Electric bill increase chilling

Xcel: 38 percent request caused by natural gas price

Gargi Chakrabarty

Published June 17, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

Text size

More Energy

Comments

June 18, 2008

5:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Pagen writes:

I think Excel's home office is in Texas. They are hitting us right in time with the air conditioners...yea. Just remember if you shut off your air and wait till it gets hot before you turn it back on, it costs more to cool it back down, better to set it at a certain temp and keep it there. Pretty soon we won't beable to afford anything but basic living expences. We will have no life!
June 18, 2008

6:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

SanctuaryCity writes:

Xcel is one of the lowest providers of gas & electric service in the country. Its like everything else, like car insurance going up, medical going up, taxes going up. We have to pay for the illegals who don't .
June 18, 2008

6:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

2 years ago, I had a 3kwh PV system put on my roof. It produces as much as 18kwh/ day in the summer, which, because we have converted our lighting to CFLs and don't use air conditioning, is twice what we consume. Our share of the system cost was 13 K, with Xcel picking up the rest. I thought that I had prepaid about 20 years of electricity. Now, it looks as though my payback time might be as little as 15 years. With further price increases, it may be sooner still.

Xcel is still offering rebates for those who can afford their share of the cost of a solar installation. Otherwise, I highly recommend an early conversion to CFL bulbs and running your air conditioning at a higher temperature or not at all. As a Colorado native, I've never used home air conditioning. We open windows and use fans.

My next step is R50 insulation for my attic.
June 18, 2008

7:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Squatch,

You've been around a long time, as have I. You should remember that the old Public Service Company was based in Colorado and supplied only Colorado and our immediate neighbors with natural gas. Xcel no longer calls Colorado home and supplies a large part of the country with Colorado's natural gas through newly constructed pipelines. Our gas, no longer just stays in Colorado and we are part of the national market for the first time. This, more than anything else has increased the cost of natural gas for Colorado citizens.
June 18, 2008

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

jacka writes:

Welcome to your "new energy economy". Thanks Bill, Ken and Boulder Liberal Mark Udall.

Less people on the road (in the air) for useless trips to see their loved ones. Great deals on SUVs, $4+ gas, a shortage of Toyota Preis, and now a 38% hike at the house.

It has nothing to do with Xcel leaving Colorado and everything to do with a no energy policy and subsidies and incentives that drive Xcel and others to higher cost production.

Truely sad.

p.s. Hey Boulder liberal Udall. What's that new military division going to cost us, are you taking the 30% of Colorado HS students who drop out to staff the new division, and why haven't you run the funding bill on this?

With Boulders no growth policy and all that land maybe we can have that new division located in Boulder County.
June 18, 2008

7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

LingLingfor_prez writes:

Hey Jacka,
A preis for most people that already have a car loan is still not worth the cost, even with $4+ gas. There is not enough of a difference in saved mpg unless you are trading in an SUV and have no additional loan amount added. I still pay less for energy costs than where I lived before (they had too much energy policy) and I have a bigger place now. The deals on SUVs are because they can't sell them right now and they are not moving inventory. How is seeing your loved ones a useless trip?
June 18, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

Re: Greenleaf. Xcel doesn't "pick up the rest" your fellow ratepayers "pick up the rest" through increased rates. In other words, we - including low income and fixed income ratepayers - are subsidizing your uneconomic investment. If it were economic, why don't you pay for the whole thing?
June 18, 2008

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

Greenleaf writes: "Xcel no longer calls Colorado home and supplies a large part of the country with Colorado's natural gas through newly constructed pipelines."

Xcel is based in Minneapolis. Greenleaf is wrong in that Xcel does not extract gas and does not transport gas from the extraction site. Producers like EnCana and BP extract/produce the gas and then hand it off to pipeline transporters. The Rockies Express pipeline is shipping Colorado gas out of state but it isn't Xcel, it is a consortium made up of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.; Sempra Pipelines & Storage, a unit of Sempra Energy; and ConocoPhillips. http://www.rexpipeline.com/

The Ritter administration's efforts, intended or not, to clamp down on producers does have an effect of mitigating supply which, in turn, increases price.
June 18, 2008

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

SanctuaryCity writes:

Don't blame xcel. try your inept politicians like amnesty ken and tax ritter and obama who wants a windfall tax for oil companys that we will ultimately pay for thus resulting in higher energy costs and fuels. The only positive is the sales taxes generated by the municipals in higher costs of energies along with franchise fees. What a game plan
June 18, 2008

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

SockRayBlue writes:

It sure would have been nice if that government check was a solar energy starter kit. But no...someone probably figured it would lower Xcels profits.
June 18, 2008

8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

I hate to say I told you so, but.....

According to FERC form 1 data, the average cost of generating power at Pawnee (coal) was $15.60/MWhr in 2007. The average cost of power from Ft St Vrain (natural gas fired) in 2007 was $38.50 with natural gas at $4.58/mmBTU. $34.79 out of the $38.50 was fuel cost. Double the price of natural gas and the new price is $73.29. Of course the natural gas plant produces less CO2, 1,100 lbs per MWhr vs 2,200 lbs for the coal plant. July gas is above $13.00/mmBTU, which means power out of Ft St Vrain will be $98.75/MWhr for fuel alone. Can anyone guess which technology has the blessing of the "California" greens?

