Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › Business › Energy

Xcel, New York AG strike climate pact

By Roger Fillion, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 27, 2008 at 3:52 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Energy

More stories »

Xcel Energy and New York's attorney general struck a groundbreaking deal requiring Colorado's biggest electricity and natural gas supplier to tell Wall Street about potential costs tied to dealing with climate change.

The agreement paves the way for other power companies to follow suit.

In its annual report filed with federal securities regulators, Xcel will have to tell investors about the financial risks related to:

* Present and probable future climate change regulation and legislation;

* Lawsuits related to climate change;

* Projected increases in carbon emissions from planned coal-fired power plants;

* And strategies for curbing emissions of greenhouse gases.

"This landmark agreement sets a new industrywide precedent that will force companies to disclose the true financial risks that climate change poses to their investors," N.Y. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a news release.

Xcel CEO Dick Kelly said in a release the accord "will enhance our already aggressive efforts to be responsible environmental stewards."

He added: "We previously provided detailed information concerning the expected impact of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions regulations on our operations, and under this agreement we will make even more detailed disclosures."

Comments

  • August 28, 2008

    8:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jackson_foi writes:

    So, Xcel, not the largest utility, agrees to guestimate the costs of future damage based on which set of assumptions? Those used by the 99% of the planet that think the current small increase in temperature is a good thing, or those based on the 1% that think all but Golden will be underwater?

    Xcel is the company that agreed to install 10% renewable with no price recovery from Colorado residential consumers, and then agreed to 20% without that ratepayer protection. Their most recent plan calls for retirement of 230 MW of coal production, replaced by 800 MW of solar/wind. Why would NY be interested in doing battle with someone already ahead of the game? Why wouldn't NY be looking at the largest utility, or their local utility anyway? Nebraska 63 / Little Sisters of the Poor 3 perhaps?

    Lets see what happens when the regular season starts.

  • August 28, 2008

    12:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Logical writes:

    Jackson, this may be a good thing. Xcel may be able to expose how much compliance with global scaring - er, warming - may cost. If Xcel says that costs to consumers will double in 5 years, maybe that will get enough people's attention to question the alarmists.

    If enough data is exposed, maybe we can temper the push for windmills. And if, as the realists in the push for wind admit, we need 90% of expected wind and/or solar output to be backed by a conventional powerplant (for those calm days, and dark nights when we want to use electricity), maybe greenies will push for scrubbers on coal plants, which would cost less than the wind boondoggle. Look at ethanol - the facts were available before plants were built, but greenies ignored them. Now, ethanol plants may not be viable in two years, and will close.

    Xcel may be able to shed light on the true cost of "green" energy. If so, we may be able to develop our own fossil fuels, to use until there is a truly viable alternative. There may be a method behind NY's madness.