Your trusty correspondent slogs through some of the most tedious documents written in English just to keep you up to date on what bureaucrats in Colorado have in store for you.
In that spirit of public service (and notwithstanding the health risks from lengthy exposure to deadly prose), I have selflessly studied testimony filed with state regulators on Xcel Energy Co.'s plans for meeting electricity demand through 2015.
Huh? you say. Electricity demand - what's the big deal? Electricity may be the backdrop of modern life, but the outlets always seem to work when we plug in a laptop. Why worry about what regulators do?
Here's one possible reason, gleaned from the testimony at the Public Utilities Commission by Tom Plant of the governor's energy office:
"As important as the rate is when calculating an electric bill, it is only part of the equation," Plant said last month. "A rate is multiplied by measured electric use to yield what electric customers care most about - their bill. . . . It may be helpful to start thinking of customers as 'billpayers,' not as ratepayers. An astute 'billpayer' may see a higher rate on their bill when they see a DSM (demand-side management) cost adjustment charge. However, if that customer avails himself or herself of a utility-sponsored DSM program he or she will see a lower bill, will experience greater comfort, and will be playing a part in improving the environment. I urge the commission to adopt a focus on customers' bills."
Someone please send that man a copy of The Wizard of Oz. After all, the wizard was so much more succinct when advising his audience to ignore a painfully obvious fact. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," he urged Dorothy and her faithful band.
The governor's office wants us to pay no attention to the rate we might end up paying for electricity because it wants the rate to rise in the interest of funding "demand-side management" programs that result - or are supposed to result, which is not always the same thing - in conservation.
Xcel has proposed investing $725 million in such efficiency measures - a major expansion from the present effort - but the governor's office thinks that's a mandate for wimps. It basically wants the investment doubled, and hence, presumably, the cost to ratepayers boosted as well.
The context for the governor's aggressive policy is his Climate Action Plan, which envisions reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, with 2005 as the base.
Now more context:
* The governor's office believes nearly half of the carbon reduction from utilities can be achieved through energy efficiency - i.e., conservation.
* Per capita electricity consumption rose nationally every decade of the 20th century.
* According to a presentation last fall by the PUC chairman, per capita consumption in Colorado "has grown 14 percent in the past 15 years," and electricity consumption has been projected to continue rising in this state.
Even assuming hefty hikes in the output of renewable energy, wouldn't such aggressive greenhouse emission targets require actual reductions, maybe significant ones, in per capita residential use of electricity - as well as significant cuts in business usage, too? Is that realistic given the historical effect on electricity demand of population growth and rising incomes in the absence of heavily punitive treatment of energy use?
For that matter, will the conservation measures foreseen by the governor's office really result in overall savings to individual rate . . . , er, billpayers? Will they offset the need to build two "large" coal-burning power plants by 2020, as the governor's staff suggests?
Someday historians will identify a golden age for the use of electricity in this country. I'm betting it won't include the next 12 years.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 16, 2008
6:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
When you write this stuff, please remember the part the Rocky played in getting our Governor and legislature elected. Quoting from a Rocky editorial:
"True, our endorsement today is a bit of a gamble . . . It could even turn out to be a major mistake. . . if Ritter himself proves to be a reckless liar . . .there is no way to verify whether what he now describes as his opinions regarding the proper role of government. . . are long-held convictions or the carefully designed themes of campaign consultants. . . some of what Ritter says makes us uneasy. . .Will "more money" be the answer to every question . . .This is a legislature that in the past two years . . .has churned out a remarkable array of cockamamie measures that would have . . . enhanced the power of such Democratic stalwarts as trial lawyers and unions. . .Owens vetoed most of those bills and Beauprez undoubtedly would veto similar ones in the future. Fortunately, Ritter insists he'd spike the bulk of such legislation, too."
We have a bad governor and a bad government. It is time that Rocky admitted publicly that it made a mistake.
May 16, 2008
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
The answer to all of VC's questions is "Yes". We can reduce per capita consumption if people increase their efficiency. Other states have done this and been successful, it's not rocket science. When you reduce the increasing demand, you remove the need for additional generation - saving even more money.
Energy Efficiency is a resource that costs $2.30/watt - coal generation costs $6/watt. It's time we start treating energy efficiency as the most cost effective resource. Because it is.