Now can anyone remember Xcel's plan for combating global warming? Retire low cost coal plants that are paid for and build more natural gas fired plants. Great job Colorado PUC and Gov Ritter. This new energy economy is a hit. It’s as big a hit as corn based ethanol.

As a producer and seller of electric energy I've got to say thank you to the Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates and Governor Ritter and the gang. You done what we in the energy industry could only hope for, that is take a cheap abundant source of energy and triple the price.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

You've gotta love that expression.
June 18, 2008

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

If you really want to stick it to Xcel, switch all your high-use bulbs to CFLs and reduce electric usage in every way you can. Also, as electric rates go up, payback times on PV systems go down. And BTW - the cost of blowing wind and sunshine hasn't changed - it's still $0.00.
June 18, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

38%?!

First: Don't expect your politicians to do anything about it. A 38% hike in the power bill to a millionaire-politician is a slight annoyance at most.

Second: Start expanding nuclear energy NOW. Taxing the natural gas industry will not produce 1 kw of power. We've got a proven source of alternate electrical power right now.

Wind and water generated electricity may have a higher "green moral superiority" factor, but they will never generate the levels of power that good old-fashioned atomic energy will.
June 18, 2008

8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

JP1985 writes:

Don't forget that Xcel is adding another unit to the coal plant in Pueblo which should lower electric rates significantly.
June 18, 2008

8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Here is your education lesson for the day. Power from power plants has 2 components, capacity and energy. The capacity cost is or “fixed” cost of having the plant people loans, etc sitting around regardless how much power is being produced, very high cost for wind, coal, nuke and hydro and incredibly high for solar. Energy is the actual cost of making a MWhr of energy, near zero for nuke, wind, solar and hydro. And moderately high for coal and very high and getting much higher for natural gas.

Arapahoe, one of the plants that Xcel will be closing to combat global warming has a fixed cost of $16.62/MWhr and an energy cost of 16.48/ MWhr for a total cost of $33.10/MWhr. If coal doubled in price (which it will because we are now shipping it to China because they must make a different type of CO2) the new energy cost would be $32.96 with total cost at $49.58.

Now take a combined cycle natural gas plant, such as Ft St Vrain, the only fossil plant that gets the Sierra Club and California seal of approval. The fixed cost is $3.71/Mwhr and the fuel cost is 7.6 x the price of natural gas. You have to trust me on that. So with gas going to $13.00 the price of energy coming out of $98.80/MWhr or a total cost of $102.51.

A modern coal plant such as Pawnee has an energy price at $10.11/ MWhr with and total cost of $15.60. Double the fuel cost and this evil coal plant is now at $25.71/MWhr.

The environmental activists, Gov Ritter and Mark Udall need to consider, which will the Wal Mart shoppers prefer? How much pain do you think you can inflict on society before people say enough?

Greenleaf,

Combined Cycle natural gas is a subset of the natural gas fired plant. They are more efficient but cannot start and stop quickly and are more of a base load type of plant.
June 18, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

JP1985 writes:

Prices are driven by supply and demand. Blaming energy companies and their profits is completely ill-informed and naive. Their profit margins are average at best (absolute scale means nothing). It's still a competitive market, so there's no gouging to be done. Somebody doesn't understand simple economics if they're saying, "if it were truly market forces at work Exel would need to raise prices as they were loosing money. however as they are indeed making record profits they feel the need to GOUGE the consumer."

I wish people would educate themselves before deciding they know how to run this country.
June 18, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Slouching,

I stand corrected my friend. Thank you for that. It is, however, a common perception( or misconception). You do us all a service by making that point. Unfortunately, the end result is still the same: higher gas prices. TryThinking is right too in pointing out the unintended consequences of converting to natural gas from coal fired. Doubtlessly, its better for reducing CO2, but it comes at a price. I still believe, however, that a combination of fossil fuel, nuclear,solar, wind and other renewables in combination with more efficient use of valuable resources(i.e. conservation)is the best approach we can take.

Where I do disagree with you Slouching is with personal solar installations. The reality is that had Xcel( taxpayers) not picked up the tab for 1/2 of my array, I eventually would have purchased the system anyway. It simply would have been a year or two farther down the road. Also, don't forget the point that I, too, am a taxpayer! I have been an early adopter of many technologies: first generation CFL bulbs 18 years ago, LED lighting 3 years ago, my Prius 2 years ago and my Solar panels 2 years ago. The early adopter always plays a part in advancing the technology but pays a greater cost for doing so. Early adopters in sufficient numbers, inspire venture capitalists to invest in improved products and increased production brings economies of mass into play that drive prices downward. As a result, later adopters get the advantage of better products at lower cost. I put my money into what I believe. As an environmentalist and fiscal conservative I believe first and foremost in conserving our valuable resources. What do you believe in?
June 18, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

uskam writes:

Maybe we should all become illegal immigrants so all our bills will be paid for us.
June 18, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

ShiekYurBooty,

I've seen you posts before, you are not a dumb person. Wind and solar are indeed free. Capital required to capture it however is not. Again real data from FERC.
Ponnequin, Xcel’s wind farm is a 26.4 MW wind farm that produced 41,720 MWhrs in 2007 and cost nearly $33 million dollars to build. The plant cost amortized over 20 years at 7% interest is $3,114,955 if you used all debt. As a regulated utility Xcel is allowed to make a fixed return say 11% on investment at a 50/50 debt equity ration. So the real cost of the annual capital charge is 11% on $16,500,000 or $1.815 million plus the mortgage payment of $1.557 million. The annual average cost is therefore $3.372 million. Divide that by 41,729 MWhrs per year and the cost of your “free” energy is $80.825/ MWhr.

Forward69,

Xcel is a regulated public utility that can only make the profit that is allowed by the PUC. Now that the PUC has decided that global warming is more important than keeping rates low, Xcel will make a fortune. They are allowed to make say 11% on investment. That is 11% on an investment that runs 24 x 7 or one that works 1/3 of the time. If you were a greedy shareholder would you want to buy a steam turbine that produces power 24 x 7 or would you rather triple your investment for wind turbines to do the same thing or triple the investment again for solar?
June 18, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

gunner writes:

Average my arse! Who around here has EVER had an electricity bill that low? My lowest months are March, April and May and the lowest it has ever been in the years I've lived here is $120.

The regulators should tell Xcel to take a hike.
June 18, 2008

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Trythinking - how much does the coal cost accounting include for SOx and Hg emissions and the damage they cause? How much risk cost is added for the liklihood of future Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax?

Wind and solar are of course not free. (Correction - passive solar is free.) They are just free at the margin, and will continue to be so. As more of this technology is deployed, it will improve just as the Model T evolved into the modern, reliable, user-friendly machines we drive today. Initially horses were cheaper, more reliable and more familiar than new-fangled cars. If we had not kept at it, we could have all wound up staying with horses and buggies. Coal is our horse and buggy in 2008.
June 18, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Forward69,

Xcel’s wind farm makes 41,720 MWhrs per year. Divide that by 8,760 hours per year and the wind park produces an average of 4.76 MW for each hour per year. Arapahoe has a book value of $757,730/ MW. The equivalent book value of Arapahoe to replace the wind farm is 4.76 x $757,730 = $3,603,320. Now if Xcel is allowed to earn 11% on investment they can earn 11% x $3.6 million on Arapahoe or $396,365/year or they can earn 11% of Ponnequin’s $33 million investment or $3.63 million. Both choices provide the same amount of energy to the consumer. So Xcel gets to make more than ten times the return on the wind farm and the consumers get to pay $80/MWhr vs $33.10/MWhr. Is it any wonder Xcel loves wind? Amendment 37 was the biggest windfall that the utility industry has ever received. “Please throw me in the brier patch.” The PUC is supposed to prevent this type of situation, but instead they enable it.
June 18, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Sheik,

NOX fixed, SOX fixed, hg soon to be fixed. Coal is horse and buggy technology. Give me a break. A modern coal plant using the cheapest form of energy available, has a higher economic efficiency than a Prius. Wind and solar are far older technologies that coal. Cave men sat in the sun to get warm, wind mills, hydro turbines and geothermal were harnessed long before electricity. Hydro power ran textile mills and grist mills in the 1700 - 1800s without generators. Wind power ran pumps and kept Holland dry. Does that mean they are bad technologies.

CO2 is the hammer that can kill coal. That is a fact. But you need to ask yourself, will the general public, not the evil energy people or the environmental activists, but the average person trying get by, stand for killing our cheapest, most abundant home grown form of energy. Will they stand by as our coal is shipped to China so that they can freely burn it while we suffer with higher and higher prices?

Xcel is proposing a 38% rate increase and people are going crazy. Imagine what that will be when coal is outlawed. People in Boulder are not the only ones that vote. This issue could not have come at a worse time for Mr. Udall. Don’t drill, don’t burn coal, and don’t build nukes. See your price of everything go thru the roof.

Conservation is great, but it can only get us so far.
June 18, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

XCEL's plan on saving on your bills.... freeze your rear end off in the winter by not turning the heat on, burn in the hot summer months with no air conditioning, sit in the dark and don't turn the lights on, don't watch TV, cook your food on the BBQ. In other words, regress and become something like third world citizens.
June 18, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

TT - you are the only one talking about outlawing coal. Coal is only cheap if you ignore the external costs (NOx, SOx, Hg, CO2, slag disposal, water consumption, eyesore issues, etc). Of course since one can ignore these, many choose to on that basis alone.
I hope you are better than that.

