it was voted down.

Lundberg and fellow Judiciary Committee Sens. Steve King, of Grand Junction, and Ellen Roberts, of Durango, deserve credit for asking tough and probing questions about the bill during the hearing. All three laudably voted against the measure, but they were outgunned by the majority, and the measure now moves to the Senate floor for further action.

Pending what happens next, let’s give credit to Black Hills Energy, too, for telling lawmakers what they really needed to hear—whether they wanted to or not—about a costly, destructive bill with no discernible value to Colorado Consumers.

My take: this bill isn’t about leveling the playing field for in-state versus out-of-state renewable energy producers but rather about forcing Colorado energy consumers to rely more heavily upon unreliable, expensive wind and solar energy. To make matters worse, this will be a windfall for Xcel Energy because the more expensive electricity is, the more Xcel makes. If this bill gets fast-tracked through the legislature like HB 1365, the infamous fuel-switching bill, consumers will have more proof that Xcel “owns” the state legislature.

Maine Gov takes aim at renewable energy standard

November 8, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

Apparently Maine, not California (followed closely by Colorado), has the highest renewable energy standard in the country, and Governor Paul LePage wants to get rid of it. According to Gov. LePage, the 44 percent renewable energy requirement puts Maine at an economic disadvantage because it drives up the cost of energy in his state. Maine Public Broadcast Network quoted Gov. LePage:

The next closest to us is Massachusetts, at 20 percent, and we can’t compete with states like Wisconsin, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee.

So we need to get rid of the renewable portfolio. We need to reduce that.

Maine is not alone. Renewable energy is driving up the cost of electricity across the globe. The European Union predicts a 100 percent increase in electricity prices by 2050 due to their renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS). Earlier this year my colleague William Yeatman estimated that Colorado’s RPS will cost rate payers more than $100 million in 2011 alone.

Time for Colorado to follow Governor LePage’s lead.

Xcel admits what “clean energy” advocates won’t

August 29, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

Normally reading an energy compliance plan is about as exciting as watching low VOC paint dry.  But Xcel Energy’s 2012 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan, filed with the Public Utilities Commission in May 2011, has some pretty powerful stuff in it including admissions about Colorado’s “phantom carbon tax” and the cost effectiveness of renewable energy.

In Section 7 — Retail Rate Impact and Budget, Xcel acknowledges that my testimony in front of the Agriculture Committee on HB 1240 (the bill explained here and here) in February 2011 was correct. No national carbon tax in the near future.

The carbon assumptions approved by the Commission in Docket No. 07A-447E assumed carbon regulation would be enacted in 2010; such regulation was not enacted and the prospects for near term carbon regulation appear to be slim.

Passage of a national carbon tax under Cap and Trade was the underlying assumption when HB 1164 passed the state legislature in 2008. With no carbon tax at the national level and virtually no chance of one passing any time soon, why does Colorado still have one? Good question. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle capitulated to special interests, including Xcel, and voted to kill HB 1240, which would have repealed the controversial “phantom” tax.

Because Xcel assumes there will be no carbon tax in the near future, it presents a cost model that excludes the carbon tax and another model that does include the tax but not until 2014.

Due to the uncertainties related to the timing associated with possible carbon emission regulation, the Company did not include any carbon cost imputations in the model runs and other calculations set forth on Table 7-3. However, as discussed later, Public Service also presents with this Compliance Plan, as Table 7-4, a sensitivity case that assumes the same carbon imputation costs ($20 per ton, escalating at 7% annually) as approved in the 2007 Colorado Resource Plan but on a delayed implementation schedule of 2014.

One wonders if the the carbon tax supporters feel a bit betrayed by Xcel’s admission.

For those of you searching for the “carbon tax” on your Xcel bill, stop looking. It does not show up as a line item, but as my colleague William Yeatman and I have written before, “the tax is used in the models, and the models dictate spending. It leaps from the computers to your wallet, like the worst sort of virtual reality.”

The carbon tax is just one way that the PUC allows Xcel to greenwash the real cost of Colorado’s renewable energy, which must be 30 percent of Xcel’s electricity portfolio by 2020.  In spite of a legislatively-mandated two percent rate cap, Yeatman documented how Colorado’s New Energy Economy will cost Xcel ratepayers an additional 8 percent this year alone.

Which leads to this gem about the economic viability of renewable energy. Xcel says it just isn’t cost effective unless it is taxpayer subsidized.

Going forward, it is very questionable if new renewable resources can be cost effective if they do not get the benefit of the Federal Production Tax Credit. Currently the production tax credit for wind is set to expire at the end of 2012 and at the end of 2016 for solar resources.

This is interesting because former Governor Bill Ritter said recently in a debate titled “Clean energy can drive America’s economic recovery” that both he and “the utility” can increase renewable energy for the same price. (Read the entire debate transcript here)

In fact, last year, the utility and I, after talking with each other said, you know what? We can get to 30 percent [renewable] with the same rate cap in place. So, as a state, we’ve got a 30 percent renewable energy standard.

This is where the financial shell game tricks ratepayers. The rate cap is a sham. The real cost of renewable energy is recovered elsewhere on ratepayers’ bills, as we have explained in the past. The American Enterprise Institute’s Steven Hayword, one of Bill Ritter’s opponents in that debate, stated what should be clear economically unless one’s judgment is clouded by green energy infatuation.

the basic problem with so-called clean energy is that nearly every form of it is more expensive than the fossil fuel energy it seeks to displace. Now, I know of no economic theory that says the economy benefits by reducing the purchasing power of consumers.

Representative Max Tyler also claimed an economic fantasy in a Denver Post opinion editorial, “Raising the RES [Renewable Energy Standard] will not raise utility rates.” Writing that rates won’t go up, does not make it true. Rates will go up as we have demonstrated, and now Xcel says that unless taxpayers subsidize renewable energy sources, they just aren’t cost effective — certainly not for ratepayers or taxpayers.

The PUC will decide on Xcel’s Compliance Plan in October 2012. While Xcel seems to accept the reality of no national carbon tax and that renewable energy is an economic fairy tale, it remains to be seen if the PUC, lawmakers and special interest groups will have the same eco-epiphany.

Only job Ritter created was his own

March 3, 2011 by Amy · 1 Comment
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

In a recent New York Times editorial former Governor Bill Ritter reveals the magic formula for states with struggling economies – just “create” green jobs the way he did in Colorado! In reality, the only job he created was his own.

Ritter starts by empathizing with other governors as they wrestle “with budget issues, making unenviable choices on which services, programs or salaries to reduce or eliminate, and deciding whether higher taxes and fees are viable.”

He laments that state leaders are “hemmed in by state requirements that the budget be balanced without deficit spending.” He understands how “daunting” and “all-consuming” these decisions can be.

Fortunately, Mr. Ritter offers a solution – use government force to “create” green jobs! He signed 57 pieces of new energy legislation during his one term in office that apparently lured wind and solar companies and “thousands of new jobs” to the centennial state.

Read more

Energy legislation to watch in 2011

January 24, 2011 by Amy · 1 Comment
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

The 2011 legislative session began in earnest last week in Colorado.  Below are several bills we are watching.

SB11-058 Electric Utilities Employ Least-Cost Planning for New Resource Acquisition

  • Senator Scott Renfroe (R-SD13) is the prime sponsor.
  • The Public Utilities Commission must consider “cost” when deciding on new energy facilities and resource acquisition.
  • Cost to ratepayers comes before the PUC commissioners’ environmental values.
  • “Costs that are not identified as those that will be actually incurred by the electric utility may no be included in the revenue requirement analyses.”
  • No $20 per ton phantom carbon tax.

Read more