May 16, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
As ahh, ahh, dumb Denver Excel customer, I am subsidizing a nice new 'smart grid' for the "high number of educated and Internet-savvy customers" in Boulder so they can better learn how to manage their power demands. This is happening today. Maybe tomorrow, I too will be more conscious of power usage, peak demands, and generally living more in balance with nature, and feeling good about my power usage and appreciating how the smart people of Baghdad cope. I wonder if this usage and peak power demand will influence how Gov. Ritter's son schedules his beer parties in the Mansion. He admitted he may only have another 7 years before the lights go out.
May 16, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Just get it over with!!!!!!!!!!!
Hook up government controls to my water, electricity and gas. Mandate when I use these items and how much I use.
What temperature will you set my home at?
How many times will you flush my toilet?
What time will you cut my power back to emergency lighting only?
Just do it already. Take away my life. Make the greenies happy.
Or you could just adjust the price based on scarcity and let the market do its thing. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
May 16, 2008
7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
rhtawney writes:
As a regulated monopoly, Xcel is **obligated** to acquire resources in the least cost manner.
The rates we pay for electricity are high and going higher. Why?
Because residential, commercial and industrial demand for electricity is high and going higher.
(Think larger houses, more air conditioners, HDTVs, etc.).
Will the utility and its shareholders build expensive new (coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.) power plants to increase the supply of electricity? Yes.
Will the utility and its shareholders expect to recover its costs and a "reasonable" (at least 10%) rate of return? Certainly.
Will rates be higher or lower in the long run with investment in demand-side management? Lower.
Is there a point at which Xcel can over-invest in DSM? Yes. When the (avoided) cost of buying additional generation is lower than the cost of the DSM program.
Have we reached that point? No.
As a regulated monopoly, Xcel is **obligated** to acquire resources in the least cost manner.
May 16, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
rhtawney
When PUC stops protecting the rates, both it and the utilities companies are incentivized toward less efficient means of power production. If Xcel's cut is always 10%, and it can make power cost 6 times as much, it gets 6 times the profit. Moving to Solar does just that.
Please don't lie to the rest of us.
May 16, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
rhtawney writes:
a_watcher, how is the PUC "protecting the rates?" What do you mean by this?
The most efficient means of power production is not having to produce more in the first place. Thus, programs to manage demand and conservation are critical.
New solar electricity generation does not cost six times more than new coal or nuclear generation. Have you considered the long term cost of power generation such as fuel (coal, natural gas, uranium)? How much does the fuel cost for solar or wind? How much pollution is created by wind and solar electricity generation?
May 16, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
The more wind and solar we use the less land there will be. Land will become more expensive and in turn will make life more expensive.
Seems that we need to be using our own property to create our own energy?
May 16, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
prk166 writes:
"The answer to all of VC's questions is "Yes". We can reduce per capita consumption if people increase their efficiency. Other states have done this and been successful, it's not rocket science. When you reduce the increasing demand, you remove the need for additional generation - saving even more money." --Socrates
That is correct while being incorrect. There are some efficiency gains that can be had. The issue is at what cost. Science isn't magic. Efficiency gains can't simply be pulled out of a hat. Someone or some people need to discover them; something that is much more dependent on calendar time than resources. Even then at the core there are some very basic scientific principles at play. You just can't make wire's resistance go away by driving up the price of electricity.
More so the fire that we're playing with is productivity. We use electricity or natural gas to power our washers and dryers because it makes us more productive. What would take a couple hours of work can be done in 1/10th of the time. There comes a point when to make consumption reductions it won't be about installing fancy light bulbs but using our washers and dryers less. And the more we do things that result in us losing productivity, the less time we'll have to go to our kids soccer games, have a side business to bring in extra cash or - funny enough - read stuff by people urging us to use less. That is, the more we go down the path, the more likely we're going to be moving back in time.
The most frustrating part of this is 30 - 40 years ago the same recycled Catholic-guilt message was being said. We're using too much stuff, we're being too greedy and the sky is about to fall. It's been decades of this and the sky hasn't fallen. At what point do we start telling the chicken littles to shut the hell up?
May 16, 2008
10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
a_watcher nails it.......RMN endorcement was a major mistake. Ritter's gotta go.