Passive solar was used by cavemen to be sure. But PV and CSP were not, and these are important technologies that will only get better and cheaper with use. I have every confidence that good old US Yankee ingenuity can handle these price spikes. I will not be begging the gov't or anyone else to "help" me - I will help myself. I just wish all those crybabies that you note "are going crazy" would quit crying and roll up their sleeves and deal with it. Stick it to Xcel - cut your usage, ... do whatever you can, except write your congressman. Look in the mirror, not to politicians.
June 18, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

the republicans blaming the dems for the economic crisis and high energy prices.. BRILLIANTly funny

although if you study the last 8 years in this country and WHERE THE MONEY HAS GONE...

those on the right; you are fooling nobody

The value of the dollar has fallin very sharply (gold has tripled in the last 8 years)

THAT IS WHY COMMODITIES COST MORE, DER .... didn't they teach u that in your right wing economics class?

Why is the value of the dollar falling? hmm maybe the soaring deficit

current us debt? 9,389,359,050,912.52

The estimated population of the United States is 304,198,205
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,865.93.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.45 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

In 1999 we owed 3.6 trillion ,

that debt has nearly tripled in the last 9 years

PWNT, keep praising the right side, they got us into this mess

----------------------------

anti socialized medicine? it surely is funny because many of the countries that offer socialized health care/ free education , HAVE NO DEFECIT!, but instead have a trade surplus\

name a 1st world country besides the us THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.. you will find it difficult

the sheer ignorance of many americans is dishearening to say the least

go ahead and speak about concepts like "upward mobility"

you are living in a false consiousness and the things you believe serve your best interests actually are serving the best interests of your masters, the weathiest elites

if you really think its the illegal aliens who took your slice of the pie then you are even more ignorant

instead you should pay attention to the SOARING SALARIES OF CEOs, i guarentee you will be enlightened in the knowledge of WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING

if you think this county is a mess soley because of some mexican immigrants then you should take a step back and take a hard look at what really is occuring in this country
June 18, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Agree Shiek,

I am not suggesting that you ignore the costs. You must look at the cost, but you must also look at the benefits society derives form cheap power. I am suggesting that we as an industry have addressed and are addressing these emissions.

There are those out there that want to eliminate coal from the mix. Do you dispute that?

I'm not making an emotional appeal; I'm using facts to say that investment in coal provides the largest benefit at the lowest cost. Today, right now with technology that we have in hand. Will solar someday provide a better cost/benefit ratio, I firmly believe that it will. Do I think that pushing the general public too far and too fast into technologies that are not ready for prime time is a mistake, you bet I do. The potential blow back from a policy that favors wind and solar only in the short term and potentially in the intermediate term will cause price to rise and rise rapidly.

I am on record as supporting coal, wind, nuke, gas, solar, hydro and geothermal. None can provide all the power we need by themselves. Push more solar and wind into the mix, but don't do it by artificially raising the price of traditional sources.

If you would like to get deeply into each of the issues of external costs that is fine. But somebody may eventually start asking the questions "Gee the environmentalist don't want drilling and gas is at $4, is there a connection? The Sierra Club has lawsuit that challenges ever new coal plant permit applicant and my electric rates have gone up 38%, is there a connection? Electricity was so abundant and so cheap for so long it was taken for granted. Now the prices are rising and the finger will be pointed. This is the most transparent industry in the USA. All costs are known, profit margins are public record. It will not take people long to figure out what is causing the pain.

My analysis of the wind farm and a very old inefficient plant such as Arapahoe cannot be disputed. An honest comparison with more modern Pawnee or ultra modern Comanche 3 will be a shocker compared to a wind farm.

You are all for higher energy prices. Guess what so am I. I’m a capitalist. I make something the public wants and needs. You want me to take $30 power, dress it up and sell it for $100. We are on the same side of the table there. If the PUC was doing it’s job, they would be trying to stop me. They are not.
June 18, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

TT - I am for prices that reflect true costs, not costs that ingore serious externalities.

Coal will absolutely be eliminated from the mix - that is the nature of a non-renewable. The question is, do we start investing (that means, bearing costs we could otherwise put off) now to prepare for that day or do we foist the problem of the finiteness of coal to future generations, just because there is enough coal now that our generation can ignore the problem of the end of coal, if we so desire.

BTW - as for deferred drilling: if we had gone after ANWR adn shelf fuels 20-30 years ago, it would already be gone at $20/bbl. Now with oil at $140, we still have all of that. Oil is going to go up further, whether we drill or not, so probably better to hang on to that resource (i.e. - don't "Drain America First"). In either case, we use far more oil than drilling can fix. We need to develop other solutions pronto. Drilling is a band aid, but I guess many people find the thought of it too emotionally gratifying to resist.
June 18, 2008

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

SheikYurBooty writes "If you really want to stick it to Xcel, switch all your high-use bulbs to CFLs and reduce electric usage in every way you can."

While it is tempting to agree with Sheik on this, the reality is that it is a "tails Xcel wins, heads the ratepayer loses" situation.

By that I mean, the statutes and PUC rules have been modified/rewritten in such a way as to reward Xcel (more correctly Public Service Company of Colorado) with energy conservation by making them "revenue neutral" from conservation. Thus, the less units that Xcel/Psco sells of electricity due to such actions as Sheik suggests will drop the commodity cost of electricity (which Psco recovers through the ECA or electric cost adjustment) BUT they will make up the "lost revenue" through cost recovery mechanisms not least of which is the fixed capacity cost (as the very knowledgeable TryThinking has covered quite well above).

Here's the rub though. Should Xcel/Psco be "rewarded" through what is known as revenue decoupling concepts for legally mandated conservation efforts? I would say "yes" given the mandate from the state government. (I.e., why should Psco and its shareholders be punished for lower sales revenues due to mandated conservation, and wouldn't such be a "taking"?) On the other hand, should Psco be rewarded with revenue neutrality for sua sponte conservation by individuals such as Sheik? I would say "no". But, wait and see how the PUC writes/has written its rules and whether a safe harbor is/has been created for the latter.
June 18, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

STB - you are making this way too complicated. The less you use, the less you pay to Xcel. So simple even Bush could understand it.
June 18, 2008

12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Slouching,

You are right. Utilities like PSCO are regulated monopolies and are compensated on a cost plus basis. If the PUC approve buying a Lear jet, Xcel gets a guaranteed rate of return on that investment. It is the very same rate of return for a new power plant, work truck or any other capital expenditure. That is, for example, 11% return on $1,000,000 or $1,000,000,0000. The more you spend the more total dollars that are made, the higher the stock goes. You combine that with a PUC, (check out Matt Baker's resume) that is only concerned with climate change and you no longer have a check and balance system. Baker is the ex director of Environment Colorado. What do you think his main concern is, low cost to consumers? The only recourse that ratepayers have in the election ballot.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?...

Shiek,

Broken record syndrome? NOX (smog) cleaned up by SCRs and low NOX burners; SOX (Acid Rain) cleaned up by low sulfur coal and scrubbers; PM10 (soot) cleaned up by baghouse and precipitators: Mercury soon to be cleaned up by Activated Charcoal filters: Water use reduced using dry cooling methods. CO2 is not a pollutant it is plant food. It doesn’t cause repository problems or any other discernable problems.

However, we are working to develop technologies to capture and sequester CO2. The real beauty of this is that we can sell the CO2 to oil companies so that they can get more oil. A leading technology for CO2 capture is chilled ammonia scrubbing. The other promising technology is IGCC, a technology approved by the Sierra Club and WRA in Boulder. Leading technology developers of IGCC are; Halliburton (Kellogg Brown and Root), GE, Shell, Conoco-Phillips. These folks will get paid to build expensive IGCC Plants, get paid to remove the CO2, they can sell the power into California as CO2 compliant at a much higher price and use the CO2 to produce more oil. What a country!

“Please regulate CO2, pretty please? “

Here is a point to debate, is the USA cleaner today than anytime in the last 100 years? Help me out old people. Was there more litter 30 years ago? Browner skies? Actual choking from the air (like China today)? We’ve done something right.
June 18, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

Not only is it getting more expensive, but wind and renewables are also making power less reliable.

http://www.snl.com/snlitn/scans/02290...

Are you ready to continuously save your computer work, since if renewables suddenly dump load, you could be blacked out frequently?

Of course that doesn't matter either, so long as we continue to control the negligible amounts of mercury and SOx, both of which are currently controlled or capable of being controlled to < 10% of emissions produced (>90% removal). (CO2 and NOx are products of both coal and gas combustion - switching to gas does little to reduce the emissions)
June 18, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

VVVV,

There is a fix for the reliability problem that you described. More simple-cycle gas turbines which are essentially jet engines that can be started quickly and burn natural gas inefficiently and have higher emissions per unit of energy. This of course means more investments, which means more revenue for Xcel and higher costs for consumers.
June 18, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

As long as the Oil companies have us bent over - Xcell may as well get turn!
June 18, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

SheikYurBooty writes: "STB - you are making this way too complicated. The less you use, the less you pay to Xcel. So simple even Bush could understand it."

No, you are "dumbing it down" by not understanding the concept of revenue decoupling which is a make whole or revenue neutral policy pushed by Xcel and accepted by the Colorado PUC. It is not as simple as "the less you use, the less you pay" because, in the end, we will all be paying more for less for the reasons that I have previously stated.

To the extent that you don't or refuse to acknowledge that would put you in the Al Gore school of insightful thinking.
June 18, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Good news everyone, Solar will be cost competative in 2025.

http://www.cleanedge.com/news/story.p...
June 18, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

xeeian writes:

Car insurance is getting cheaper! Well, if you have a pickup truck or a SUV it is.

Since their resale values are dropping like a rock, so does the 'replacement' cost.
June 18, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

jacka writes:

The New Energy Economy = High Cost Economy

You gotta love that Colorado Promise.
June 18, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

TryThinking,

I'm sorry to point this out friend, but you misread the article in your link. It actually says that solar will be cost competitive by 2018 not 2025: "A new study makes the case that solar power is emerging as a cost- effective hedge against fossil fuels and is likely to reach cost parity with retail-electricity rates in most regions of the U.S. in less than a decade. "

It says that solar will have a 10% penetration of the energy market by 2025.

That is even better news!

I have to say TryThinking, the first time I encountered a posting from you a couple of months ago, you seemed very pessimistic and taken for granted. I think contributing to these threads is making you feel better about the state of things, isn't it? There is nothing like sharing your knowledge and feeling you are making a difference is there? I know I feel that way about my contributions. Its hearts and minds, reaching one at a time. Keep it up: we're learning a lot from you!
June 18, 2008

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Jacka,

Just think how we will do under New Energy Economy Ritter, don't Drill Anywhere At Any Time Salazar, Use Wind Power to Replace Transportation Fuel Udall and Jimmie Carter part 2 Obama. Get your ration stamps ready.
June 18, 2008

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking.

Now you're going a little too far off the partisan cliff to suit me. I of course know that you aren't trying to suit me. Let me lend a different perspective if I may. Many in Colorado, and we are talking about Colorado not the entire country, feel that we are doing incredible amounts of drilling and extraction in this state right this minute, with still thousands more wells already approved. I support Ritter and Salazar for trying to balance the state's mix of energy and by trying to protect some of our natural gems from becoming industrial zones. You spoke of a balanced energy policy including wind and solar in the mix. After 7 years of fossil fuel extraction having nearly total emphasis, I think their efforts are both timely and balanced. The only line they drew in the sand was around the top of the Roan plateau and they obviously didn't get their way. I think we all have to compromise our positions to make this work.
June 18, 2008

5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

R8R_H8R writes:

A Swamp Cooler / Evaporative Cooler uses ONE TENTH the ELECTRICIY of an Air Conditioner / Central Air.
I DONT CARE if Solar & Wind power are Cost Competitive. I'd rather pay more and not rely on foreign oil. Is spending ONE BILLION DOLLARS A DAY on a war based on lies by this filthy administration COST COMPETITIVE. Think about the DISGUSTING DEBT accumulating because of this Iraq B.S. A war based on personal agenda, not what's best for American Citizens. COST COMPETITIVE??
June 18, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

R&R,

And a fan with cross ventilation uses even less. Another option is solar powered attic fans that draw the trapped heat out of the highest level of the house. I am a Colorado native and have never felt the need for air conditioning in Denver and I include swamp coolers in that. People who do use Air conditioning should also have a programmable thermostat that turns the air conditioner back when you are away and down to room temperature or slightly more minutes before you return in late afternoon. Then, my solar panels can power your unit at that peak load time:>).
June 18, 2008

9:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

TT - SOx and NOx are mitigated, reduced, not solved. Wind, hydro, nuclear and solar emit 0 of these and require no expensive mitigation.

STB - consume less, pay less. That's the simple fact.
June 18, 2008

10:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

R8R_H8R,

Are you new to the West? We have abundant coal; we don't have water for evaporative cooling. Are you the new rep for Environmental Colorado from Mass? That same half baked argument was made during the hydro debate before the energy and transportation committee. We don't get our electricity from foreign or domestic oil. It comes from nuke, coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and solar. I don't like the war either, how does that relate to electricity?

Greenleaf,

Is it any surprise that energy rates are rising? California has virtually outlawed anything but natural gas because of climate change, so what happens to the price of natural gas? Most of the environmental community hates coal. it is without question our cheapest form of energy. Are Salazar, Ritter or Udall behind lifting the burden from consumers to promote coal? Are they for drilling ANWR or off shore? I think that the correlation between not drilling for oil and high gas prices and not allowing coal plants to be built and high electricity cost are much easier to see than the correlation of CO2 and climate change. What are any of them doing right now about this energy supply shortage issue?

Shiek,
Nox and SOX have been brought down to levels that is allowed under EPA guidelines, so by the definition contained in EPA guidelines and contained in air permits for operating power plants it has been solved. Wind is an intermittent resource that provides vluable energy, but it cannot be dispatched as need arises, kills irds and bats and is considered by some to be an eyesore. It also has noise and shadow flicker issues. Hydro dams rivers, kills fish, emits greenhouse gas because of rotting vegitation at the bottom of the dam (I'm not making this up). Nuke is great but you better check with Harry Ried of Nevada and ask him about Yucca Mountain. Solar will be a great resource when we can get the price down. It isn't going to help with next month's or next year's total energy bill. It may not happen for a decade. You forgot geothermal which is great with high temperature resource (Geysers in California) otherwise it make great direct heating source or a wonderful spa (Ouray)
June 18, 2008

10:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Greenleaf,

Before I sign off, the article that I posted said

"Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50-$7.00 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02-$3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 to $1.43-$1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025"

$80 to $180 per MWhr is kind of high on an annual average basis, even for peak power In 2025 the price of solar according to this article (by a pro-green source) is projected to be $40 to $80 per MWhr, which is much closer to market. But I’m splitting hairs. $80 to $180 would be a miracle if it was available today.

What do know about switch grass?
June 19, 2008

1 a.m.

Suggest removal

justright writes:

Boy Greenleaf you have stirred the pot. My HOA won't let me put a swamp cooler on my house. I guess me and 100,000 of my closet friends could abandoned our houses and move to Boulder. Except they won't let us in. I was happy to see you have come around to supporting ALL types of energy.

Will your half of the total cost of your solar system be paid for by 2015 or does that include the half I paid for too?

Trythinking,
Great post! Go coal go! Me, I am an Oil and Gas guy. I too support plant food. By the way Oil and Gas "guys" get most of their CO2 from the ground when producing oil and gas. They then seperate it and sell it to other oil companies to recover additional oil from older fields. If big oil would just make a 30 second commercial to tell everybody what great stewards they are for "disposing" of CO2, that evil plant food, then maybe Al Gore would reach out and embrass big oil.

In the mean time it looks like the people are starting to get pisssssed off and are coming around to more oil and gas development. Since we sit on the largest known oil reserve in the world right here in Colorado, it will only be a matter of time before it to will be produced.

Are any of you guys up on the concept of "a cubic mile of Oil"? It is just a measurement but it puts the problem of energy in prospective. It really shows why solar, wind and most of the renewables are just a pipe dream in the big energy picture.

Don't get me wrong I am making money investing in renewables but I don't see any significant supply of renewables to replace Carbon fuel. Coal is King if you ask me!
June 19, 2008

6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

whs806 writes:

How to control the USA. Control ENERGY PRODUCTION! Our congress is doing a great job of limiting Energy (oil, natural gas, coal power plants, nuclear energy). We would rather buy oil from countries that don't like use than to provide Americans with jobs and increase our own security. How patriotic! Clinton nixed ANWR, Offshore is off limits to drilling on east and west coast, Nuclear - nixed by Jimmy Carter, Coal Power Plants nixed by environmentalists. Get the picture! Hello high prices for electricity, gas, oil, congress is taking care of you!
June 19, 2008

7:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

You are turning into a warrior my friend! Please don't misunderstand me, I'm glad to have your voice advocating what you believe in. I do wish that you were a little more an the conservation and conciliation side of the energy issue, but I appreciate your perspective nonetheless.

Rather than have us all gather in a circle and shoot at one another, I would far rather see some of us do the far harder work of hammering out compromises. In real life, counter balancing political forces simply won't let everybody get everything they want.

The way environmentalists see the issue, Oil, and coal have dictated American politics and policy for the last 7 years ( and to varying degrees for many years before that). They see an arrogance of power that has left them totally out of the loop( Cheney's energy task force) for the entirety of the Bush administration. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not many millions of us do. Whether you believe in drilling and extracting even in the most environmentally sensitive locations, many of us don't. Many of us also believe that we need to begin weaning ourselves from finite, politically charged fossil fuels, knowing that it will take time to do so. My views on the subject are definitely moderate when compared to some in the environmental movement. I attribute that to years of dealing with fiscal matters and sometimes arbitrary government regulations in my business. Some more extreme members of the community have accused me of "selling out" and of being a Republican ( they consider that to be quite an insult). As you probably know, I am an independent and have issues with both major parties.

This is why Trythinking, I believe its people such as you and I who can try to find some middle ground, something that might work at least a little bit for everyone. I have a scientist's perspective, you have an engineer's. It would be nice to have a climatologist and a few other specialists setting a few stories straight and burying some urban myths, but in the meantime we should try to work with what we have. You may be growing tired of hearing this, but I look forward to the information you bring to the table, especially innovative, thought provoking approaches to our energy problems.

One side note: you fooled me with your link. I didn't realize it was tongue in cheek humour;>). You got me!
June 19, 2008

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

justright,

Its been a while. How have you been? We've had some discussions on this energy topic before and I have to say, I've been saying for years that we need every type of energy production in the mix. Did I lapse at some point and give you the impression I didn't believe that? If so, I apologize. Perhaps the confusion comes in that I don't believe as Trythinking does that the cheapest energy source, namely coal is necessarily the best. We never factor in the hidden health and environmental costs of coal and oil, if we did, they would prove far more expensive in the long run. I would like to see a better balance in our energy mix. I would like to see more decentralized power production and a great deal more emphasis on conservation. My Mantra will always be: conservation first and foremost.

Now as to my little rooftop "solar plant"? Certainly, it has a taxpayer subsidy. I too am a taxpayer and voted in favor of increasing the percentage of energy we in Colorado get from wind and solar sources. I'm sure you voted against it. Everybody had an opportunity to vote. You were on the losing side. What can I say? I've been on the losing side of other issues environmental and otherwise. It doesn't feel good does it? Like it or not, that's democracy at work.

As I have also said before: A PV system on my roof was eventually going to happen even if I had to pay the full freight. As it was man, it was still 13k to me and that ain't chump change. My buying a system 2 years ago will help to make it less expensive for someone else down the line. Who knows, maybe your HOA (I've dealt with dozens of them by the way!) will let you put solar panels on your roof. By the way I think you misunderstood my posting, I was telling someone else who was advocating swamp coolers that if they wanted to save yet more energy they should use fans as I do in my house. I've never used or advocated air conditioners or swamp coolers. This is Colorado, it gets cool at night so bring that cool air in with a fan and cross- ventilation!
June 19, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Greenleaf,

I'd love to find common ground. Diversity in the work place doesn't mean that you eliminate white workers nor does it mean you stop hiring white workers. It means you add people based on their qualifications and their fit for the job. White people happen to make up a large part of the population, so it would appear having a similar proportion of whites in the work place would be expected. Coal is our most abundant, easily accessible cheapest form of energy for large-scale power production. Diversity to greens means no more coal, not adding in alternative sources when they make sense.

Yes I'm a warrior, this is my world....

"Sierra Club has helped stop 63 of the 150 coal-fired power plants that were in the planning stages since 2002, including 31 last year."

And now Xcel wants a 38% increase. Do you see a connection?

For the full story,

http://uk.reuters.com/article/company...

Oil and gas don't dictate anyone’s needs. You don't need either. Mankind has not had these luxuries for the majority of history. They are not a need like air and water and food. But most of us have decided that we want to live better more comfortable lives than were possible in the 1700s. You have decided that you need them and you can't obtain them on your own. Then you criticize how they are provided and how much they cost.

BTW by "you" I don't literally mean you Greenleaf. I believe we could have a great time over a beer.
June 19, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

I agree, but would we have to stop with one beer? We would have to start our discussion with that concept. I recommend two beers as a starting point for negotiations.

I'll have to check your last link later today. I have a busy day ahead.

Later buddy!
June 19, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

JP1985 writes:

Using the concept of revenue decoupling to argue that your bills will go up even if you use less is half right, but in the end it doesn't add up. It ignores the fact that there are two parts to your bill. Part of your bill goes towards reimbursing Xcel for their capital costs to make our electricity. The other part is paying the fuel costs directly. If we use less electricity the fuel costs will go down. That is a direct price reduction on your bill. The only way the capital cost portion of your bill goes up is if Xcel is forced to build new plants to appeal to environmentalists. The best way to reduce your energy bill is to allow Xcel to use existing capacity and reduce your personal energy usage. That allows Xcel to stop charging you for new power plants and also allows them to lower your fuel costs.
June 19, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Greenleaf,

I've never stopped at one before, why start now? Anyone for a Newcastle Brown Ale?

Take care. I'd like to get your thoughts on switch grass as an energy crop.
June 19, 2008

5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

That's a relief, good conversations just seem to get better after 2 or even 3 beers. More than that and the quantity of words goes up but the quality drops considerably.

Switchgrass? The more you look the better it sounds.

Let's start with a comparison of the cultural requirements of corn versus switchgrass.

Corn: Requires 2 inches of rainfall/irrigation/week at times of peak demand.
Heavily dependent upon high nitrogen(petrochemical derived) fertilizers. Herbicides, which are also derived from petrochemicals are important to achieve maximum yields. Corn is an annual and must be planted new each year. It requires the usual field prep by tractors every year followed by tractor sowing and harvesting. Often irrigated with expensive center pivot systems.

Switchgrass: A hardy perennial native of the tall grass prairie. Hardy to zone 2 (we are zone 5-6), once planted, it theoretically never needs to be planted again, eliminating all but harvest usage of tractors. Needs little if any fertilizer as it enriches the soil in which it is planted and also holds the soil preventing erosion. Requires 1/2 the water that corn requires and basically needs no herbicide use. The entire top of the plant would be used to produce ethanol as opposed to just the seed of the corn plant. Switch grass is also an excellent carbon sink, trapping considerable amounts in its deep roots and in the undisturbed soil ( cultivation releases sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere).

Conclusion: Corn was never intended by researchers to be anything more than a research test bed and demonstration platform for the potential of ethanol. Big agriculture saw an opportunity and took advantage , the rest is history. The one good thing about corn ethanol is that it has built most of the infrastructure for our future ethanol products.

Here is an excellent site that gives an overview of Switch grass and its potential to help with our energy needs.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc...
June 19, 2008

5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

Did you just sneak another one past me? "Newcastle Brown Ale"? Newcastle was one of Great Britain's great coal producing areas in the 19th century. It prompted the now old saying: "That would be like bringing coal to Newcastle".
We also have our own Newcastle near Grand Junction. That is what I call a dry and sophisticated sense of humour. I'm going to have to watch out for you!;>)
June 19, 2008

8:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

No, I don't joke about beer. As I get older I like a beer with a little more taste. My taste buds are shot from a mispent youth. Newcastle & Anchor Steam fills the bill for taste. Tommyknockers in Idaho Springs has a good micro brews, Butthead. I had no idea that Newcastle was a coal producing area. My first exposure to big coal was in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. I'm just a transplanted hillbilly.

Thanks for the information on switch grass. I understand the yields can be as high as 15 tons per acre.

Home › Business › Energy

Electric bill increase chilling

Xcel: 38 percent request caused by natural gas price

Gargi Chakrabarty

Published June 17, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

Related Links

More Energy

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs