Congress extends tax credit through 2018 to spur alternative energy

By Greg Ruland Wednesday, December 23, 2015 A retired cabinet maker on Grand Junction’s north side borrowed $30,000 to install a solar array atop his home workshop this fall, one of several moves the middle-aged man made this year to get his “ducks in a row” before age or happenstance prevents him from making decisions on his own. The retired craftsman said his choice to go solar was motivated by several factors, saving thousands of dollars in energy costs chief among them. Without the 30 percent investment tax credit currently available to offset the purchase, however, Mark Blair said he would have deferred. “We couldn’t have done it. It’s just too much money,” he said. Blair said he will apply the money he would normally pay to Grand Valley Power to pay off the loan through Atlasta. Blair borrowed through Atlasta. His return on investment is not expected before he repays the loan. Solar panel vendors across the country rejoiced last week when Congress extended through 2018 the 30 percent investment tax credit on solar energy installations. Starting in 2019, the credit will taper off in yearly increments of 10 percent through 2022, after which it will presumably expire, “Scientific American” reported Monday. The credit, which applies to both residential and commercial property, is a dollar-for-dollar write down on federal tax owed in the year the array is purchased, said Teddy Aegerter, a sales associate at Atlasta Solar Center, 1111 S. Seventh St. For Blair, that means a savings of $10,000 on his 2016 income tax. “With the federal tax credit set up to expire in 2016 ... people were really rushing to get it for 2015,” Aegerter said. “It actually increased our business because people wanted to take advantage of the tax credit (before it expired).” Business picked up dramatically at Atlasta starting in September. Sales have been strong through the fourth quarter, he said. “The credit is used when homeowners (like Blair) purchase solar systems outright and have them installed on their homes,” Aegerter said. For residential projects, homeowners like Blair apply the credit to reduce personal income tax. For commercial projects, the company which “installs, develops or finances” the solar arrays takes the tax credit. Atlasta works mostly with homeowners, he said. In another positive development, homeowners are enjoying a quicker return on their solar investment since the cost of materials for solar panel production has gone down in recent years. Cheaper systems have expanded the motivation of solar array buyers, who now see the purchase as a way to market their home. Financing is available through Atlasta from a Salt Lake City bank that specializes in home improvement loans, but there are many ways to pay. Wrapping the purchase into a mortgage refinance, for example, is another option, Aegerter said. “People are getting an average return on their investment (through savings on electricity) within six to 10 years,” he said. “It’s an added value. For every $18,000 you invest, you can expect a return of $20,000 when you sell.” Blair said he was skeptical he would see any return on his investment before 2027. Since the tax credit was introduced in 2006, the value of solar energy array transactions has grown 1,600 percent across the U.S., reflecting “a compound annual growth rate of 76 percent,” the Solar Energy Industries Association estimated. Projecting a rosy future, the association said investment the tax credit extension will: ■ Add 72 gigawatts of new capacity to the nation’s electrical grid by 2020. ■ Push net solar capacity to more than 100 gigawatts, or roughly 3.5 percent of all electricity produced in the U.S. ■ Increase investment in solar by $40 billion between 2016 and 2020. ■ Double the current number of jobs in the solar industry to 420,000. The move will also help states comply with the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which launches in 2022 and requires a 32 percent cut in utility-sector carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, “Scientific American” reported. “Some states (will see) reduction requirements as high as 45 to 47 percent” as a result of the plan, the magazine said. The leader of the Colorado trade association representing solar was even more confident about the effects of the extension, predicting “$125 billion in new, private sector investment … and … a tripling of deployed solar by 2022.” “The extension will provide certainty to our industry,” Rebecca Cantwell, Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association executive director, said in a news release.

Colorado officials consider limiting solar energy’s access to farmland

In Weld County, not all energy production is created equal. If a proposed ordinance goes through, solar farms won’t enjoy the same access to agriculturally zoned land — which covers about 75 percent of the county — that oil and gas drilling and coal mining enjoy. The potential law requires all solar facilities sit on land zoned industrial, which is more expensive to lease. Early indications are the commissioners aren’t totally sold on the change. They took the proposal to the public for the first time during their meeting Monday morning. Residents will have two more chances to sound off on the issue before it can be adopted. Business owners and local farmers took this first opportunity to voice their complaints. SunShare, a small Denver-based solar company that works with Xcel Energy, has plans to install three small facilities in Weld in 2016, but that might change if the ordinance is approved. “This proposed ordinance kills solar,” said John Sullivan, a SunShare spokesman. “We’re not going to move to Weld County (if it gets approved).” The ordinance would restrict development on agricultural land. Now, there are few things people can do without getting special permission, called a use by right. For example, residents are allowed to build one house, raise crops and feed livestock. Some projects have to go through the use by special review process, such as oil and gas storage and coal mining. Related: A state-by-state look at renewable energy requirements Oil and gas drilling is considered a use by right, but the commissioners are considering a rule that requires a USR for all new facilities. The proposed rule would boot solar facilities from the list of USR uses on ag land and push them onto the list of industrial uses. The change in code — as it’s written now — would keep residents who own farmland from allowing companies to install small solar projects on their land, and it would keep solar companies from buying property to turn into solar facilities. Melinda McKey’s family recently bought 140 acres of dry land. This means the land is zoned for agriculture but doesn’t have irrigation access. She and her family, like many Weld farmers, struggle to make money on a farm with no water. “You’re very limited in the crop production,” she said. “We’d like to get more income from solar.” Richard Miller of Clean Energy Cooperative advocated for community solar farms. These smaller operations work like community gardens; they let people who don’t have the resources for solar panels — apartment dwellers or people with weak roofs — invest in off-site solar panels and have the money they raise knocked off their power bill. Community solar gardens typically span 6-9 acres and produce 1-2 megawatts of energy, enough to power about 190 houses, Miller said. Large commercial facilities produce from 10-150 MW and can cover hundreds of acres. While large power companies might be able to afford the more expensive industrial land, it’s harder for the little guys. “Community solar would be priced out of the market,” Miller said. The company offers its services to save customers money, he said, and raising the cost of production would make the product prohibitively expensive. SunShare’s Sullivan argued four benefits of small, commercial solar farms, which are generally the same size as community farms: They don’t take up much space; they pose no inconvenience to surrounding areas; they actually can help farmers; and they could raise more revenue for the county. SunShare has three projects slated to go up in Weld in 2016, and each of them would cover 12 acres or less. “We’re not going to coat Weld County with solar projects,” Sullivan said. Unlike many industrial facilities, solar farms have no on-site employees, he said. There are no lights at night, no emissions and no sound. Small facilities such as the ones SunShare is proposing stay for about 20 years, Sullivan said. The time can serve as a break for the soil to replenish. If one goes onto an operating farm, the farmer can use the water that would have irrigated those acres somewhere else. He said though the solar farms would be on ag land, they would pay property taxes as industrial operations, which are charged a much higher rate. The commissioners were split on the idea of allowing all solar farms, big and small, to set up shop on farmland. Commissioners Sean Conway and Julie Cozad praised the idea of energy diversity, and Cozad said she felt landowners have the right to decide how to use their land. She also pointed out that other types of energy production are allowed through the USR process. Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer pushed hard for solar’s industrial designation, saying solar facilities are industrial in nature and don’t fit on farmland, which should be used for farming. She said other energy production depends on natural resources specific to one area. For example, oil drilling has to take place where there is oil. “It’s a natural resource, and it is where it is,” she said. “You can’t really zone oil and gas.” Similarly, wind patterns dictate where wind turbines can go. And farmers can plant around the turbines. “They’re not covering up 16 or 110 acres (like solar farms do),” Kirkmeyer said. The group did agree to consider making a condition to the code change that would make an exception for the smaller and community solar farms, especially ones farmers use to make more money. “That actually would make sense in an agricultural area,” Kirkmeyer said.

Federal budget deal extends tax breaks for wind, solar

Wind and solar power advocates applauded the federal budget deal awaiting congressional approval that would extend federal tax credits for renewable power by five years. While the lifting of the crude oil ban received the lion’s share of the attention in the budget compromise, the bill also renews the federal production tax credit, or PTC, that benefits the growth of wind farms, and the investment tax credit, or ITC, that discounts the expansion of solar power. The tax credits were expiring, but still would have funded pending projects through 2016. Texas by far leads the nation in wind power and the Lone Star State is poised to see a lot more solar growth in the coming years, according to state projections. The American Wind Energy Association said the deal, if ultimately approved as expected, would provide several years of predictability to encourage more renewable power growth, especially with the nation’s electric grid soon requiring additional renewable power generation as more coal-fired power plants are retired. “If this passes, our industry will get a break from the repeated boom-bust cycles that we’ve had to weather for two decades of uncertain tax policies,” AWEA CEO Tom Kiernan said in a prepared statement. “AWEA has sought greater stability in the credit, with an extension for as long as possible. This plan will drive more development, and near-term prospects look strong – especially as utilities, major end-use customers, and municipalities seek more low-cost, emissions-free renewable energy.” Still, there is some concern about the tax credit being phased out. The extensions include 2015, so the five-year period only runs through 2019 and their values start getting reduced after 2016. The PTC currently provides for a tax credit of 2.3 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated over a 10-year period. According to the budget deal, the PTC and ITC are extended through 2016, but then continue at 80 percent of present value in 2017, 60 percent in 2018, and 40 percent in 2019. As before, the rules will allow wind and solar projects to qualify as long as they start construction before the end of the period. “The later years of this agreement will provide some challenges that the wind industry will work to overcome with our employees, partners and champions,” Kiernan added. Despite such concerns, the Solar Energy Industries Association touted the budget deal as well. “By extending the solar investment tax credit for five years with a commence construction provision and a gradual ramp down, bipartisan members in both Houses have reestablished America as the global leader in clean energy, which will boost our economy and create thousands of jobs across America,” Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO stated. Resch contended that U.S. solar power will triple by 2022, hitting 95 gigawatts. That’s enough to power 19 million homes and represents 3.5 percent of U.S. electricity generation, which is up from 0.1 percent in 2010.

Diversity of Colorado’s energy sector stays strong, says new report

Despite struggles among coal producers and oil and gas companies, Colorado’s energy sector as a whole remains strong, according to the seventh annual “Resource Rich Colorado” report from the Colorado Energy Coalition. The coalition is an affiliate of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp. The report was shared with the Denver Business Journal on Tuesday and will be posted to the EDC’s “Resource Rich Colorado” website. “Colorado’s energy industry is a top-10 performer in about every category, it’s a unique story,” Scott Prestidge, who oversees the EDC’s efforts in the energy industry. “When you think of the resources that are here and the talented workforce that’s here, our research and development resources and the universities, plus the collaboration and the reach across the political aisle when it comes to policy and business-to-business — one of the key takeaways is that amazing diversity in Colorado’s energy sector and that we’re a top performer in every category,” Prestidge said. The sector’s strength and diversity, plus the seven-year track record that the report has under its belt, has allowed the EDC and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce to argue in favor of federal policies that will support both traditional fuel sources as well as the renewable sector, said Tom Clark, the EDC’s CEO. “For us to see energy as an industry, and present it as an industry in the last several years particularly to the legislature, it’s taken a lot of emotional tension out of the discussions by providing factual data — which was one of our goals,” Clark said. “The fight was always to steal one sides tax incentive for the other. Now it’s a balancing act, such as opening markets for us producers of oil but also giving certainty to the cleantech center with a long-term tax credits for wind and solar,” Clark said. In August, the EDC and the Denver chamber joined with the Colorado Competitive Council, a business group, on a letter to the state’s congressional delegation asking its members to support lifting the decades-old ban on crude oil exports and also to extend the federal Production Tax Credit for wind power for several years. “We look for opportunities where we can work together,” Prestidge said. According to the report, Colorado ranks: Seventh in oil and gas production; Sixth in natural gas production; 10th in coal production; 10th in the total wind capacity with 2,583 megawatts worth of wind turbines operating; Ninth in solar power capacity with 316 megawatts; And 10th in the number of alternative-fuel vehicles per capita. Over the years, the report has chronicled major changes across the state’s energy sector. Since 2009 the cost of wind power has dropped 56 percent and solar power costs have dropped 78 percent, according to the report. The report estimates there will be another 400 megawatts worth of wind turbines installed in Colorado during 2016, plus an additional 290 megawatts of utility-scale solar power farms. And the amount of oil and gas produced per drilling rig working has climbed six-fold for rigs working in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an underground cache of natural gas and oil that sprawls north and east of Denver to the state lines. The report indicated that the state’s energy sector, including both fossil fuels and cleantech, directly employs 74,720 people, which support an additional 188,890 indirect jobs throughout the state. The industry’s total economic impact in Colorado was $17.2 billion in 2015, according to the report. One surprise in this year’s report is that the number of people classified as working in Colorado’s “fossil fuel” sector has remained steady, at nearly 50,000 people, compared to 2014. That’s despite the state’s Department of Labor and Employment office recording thousands of unemployment claims from the “mining” sector, which in Colorado is dominated by the oil and gas industry that’s experienced months of contraction nationwide due to low commodity prices. That’s possibly because the “fossil fuel” sector, according to the chamber’s report, includes people working in the utility sector — including those working at power plants and on power line and related engineering projects — as well as employees working in the coal, oil and gas sectors.

Five Colorado firms get $4.35M in grants for research, infrastructure

Five of six applicants for state funds to support their infrastructure have won $4.35 million in grants, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade said Monday. The money comes from the Advanced Industry Accelerator Grant Program, a state program that has doled out about $18 million to more than 50 companies since its 2013 inception. "This is about helping them accelerate their growth so they can stay in Colorado," said Katie Woslager, the grant's manager. Only six groups applied for the infrastructure grant, which must be used to invest in programs, equipment or other capital. Applicants must also contribute twice the amount themselves or through a third party. For every dollar the state puts in, the applicant must put in $2, Woslager said. Boulder-based Manufacturer's Edge, for example, received $2.5 million from the state to build a 3-D metals printing research center. It's also getting $5 million from Ball Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Fauston Tool and the Colorado School of Mines. In a separate application, Manufacturer's Edge won another $300,000 to create a pilot program with the Small Business Development Center to support manufacturers and help them expand. Barber-Nichols, an Arvada designer of rotating machinery equipment, was the only applicant to not get funded. The agency's other program grants are much more popular. The Early Stage Capital grant and the Proof of Concept grant had 93 applicants in the latest round last month. Other infrastructure grant recipients included: • Cyber and Space Operations Center, $750,000: a new research lab at the Catalyst Campus in Colorado Springs. • Southwest Innovation Corridor, $300,000: an effort by the Telluride Foundation and Fort Lewis Collage to spur high-tech innovation in southwest Colorado. • Solar Technology Acceleration Center ( SolarTAC), $500,000: a 74-acre test site for solar technology near Denver International Airport.

Solar Power Colorado 2016

Solar Power Colorado is not only the largest solar conference in the Rocky Mountain region, but it is known nationally for the exceptional quality of speakers, panels and business opportunities. As the solar industry faces an uncertain future with the scheduled scale down of the Investment Tax Credit at the end of 2016, it is especially critical that we come together and forge the path ahead. At Solar Power Colorado 2016, you will find top national experts addressing all the hottest issues in solar, from the fight to extend the ITC to the growth of battery storage, and from the debates about the future of Solar*Rewards to the challenges of new electric code provisions. COSEIA’s annual gathering is the year’s largest business-to-business opportunity for networking with solar industry executives, identifying new market opportunities, gaining insight into the latest thinking on policy and technology, and learning about exciting new solar products at the Expo Hall. When: 7th March 2016 - 9th March 2016 Where: Broomfield, Colorado, US http://coseia.org/conference/

Viewpoint: Clean Power Plan means more Colorado clean energy jobs

Long days outside while growing up on a Pennsylvania dairy farm instilled in me respect for the power of two of our planet’s most fundamental natural forces – the sun and wind. Here in Colorado – where we have the potential for renewable sources of energy to power our entire state 200 times over our current needs – the sun and wind are powerful economic forces, too. Colorado has been a leader in harnessing these valuable resources. Through commonsense state-level policies like our Renewable Portfolio Standard – which was enacted under a Republican governor in 2004 and ensures we generate a share of our energy from renewable sources – we’ve expanded our economy, created thousands of good, high-paying jobs and helped protect the fragile environment our tourism and recreation industries depend on by reducing the harmful carbon emissions that exacerbate climate change. More recently, a new federal policy finalized this summer will help expand Colorado’s clean energy economy even further. This policy – the Clean Power Plan – sets the first-ever carbon emissions standards on our nation’s power plants. At a pair of public listening sessions downtown on Wynkoop Street this week – the only Clean Power Plan listening sessions west of the Mississippi – representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be on hand to hear what people from across our region have to say. Here’s what I and other Colorado business leaders will tell the EPA: By sending a strong, clear market signal to the private sector to invest in low-carbon energy technologies like solar, wind and energy efficiency, the Clean Power Plan will help expand our state’s already strong clean economy. Colorado’s booming wind energy industry alone has created between 6,000 and 7,000 jobs across the state at more than 20 manufacturing plants and nearly 30 wind farms. All told, Colorado’s wind industry employs nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. wind industry workforce. Wind has also attracted nearly $5 billion in investment capital to our state and saved Colorado more than $20 million in fuel costs. In rural counties like Logan, Prowers, Weld and Lincoln, wind farms have created a much-needed new revenue stream for farmers and ranchers. Because of small, unobtrusive wind turbine footprints, these farmers and ranchers can continue to work their land for agricultural purposes while simultaneously raking in lease payments. Combined, Colorado’s wind industry generates nearly $8 million annually in lease payments to farmers, ranchers and other landowners. These wind turbine lease payments – essentially a valuable new cash crop – help boost school district budgets so they can hire more teachers and buy more books. Solar energy is also growing Colorado’s economy. Thanks in part to ongoing construction in Pueblo at what will be the state’s largest solar farm, Colorado ranked in the Top 10 for the fifth consecutive quarter in the latest clean energy jobs rankings published by the national nonpartisan business group Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). Across the state, about 4,200 people work in Colorado’s solar industry, and they’ve helped install enough solar capacity in the state to power more than 76,000 homes – a number that rises each day. Energy efficiency also has a big role to play in cutting our carbon emissions while growing our economy. In fact, using energy smarter in our homes, business and schools is the cheapest, cleanest and fastest way for states like Colorado to meet the Clean Power Plan’s carbon pollution standards. Scaling up efficiency to help meet Colorado’s power plant emission-reduction target could save $4.8 billion and help create nearly 7,000 jobs over the next decade, according to another recent report from E2 and Golden-based Energy Efficiency Business Coalition. Despite opposition to the Clean Power Plan by Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and some of her peers – who together recently filed a lawsuit that rests on extremely shaky legal ground given previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court – Colorado remains well-positioned to strongly implement the plan. Doing so would grow our economy, create good jobs and attract to our state more businesses and their much-needed investment capital. When EPA representatives are in town this week, that’s the message they need to hear.

Solar educators at Talking Green event

Butcherknife Brewing Company co-owner Nate Johansing is so supportive of solar energy that he’s bringing the beer to encourage other locals to show up and learn more about solar installation opportunities. #The brewmaster is part of a team of local business sponsors working together to present a Yampa Valley Sustainability Council Talking Green educational event about the latest technology, grants, federal tax credits and local success stories for solar-powered electricity. #The YVSC Talking Green event is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Tuesday Nov. 17 at Moots Cycles at 2545 Copper Ridge Drive, which has its own 42-panel solar electric system. Speakers will include representatives from two local solar installation companies, who will discuss residential and commercial systems, and from Louisville-based Clean Energy Collective that built the Craig solar array, which has 20 percent remaining for sale. #Johansing and co-owner Mark Fitzgerald will purchase a 12.3-kilowatt solar system for their beer-making headquarters to be installed by the end of this year. Johansing said the project is made possible by a $18,662 USDA Rural Energy for America Program grant, a 30-percent federal tax credit and a small business loan from Yampa Valley Bank. #“We are really excited. We wrote it in our mission statement to be environmental advocates,” said Johansing, whose brewery opened in June 2014 on Elk River Road. “The movement in the craft brewing industry to be extremely aware of what is around us and to do as much as we can to use locally.” #The brewmaster has a history of promoting environmental stewardship, such as work with a local biodiesel co-op. His company sources up to 70 percent of brewery hops from southern Colorado and 40 percent of its yeast from Woodland Park. The spent hop plants are sent up the road to Yampa Valley Farms for pig feed. #With the heat produced from making beer and the new building’s tight envelope, the brewery owners rarely needed to turn on the room heating system last winter. Conduit was installed during initial construction in preparation for a later solar electric system, which is expected to cover 20 percent of the electricity needs, said Susan Holland, with solar installer Emerald Mountain Energy in Steamboat Springs. #The system will include 44 solar electric modules made by SolarWorld. #Johansing said installing solar power is another step toward collective sustainability efforts in the local community to prepare for the future when fossil fuels are more expensive. #“Renewable energy really needs to be part of modern-day entrepreneurship,” Johansing said. “It’s really not that expensive, and you are building more equity into your building as an investment in those assets. If we do it all together in small steps, down the road it will create a much better framework to make bigger changes.” #According to the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, Colorado ranks ninth in the country for installed solar capacity at 430 megawatts, or the equivalent of power for 82,000 homes. #Some $212 million was invested on solar installations in Colorado in 2014, and average installed residential and commercial photovoltaic system prices in the state have fallen by 24 percent in the past year, according to CoSEIA.

Xcel wants to test battery storage for solar power in Denver

Xcel Energy Inc. is asking state regulators to approve a test of adding massive batteries to its system to store renewable energy and send the power to customers when they need it. Xcel is proposing to add the batteries to its grid system for commercial customers at the planned Panasonic Enterprise Solutions Co. development near Denver International Airport. The second test would support residential customers in the Stapleton neighborhood in Denver that has a lot of solar power panels on the homes. The tests could be launched as soon as 2016 or 2017, according to Xcel. "Our goal is to use these demonstration projects as a foundation for how to efficiently manage renewable energy on our Colorado system, and to continue to provide our customers with insight into the energy choices they want and value," said David Eves, president of Public Service Co. of Colorado, Xcel's subsidiary in the state. Most people think of battery storage systems to provide back up power for solar power installations, but they can do more, Eves said.

Colorado Coal

Colorado coal production in 2015 continues to fall after dropping to a 20-year low last year, state data shows. Much of the drop can be attributed to mining cutbacks at Peabody Energy’s Twentymile (Foidel Creek) Mine in Routt County and to a lesser degree at Bowie Resource Partners’ Bowie No. 2 Mine in Delta County. Statewide, 2015 production through August totaled 13.9 million tons, down from 15.5 million tons for the first eight months of last year. Production totaled nearly 40 million tons in 2004 and just under 23 million tons last year. Twentymile production fell to 2.5 million tons through August, from 4.9 million for the same period last year, according to the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The Bowie mine produced about 1.4 million tons, down from 1.8 million. Peabody Energy didn’t return requests for comment about the slowdown at Twentymile. The Steamboat Today newspaper in Steamboat Springs early this year quoted a Peabody spokesman as saying falling production at the mine was from declining demand from utilities because of moderate temperatures and constrained rail service. The state says Twentymile employs about 300 miners. It employed nearly 390 miners at the end of 2013. Bowie last year announced the layoffs of about 150 people after losing a contract to sell to the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA has been cutting back on its use of coal for power generation as a result of a 2011 agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and other entities. TVA also has been sourcing coal from mines back East at a lower price because of cheaper transportation costs. In September, Bowie said it plans to lay off nearly 100 more people at the mine, leaving it with about 100 miners. It said it was making the cutbacks as it idles its underground longwall mining operation and takes an estimated year or so to prepare a new longwall panel for mining. But it has warned the layoffs could be permanent, as it continues to evaluate the market for the mine’s coal. That market has been challenging in Colorado and nationally because of everything from federal and state regulatory measures to competition from natural gas. The latest threat to coal comes from the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which targets carbon emissions from power plants. Jeremy Nichols, with the environmental group WildEarth Guardians, noted that while a federal judge ruled in cases brought by the group that federal agencies failed to disclose air-pollution and
 climate-change impacts in approving expansions at three Colorado mines, production at those mines subsequently has risen. One of the lawsuits involved Arch Coal’s West Elk Mine and pertained to an area it had leased but not yet expanded into. The mine’s production is up slightly so far this year, at 4.1 million tons compared to 3.95 million for the first eight months of last year. Arch Coal recently said it continues to have success selling the higher-quality coal produced by the mine. However, Arch Coal has been struggling overall financially, losing $168 million in the second quarter of the year alone. The Colowyo Coal Mine between Craig and Meeker so far this year has produced 1.9 million tons, up from 1.6 million over the same period last year. The Trapper Mine near Craig produced nearly 1.5 million tons through August, compared to about 1.27 million tons for the first eight months of last year. The two mines supply the coal burned at Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association’s Craig Station power plant. A court ruling involving those two mines found fault with previous approvals of expansions by the mines based on Wild-
Earth Guardians’ concerns, and the ruling left the mines’ continued operations in question. The Interior Department recently cleared the way for Colowyo’s continued operations after a recently completed review of the expansion there, and Trapper has been able to keep mining while another such review begins. The Deserado Mine near Rangely produced 1.7 million tons through August, up from 1.1 million tons over the first eight months of 2014. The mine supplies the coal burned by Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s Bonanza Power Plant in northeastern Utah. The future of that plant, and the mine, which is owned by Deseret and has no other customer, would be secured for the short term but left in doubt for the long term under a recent settlement proposal involving WildEarth Guardians, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Agency. The environmental groups have agreed to drop challenges of an EPA permit issued for the plant in exchange for new pollution controls at the plant. The deal also places a lifetime coal-consumption cap on the plant unless it commits later to further pollution-control investments, a provision that could lead to the plant’s closure around 2030, Nichols estimates. The EPA has the settlement proposal out for public comment. WildEarth Guardians wants to see an eventual end to the federal government’s coal-leasing program because of the climate-change impacts. Nichols praised the federal government’s recent grants of $50,000 to Moffat County and some $1.2 million to the Montrose-based Region 10 League of Economics Assistance and Planning to work on diversifying their region’s economies so they’re less reliant on coal jobs. “We have an obligation to step up, to make sure that communities that are very dependent on coal can transition to be prosperous and sustainable as they lose that economic base,” Nichols said. Said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association, “It’s a sad commentary if the day arises that these self-reliant communities would have to rely on assistance from the very entity, government, responsible for those job losses and production declines in the first place.” He pointed to government policies like Colorado’s Clean Air Clean Jobs Act, which has resulted in more use of natural gas in power plants, and mandates in Colorado and elsewhere to produce some electricity from renewable sources. Renewables don’t pay royalties, unlike the coal industry, Sanderson said. The coal industry in Colorado paid nearly $41 million in federal and state royalties in 2014, and that’s money that goes to public schools, he said. The state puts total Colorado coal mine employment at about 1,450 people. Nichols said that according to news reports, just one wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, employs about 3,000 people statewide, and overall, the wind industry in the state employs about twice that number. Sanderson said the National Mining Association estimated in 2012 that coal is responsible for about 21,000 jobs in the state, when associated manufacturing, transportation, utility and service jobs are counted. Sanderson said coal workers received an average of $122,000 in pay and benefits. “Can renewables equal that in rural Colorado?” Sanderson asked. But Nichols believe the costs of coal jobs and revenues are too high, with emissions from Colorado coal resulting in tens of millions of tons of climate pollution each year. That doesn’t even count the methane that is vented during coal mining. Methane is considered more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change. In 2013, Nichols said, the EPA estimated that methane pollution from just three mines in the North Fork Valley resulted in the equivalent of 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution.

Xcel Energy: Leading the Way in Reducing Emissions

In a changing utilities marketplace, Xcel Energy continues to lead the way among U.S. utilities in reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Xcel Energy has achieved a significant milestone as the first U.S. utility to verify and register all of its greenhouse gas emissions data for seven consecutive years with The Climate Registry (TCR), a nonprofit organization that designs and operates voluntary and compliance-related greenhouse gas reporting programs throughout the world. "Xcel Energy has tangibly demonstrated its leadership and accountability over the years through its rigorous and high-quality greenhouse gas reporting,'' said David Rosenheim, executive director of TCR. "As countries from around the world gear up for the next U.N. climate conference in November, and the U.S. embarks on measures such as the Clean Power Plan, Xcel Energy should be commended for its vision and foresight in addressing climate and energy issues." Measuring carbon dioxide is complicated. Emissions can be measured at the power plant stack with monitoring equipment, but there are also emissions associated with other operations. "Xcel Energy pledged to begin reducing emissions in 2005, well before many other utilities in the country. Setting a standard to accurately measure these emissions was the first step in fulfilling our commitment," said Frank Prager, vice president, policy and federal affairs for Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy became a member of TCR in 2007 and worked collaboratively to establish consistent, transparent standards for calculating, verifying and publicly reporting all greenhouse gas emissions. "As a founding member of The Climate Registry, we contributed significant expertise and helped develop the protocol for counting emissions in the electric power sector, which ultimately helped us verify that we are meeting our goals," Prager said. Xcel Energy set a new clean energy record Xcel Energy set a new clean energy record Oct. 2 when wind energy supplied 54.3 percent of the power delivered to Colorado customers. This was the first time the company served more than 50 percent of customer daily load with wind for an entire day. ((Photo courtesy of Xcel Energy)) Xcel Energy uses TCR's protocol to annually report all of its greenhouse gas emissions, of which carbon dioxide makes up over 99 percent. The company has Climate Registered status for successfully measuring and reporting emissions from 2005 to 2011. It continues to work with TCR to verify and register emissions for 2012 to 2014. The emissions that Xcel Energy reports are comprehensive, including direct emissions from power plants, indirect emissions from the electricity purchased, and emissions from other parts of operations that are considered optional for reporting. All operations are covered, from supply chain to customers. Data is verified by third parties and reported on TCR's website. Reporting under TCR began as a voluntary effort. Xcel Energy now reports greenhouse gas emissions under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's mandatory reporting rule, as well as to local and state entities. It also publishes emissions in its annual carbon dioxide worksheet and corporate responsibility report and through CDP, formerly Carbon Disclosure Project. All reporting is based on data reported to TCR. Carbon-free energy With measurement comes management. Implementing a clean energy strategy, Xcel Energy is providing more carbon-free energy by modernizing power plants and energy delivery systems to reduce emissions including carbon dioxide. The company is midway through executing a major project for Colorado's Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, passed in 2010. When complete, more than half of the company's coal-fueled generation in Colorado will be retired, replaced or retrofitted. This includes seven coal units since 2010, and in 2017, a fourth coal unit at Cherokee Plant in Adams County and the coal unit at Valmont Plant in Boulder County. Xcel Energy is set next year to more than triple its large solar capacity. Xcel Energy is set next year to more than triple its large solar capacity. This includes an agreement to purchase all the energy from the Comanche solar project in Pueblo, Colorado, which broke ground in August. It is the largest solar power plant east of the Rocky Mountains. ((Photo courtesy of Xcel Energy)) As of 2014, Xcel Energy's carbon dioxide emissions in Colorado are down 26 percent from 2005 levels and expected to fall to 35 percent by 2020. Companywide, Xcel Energy is ahead of what the EPA wants to achieve under the Clean Power Plan. Its early actions will help Colorado meet the Clean Power Plan requirements. "Reflecting on our clean energy efforts over the last decade, I am particularly proud of our ability to make this kind of progress and change, while keeping our prices competitive," said David Eves, president of Public Service Company of Colorado, an Xcel Energy company. Under the approved 2015-2017 electric rate plan, which includes recovery of nearly $1 billion of investments in the Clean Air-Clean Jobs project alone, overall rates are increasing about 1 percent each year on average. Renewable options Through its clean energy strategy, Xcel Energy is also providing a portfolio of clean energy options that customers want and value. As the largest utility wind energy provider in the nation, Xcel Energy has added vast amounts of wind energy and kept prices affordable and competitive. The company set a new clean energy record Oct. 2 when wind energy supplied 54.3 percent of the power delivered to Colorado customers. This was the first time the company served more than 50 percent of customer daily load with wind for an entire day. In addition to the wind power in the energy supply, the company offers customers the option to choose more wind energy for their homes or businesses through its Windsource program. About 41,000 residences and businesses participate statewide. Boulder accounts for around 14 percent of Colorado participation. Solar energy is growing in prominence as a renewable source. Xcel Energy continues to be a top utility for solar power capacity and this year is among the top 10 U.S. utilities in this category (Solar Electric Power Association). The company is adding economical, large solar projects to its energy mix, often referred to as utility-scale solar, while offering other solar solutions as well. "We are committed to solar energy and support a range of choices to meet different customer needs and interests," Eves said. Xcel Energy is set next year to more than triple its large solar capacity. This includes an agreement to purchase all the energy from the Comanche solar project in Pueblo, Colorado, which broke ground in August. It is the largest solar power plant east of the Rocky Mountains. It will produce more than 300 gigawatt-hours of energy a year - enough to supply the energy needs of about 30,000 Colorado homes and avoid the emission of more than 478 million pounds of carbon dioxide. The company's Solar*Rewards program continues to see strong participation. There are around 25,000 rooftop and business-sited systems statewide. Boulder accounts for about 13 percent of Colorado participation. And Xcel Energy's Solar*Rewards Community program, or solar gardens, which began here in Colorado, is growing. Solar gardens offer an alternative to rooftop solar panels, allowing neighbors, nonprofits and businesses to share access to a centrally-located community solar installation. Last month, Xcel Energy announced the winning bids for nearly 30 megawatts of solar projects - including a new 500-kilowatt project in Boulder County by garden developer Clean Energy Collective and a partnership with the city of Boulder, Boulder County and Boulder affordable housing providers. This is in addition to two, 500-kW Boulder County community solar gardens currently installed. "We know customers have many expectations today, not only of cost and reliability, but also of having more options, more control, more convenience and more opportunities to communicate with their energy provider," Eves said. "The utility industry is changing, and adapting to those changes is a key area of focus for Xcel Energy."

New report blames state’s slowing solar sector on fossil fuel groups

After years of rapid growth, Colorado’s once red-hot solar energy industry has faded recently, according to a new report from Environment Colorado, which blames fossil fuel-funded think tanks and utilities for raining on the state’s solar parade. According to “Blocking the Sun: 12 Utilities and Fossil Fuel Interests That Are Undermining American Solar Power,” Colorado’s solar power capacity increased 44 percent a year from 2010 to 2013, but then dropped dramatically between 2013 and 2014, knocking the state from 7th to 10th in terms of solar power capacity per capita in the United States. “Despite the fact that we have one of the best solar assets in the country, Colorado’s market share is shrinking nationwide due to weak utility support and uneven legislative progress,” said Alex Blackmer, president of the 5,000-member Colorado Renewable Energy Society, on a conference call with reporters late last week. Citing 2013 Gallup polling showing 76 percent of Americans would like to see more of an emphasis on solar energy, including 68 percent of Republicans, Colorado solar advocates expressed frustration at the industry’s backwards slide in the state and pointed to big-money special-interest groups in the report. “The Koch brothers’ front group Americans for Prosperity has been working in the shadows to undermine solar power here in Colorado, and our report shows that they’ve been using the same playbook across the country,” said Environment Colorado’s Katie Otterbeck. AFP-Colorado Director Michael Fields said the criticism was off base. “It's not the proper role of government to play favorites with politically connected companies," Fields said in an email. "We support free market solutions to improve our state's energy choices without the unfair advantage of government funds being doled out to companies in hand-picked energy sectors.". Besides the climate benefits of renewable energy, Blackmer pointed to the continued job growth of the solar sector even with the recent decline, noting the solar industry currently employs more people in Colorado than coal mining. Statistics vary on the number of Colorado solar jobs. The nonprofit Solar Foundation in 2013 cited 266 companies employing 3,600 direct solar workers in Colorado, mostly in manufacturing and installation. However, the Solar Energy Industries Association, claims that in 2014 there were 388 solar companies employing 4,200 people in Colorado. By comparison, Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association, told The Colorado Statesman there are 21,000 indirect jobs associated with coal mining in Colorado, 6,200 direct jobs and nearly 2,000 people actually working in the state’s coal mines. Coal production in Colorado ranks the state 11th nationally, and coal mine workers make average annual wages and benefits of $122,000. “To me, it’s not a question of competition amongst jobs,” Sanderson said. “The high-energy-cost community, such as wind and solar, they’re trying to displace fossil fuels, and I think every job is important.” State Rep. Mike Foote, an eastern Boulder County Democrat who represents the cities of Louisville, Lafayette and Longmont, said the vast majority of people in his district and around the state favor developing more renewable energy. But he expects Republicans will once again try to roll back the state’s renewable energy standard that was first approved by voters in 2004. “This year’s effort was marked by big money that was behind it,” Foote said of a bill that passed in the GOP-controlled Senate but failed in the Democrat-controlled House. “The special interests were flying in people from around the country to claim that we need to have less renewable energy, not more.” Foote said he expects foes of renewable energy to try again in the next legislative session beginning in January. Last year’s bill would have reduced the amount of renewable energy required from investor-owned utilities from 30 percent by 2020 to 15 percent, and it would have cut renewable sources for rural electric co-ops from 20 percent to 15 percent. With control of the two chambers split between Republicans and Democrats, Foote doesn’t anticipate being able to pass renewable-energy bills this coming session. “Mostly it was about playing defense against those type of rollback proposals, and I would anticipate the same thing happening again next year,” he said. Sanderson would not say if his trade association would support such rollback efforts, but he said the CMA frowns on energy-source mandates in general. “Overall, we opposed the mandated markets because Xcel Energy consumers would suffer the consequences, and so we generally oppose mandates for any source of energy, whether it’s renewable energy or natural gas,” Sanderson said. “Those are the sectors that have been the subject of much government largess in recent sessions.” Gina Hardin, executive director of the climate advocacy group 350 Colorado, said wind and solar pricing is increasingly competitive with fossil fuel forms of electrical generation. She pointed to a group called Fossil Fuel Free Denver that is trying to get the city off all fossil fuels for electrical generation by 2030. “Because of the stalling on the national and state level, some of the actions (on renewable energy) will have to be directed at local governments,” Hardin said.

Colorado utility looks to charge solar customers for energy they don’t use

The laws of supply and demand are straightforward. Prices reflect the interplay between what people want and how realizable what they want is. But in the world of utilities, nothing is simple – certainly not the prices consumers pay for electricity. That’s because utilities charge customers not only for the power that they use, but also for the grid that they maintain and the power that they generate. Because of this, the infrastructure choices made by a utility have a massive impact on what consumers see on their monthly statement. In Colorado, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a midsized cooperative supplier of energy, is an ideal example of a utility struggling to grapple with poor infrastructure choices. In an effort to become less reliant on natural-gas-based energy, IREA bet heavily on coal. In fact, it built an entire new coal-fired power plant in 2009. Since that time, the cost of natural gas has stabilized while the cost of operating a coal power plant appears set to spike, the result of various state and federal efforts to curb the use of coal. To compensate for its bad bet on coal, IREA is now seeking to adopt a new rate scheme designed to reduce the value of residential solar power. The nexus between a bad bet on coal and the need to undercut solar is not immediately apparent, but makes sense in light of what solar means to IREA’s business model. The value proposition of residential solar power – in the form of cells placed on roofs – is predicated not only on reduced consumption from the grid, but also on the surplus power those systems are able to push back onto the grid. Thus, the IREA loses twice when one of its customers installs solar panels. It sells less electricity from its coal plant and must credit customers for the power their solar systems generate. As solar becomes more popular, the cost of the IREA’s coal investment is spread among fewer customers. This is where supply and demand go out the window. To offset its bad investment in the coal plant, IREA is now seeking to foist a new rate regime on those customers with rooftop solar – charges that bear no relationship to the of the energy those customers use. The rate regime is based on what the IREA is calling a “load factor adjustment.” The plan is to calculate the load factor by looking at kilowatt hours, divided by the product of the customer’s peak demand and the number of billing days in a cycle. Using that formula, if a customer’s load factor falls below a certain threshold, that customer will be assessed a “demand charge.” Confused? You should be. In a sense, the IREA is seeking a rate plan that charges customers for what they don’t use. Yet the purpose of the rate formula becomes clear in light of the fact that the customers to be assessed a demand charge will largely be those with solar systems at their homes. Punishing early adopters of solar energy is bad policy, not only from the perspective of environmental concerns, but also in terms of future grid sustainability. Should the rate regime be adopted, the losers in the deal will count among their number more than IREA’s solar customers. The chilling effect on innovation will be felt throughout the state.

Gov. Hickenlooper announces Colorado Climate Plan

DENVER — Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015 — Gov. John Hickenlooper, business and industry leaders and department directors today released the Colorado Climate Plan, a statewide strategy of policy recommendations and actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to increase Colorado’s level of preparedness. “Colorado is facing a potential increase in both the number and severity of extreme weather events,” said Hickenlooper. “We’ve seen what Mother Nature can do, and additional risks present a considerable set of challenges for the state, our residents, and our way of life. This comprehensive plan puts forth our commitment from the state and sets the groundwork for the collaboration needed to make sure Colorado is prepared.” Colorado has warmed substantially in the last 30 years and even more in the last 50 years, with projected temperatures rising an additional 2.5 degrees by 2050, as reported by Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation. Rising temperatures pose many challenges to Colorado’s environment, health, economy and infrastructure. In response to these risks, the state developed a plan for mitigating and adapting to a broad range of possible impacts from multiple sectors. The Colorado Climate Plan focuses on seven main sectors including water, public health, energy, transportation, agriculture, tourism and recreation, and ecosystems. The plan also includes a chapter highlighting ways local governments and businesses are playing a significant role. Some of the plan’s key recommendations include: Water: Promote and encourage drought preparedness through comprehensive drought planning mitigation implementation; incorporate climate variability and change into Colorado's Water Plan. Public Health: Coordinate with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Public Utilities Commission, the Colorado Energy Office, and additional stakeholders to develop and implement a Colorado-specific plan to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel fired EGUs, in accordance with the EPA's Clean Power Plan; continue to assess potential correlations between vector-borne diseases and climate factors. Energy: Assure the timely and complete attainment of the state's RES 2020 goals; assist all utilities (investor-owned, municipal, and cooperative) in identifying and implementing best practices for integrating cost-effective renewable resources, both utility-scale and distributed; increase access to capital for commercial, residential, agricultural, and industrial customers seeking to improve the energy performance of their facilities. Transportation: Promote and encourage fuel-efficient vehicle technologies and programs to reduce vehicle emissions; provide guidance to local governments on land use planning strategies to promote efficient use of public resources and reduce GHG emissions through compact, transit-oriented development that utilizes smart growth practices and complete streets. Agriculture: Partner with research institutions and federal agencies to support producer's efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change through improved irrigation and efficiency and enhanced tillage practices. Moving forward, the Colorado Climate Plan will serve as a roadmap for state agencies to confront some of the worst effects of climate change and identify priority actions. The state will work to ensure the plan complements other relevant efforts, including the Climate Change in Colorado Report, and the Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study. Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said, "​The Climate Plan helps develop our strategies for protecting public health as our climate changes. It also demonstrates our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Colorado’s own initiatives.” "This plan outlines many steps state agencies can take - and are taking - to both reduce the emissions that affect our climate and prepare for the potential impacts that temperature and weather changes may have on our economy and lifestyle in Colorado,” said Mike King, executive director of the Department of Natural Resources. Contributing agencies include the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado Energy Office, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Colorado Tourism Office and the Department of Local Affairs, along with input from key stakeholders. "This plan highlights the results to date of Colorado's leadership in innovative energy production and efficient energy consumption,” said Jeffrey Ackermann, director of the Colorado Energy Office. “Our continued progress is reinforced by forward-thinking policies like the renewable energy standard, strong public-private partnerships and creative strategies to foster new market development." Public and private sector organizations also contributed to the plan including Apt Environmental, Colorado Municipal League, Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, Colorado State University/ Colorado Water Institute, Denver Water, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, Rocky Mountain Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Western Water Assessment/ CIRES/ University of Colorado, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Xcel Energy and 360 Colorado. The plan, developed to meet the requirements of HB 13-1293, lays out many of the ways the state is working to find solutions. Each state agency that helped develop the plan will hold public engagement sessions specific to their agency throughout the coming year. The Colorado Climate Plan, along with additional information related to the state’s response to climate change is available at http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/climate-change/Pages/main.aspx.

Negative RECs for community solar: Market failure or utility opportunity?

Solar advocates say the Colorado Public Utilities Commission opened the door to a significant market failure when it declined to reconsider a decision allowing Xcel Energy to accept negative Renewable Energy Credits (REC) bids for community solar projects. In states like Colorado with a renewable energy mandate, utilities are required to accumulate a certain number of RECs each year from developers when they contract for mandated renewables generation. The credits normally add a small premium to the price paid by utilities, creating an added incentive for developers. For the first time this summer, Xcel began accepting bids for negative REC prices for community solar arrays in a recent Request for Proposals (RFP). Installers, who say the negative RECs are illegal and are driving a “race to the bottom” in shared solar, filed a complaint with regulators. But the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) saw nothing wrong with negative RECs on their face. In response to the complaint from the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA), the CPUC agreed with Xcel that its RFP that included the negative RECS “does not violate any statute or Commission rule.” The commission, however, did not comment on whether negative RECs fit into the intent of the state’s community solar law, opening up further debate between Xcel and the installers. The ruling allowed the utility to use its market leverage to drive bids down in pursuit of the best deal for its entire customer base, but developers say the negative RECs limit their ability to serve the full range of potential community solar customers. How negative RECs came about In 2013, bidding on community solar projects took REC prices to $0.00. That pushed SunShare SunShare CEO David Amster-Olszewski to first raise the question in 2014 of whether regulators should exercise authority over the competitive bidding process and establish a REC floor price. That, he and other solar advocates argued, could help prevent a utility from taking advantage of its natural monopoly to drive down prices. The commission declined to act on the question, based on proceeding technicalities. It has subsequently stood by its decision in response to more recent filings from CoSEIA and Western Resource Advocates requesting reconsideration. Xcel is compelled by a 2014 Colorado PUC order to construct between 6.5 MW and 30 MW of community solar. When the commission declined to clarify whether it was in keeping with the mandate’s intent for Xcel to let REC prices go negative, the utility naturally seized that opportunity to take the lowest possible bids. In response to its most recent RFP, Xcel accepted bids for 29.5 MW in Colorado projects from SunShare, CEC, and Community Energy Solar, thereby meeting almost the maximum amount of mandated community solar. The REC policy debate Bound by non-disclosure agreements, the utility and the developers cannot specify what REC prices were accepted. Xcel confirmed to Utility Dive that it did, in fact, accept negative REC offers in the bidding. Solar installers say the negative RECs do more than cut into their revenues — they make customers pay more. “The bids are not for the power price. That is set by pre-established tariffs,” explained SunShare CEO David Amster-Olszewski. “When the REC price is positive, the utility pays the customer, but when the REC price becomes negative, the customer pays the utility for the utility to meet its mandate.” Xcel says that lower REC costs mean just the opposite — that they save customers money and allow the utility to invest elsewhere. “The acquisition of the REC, for the purposes of meeting the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard, is recovered from all customers through the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment,” Xcel Rates and Regulatory Affairs VP Alice Jackson said. “The lower cost of the REC from developers benefits our customers directly and allows for those dollars to potentially be spent on other renewable projects.” In a reply to the Colorado SEIA filing, Xcel argued that “bidders are free to bid whatever prices they wish.” “[I]f your members believe that a negative bid price is too low,” it wrote in its filing, taking aim at the solar industry group, “they do not need to offer such a price.” “We will continue to offer a market for vendors to bid to build projects to provide our customers with an additional solar choice,” Jackson said. “The price at which those vendors elect to bid is entirely at their discretion.” Solar installers say they will push forward with new bids and attempt to continue the debate over RECs. “While this makes the 2015 RFP process more difficult, we expect there will be the opportunity to discuss this further with Xcel and the other stakeholders.” said Tom Hunt, VP of corporate development for Clean Energy Collective, a community solar developer. Implications of negative RECs The hopes of those who see community arrays increasing solar access for low and middle income residential utility customers without solar-suitable roofs could be stymied if negative REC bidding continues and/or spreads to other states. Negative REC pricing, SunShare’s Karen Gados told Utility Dive, would likely drive her company and other community solar developers to focus their customer acquisition on the commercial and industrial rate class and bypass lower and middle income residential customers. Clean Energy Collective's Hunt agreed. “We share the concern that negative RECs are not good for the market because they distort mechanisms put in place to get low and middle income residential customers involved." While Colorado wrestles with its negative REC issues, community solar is taking off across the nation. A recently released National Renewable Energy Labs study reported that at least 49% of U.S. households and 48% of businesses do not have solar-suitable rooftops. “By opening the market to these customers, shared solar could represent 32%–49% of the distributed PV market in 2020,” NREL wrote, “thereby leading to growing cumulative PV deployment growth in 2015–2020 of 5.5–11.0 GW, and representing $8.2–$16.3 billion of cumulative investment.” The U.S. community shared solar market will add 115 MW in 2015, a roughly 500% year-on-year increase in growth over the 21 MW added in 2014, and almost twice the 66 MW cumulative installed capacity at the end of last year, according GTM Research’s "Community Solar Outlook 2015-2020." GTM Research forecasts 59% annual growth for community solar over the next five years to reach an annual capacity addition of 500 MW and a cumulative installed capacity of 1,800 MW in 2020. Some 29 developers are now working in community shared solar development, with sector leaders Clean Energy Collective (CEC) and SunShare accounting for 32% of the capacity now online.

Battlement Mesa solar array to switch on this month

1,422 solar panels to power Metro District’s water treatment plant The large solar array that will power the Battlement Mesa Metro District water treatment plant is expected to go live on the Xcel Energy grid later this month, says Katherine Rushton, commercial sales manager for Sunsense Solar. The 1,422 solar panels in the array are rated to generate nearly 700,000 kilowatt-hours per year, comparable to the electricity used by about 100 homes. The array is sized to power 100 percent of the treatment plant’s annual electrical demand. Sunsense Solar of Carbondale built the array for the Metro District using third-party financing, so the upfront cost to the district was $2,500. By locking in the cost of electricity with a financed solar array, the district is expected to save about $3,000 in the first year of operation, and about $200,000 over the coming 20 years. The project came about through a workshop in April 2014 hosted by CLEER, Sunsense Solar and Garfield Clean Energy. Steve Rippy, general manager of the Metro District, was among the local government officials learning about the financing mechanism. Further conversations between Sunsense and the Metro District board, with energy consulting from Matt Shmigelsky of CLEER, brought the project from an idea to a plan of action. “Steve Rippy and the Metro District Board of Directors were very open to learning about how to implement solar through a power purchase agreement,” said Rushton. “Once they understood the concept, they were eager to move forward.” Rushton noted that during the construction, from May 11 to Aug. 20, Water Plant Superintendent Roger Bulla served as the liaison between the Metro District and the construction team. A Sunsense crew of seven solar installers and five assistants built the racks and installed the solar panels, along with 16 inverters that convert direct current (DC) produced by the panels to alternating current (AC) used by the electric grid. Also on the job were three subcontractors. SGM of Glenwood Springs handled structural engineering for the foundation. Lyons Fencing of Silt carried out excavation on the two-acre site and built the concrete foundation and perimeter fencing. Expert Electric of Rifle wired the AC side of the array. “This was a challenging place to build, due to the river rock throughout the site,” Rushton said. “The Sunsense install crew worked closely with Lyons Fencing to remove some very large rocks.” The Battlement Mesa array joins a robust list of government-owned solar arrays across Garfield County. A total of 27 arrays from Battlement Mesa to Carbondale have a total generating capacity of 4.6 megawatts, and produce about 8.4 gigawatt-hours of clean electricity per year.

Aspen, Colorado, Just Became the Third U.S. City to Reach 100 Percent Renewable Energy

Aspen, Colorado, is the third city in the country to have reached 100 percent renewable energy use, including wind, solar and geothermal heat. Burlington, Vermont, and Greensburg, Kansas, were the first two cities to claim their respective titles. “It was a very forward-thinking goal and truly remarkable achievement,” David Hornbacher, director of Aspen’s city utilities and environmental initiatives, told the Aspen Times. “This means we are powered by the forces of nature, predominately water and wind with a touch of solar and landfill gas.” Hornbacher said the milestone is the result of a “decades-plus” city goal. The 100 percent goal was reached once the city signed a contract with Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska, a wholesale electric energy provider. Before its contract with MEAN, the city was using anywhere from 75-80 percent renewable energy sources. But the city planned had planned for this day to come much sooner – about 10 years sooner. Despite challenges along the way, however, Hornbacher applauded the “small, progressive community” for working together to “demonstrate that it is possible.” “Realistically, we hope we can inspire others to achieve these higher goals,” Hornbacher said.

Top 10 Solar States Have Strong Renewable Energy Policies

Solar electric power tripled in the U.S. between 2012 and 2014, with 10 states responsible for 86% of the nation's solar electricity capacity, according to a new report by the Environment America Research & Policy Center. Solar policies are closely correlated with solar ranking, the report says. All of the top 10 states in the report for solar capacity per capita - Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Colorado - have some combination of policies that directly contribute to the growth of solar capacity, the report found. Policies among the top 10 states include the following: Nine have strong net-metering policies and, in most, consumers are compensated at the full retail rate for the excess electricity they supply to the grid; Nine have strong statewide solar interconnection policies; All have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and eight have carve-outs that set specific targets for solar; Nine allow creative financing options, such as third-party power purchase agreements; and Nine allow property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing. "Our analysis shows that policy choices are a key driver of solar energy growth," says Gideon Weissman of Frontier Group, co-author of the report. "State and local government policy leadership is closely aligned with success in growing solar energy." Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, says that over the last five years, the solar sector has become one of the fastest-growing industries in the U.S., with an estimated annual value of $18 billion and currently employing 174,000 workers. However, for this growth to continue, he says, stable and effective state and federal public policies, such as the federal investment tax credit, state RPS, PACE financing and net energy metering, need to be extended and even expanded. "Environment America’s new report correctly points out that smart public policies and the development of clean, affordable solar energy go hand in hand," Resch says.

Fossil Fuels Losing Cost Advantage Over Solar and Wind

The cost of producing electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind has dropped significantly over the past five years, narrowing the gap with power generated from fossil fuels and nuclear reactors, according to the International Energy Agency. “The costs of renewable technologies – in particular solar photovoltaic – have declined significantly over the past five years,” the Paris-based IEA said in a report called Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. “These technologies are no longer cost outliers.” The median cost of producing so-called baseload power that is available all the time from natural gas, coal and atomic plants was about $100 a megawatt-hour for 2015 compared with about $200 for solar, which dropped from $500 in 2010. Those costs take into account investment, fuel, maintenance and dismantling of the installations over their lifetimes and vary widely between countries and plants. For instance, commercial rooftop solar installations generate power for $311.77 a megawatt-hour in Belgium and $166.70 in sunnier Spain, the findings show. The IEA findings come as more than 190 nations prepare to broker a new climate agreement in Paris in December to limit carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Based on figures from 181 power plants in 22 countries, the study concludes that no single technology is the cheapest under all circumstances and costs depend “highly” on available resources, labor costs and local regulations. Cost Increases The median costs of power generation from gas and coal rose over the five-year period, the agency said. For atomic energy, the findings indicate that costs are “roughly on par” with those reported in 2010, “thus undermining the growing narrative that nuclear costs continue to increase globally.” The costs are expected to change considerably in the coming decades as new technologies are deployed. Coal plants will become as much as 70 percent more expensive if they include equipment to capture carbon emissions while offshore wind and solar costs are expected to fall, the IEA study showed. New utility-size solar installations could produce power for less than $100 a megawatt-hour before 2025 in the sunniest regions while panels on rooftops could reach that level five years later. In Europe, governments have set targets for lowering carbon emissions and producing power from renewables such as solar and wind. The U.K. is in the process of making a final decision on developing costly nuclear plants while Germany has increased generation from coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, following a phase out of atomic plants after the Japanese disaster at Fukushima in 2011.

Colorado Solar Victory on Net Metering

The Public Utilities Commission majority decided this morning that no immediate changes are needed to net metering in Colorado. In a discussion, Chairman Joshua Epel and commissioner Pam Patton agreed there is no rush to change the key policy of giving solar rooftop owners retail credit for the energy they produce. Commissioner Glenn Vaad earlier said he thinks the credit is too high. While a written order will provide greater clarification, this appears to be the outcome we have been working towards in more than a year of work on this docket that has included four workshops and numerous written filings. We have worked in full collaboration with other members of the solar industry and this represents a tremendous amount of hard work from many people. Citing political battles around the nation on net metering, Epel said, ` It is in our interests to continue net metering and not referee a philosophical dispute - that's not the Colorado way...I see no need to change the policy on one to one retail rate credit.'' He also reiterated that all parties agree that if solar customers meet requirements, utilities must allow interconnection. Commissioner Pam Patton said, ``We do not have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed.'' The commission is closing the proceeding, and members suggested policy changes would be up to the legislature, although some issues could be brought up in a later proceeding such as a rate case.

Solar Beats Gas in Colorado

“For the first time, the company received bids for utility-scale solar PV resources that are cost-effective head to head with natural-gas fired generation,” Public Service of Colorado said in the report. SunEdison Inc., the biggest clean-energy developer, began construction on a Colorado solar farm that will be the largest in the state and comes out ahead in direct competition with natural gas. The 156-megawatt Comanche solar farm will deliver power to Excel Energy Inc.’s Public Service of Colorado utility under a 25-year agreement, Maryland Heights, Missouri-based SunEdison said in a statement Thursday. The utility awarded the contract through an open solicitation, with the solar farm beating out other power sources including gas, SunEdison said. The deal shows that renewable energy is increasingly able to compete on price with fossil fuels. Utilities that are planning for future demand growth are looking more carefully at solar panels and wind turbines, which will be cheaper to operate over the next few decades in part because they have no fuel costs, said Julie Blunden, chief strategy officer at SunEdison. “We actually can offer solar and wind that’s cheaper than gas,” Blunden said in a phone interview Thursday. “It’s such an important inflection point. We can sell power without any fuel-price risk.” State Policy Buying power from Comanche will also help Public Service of Colorado meet state policies that require investor-owned utilities to get 30 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, operated by North Carolina State University. Public Service of Colorado told regulators in a 2013 report it had received proposals for solar photovoltaic power that was competitive with gas priced at $5.90 per million British thermal units over a 20-year period. Another project was competitive with gas at $5.96 over 25 years. While the redacted report doesn’t identify the solar farms, Blunden said Comanche was one of the power plants that received contracts through the 2013 solicitation process. Natural gas for delivery on Friday to the Denver area was $2.55 per million British thermal units, according to data from Intercontinental Exchange Inc. Rising demand as new gas plants come online over the next few years will likely increase that price. The utility’s base gas forecast shows prices exceeding $6 by about 2020. “For the first time, the company received bids for utility-scale solar PV resources that are cost-effective head to head with natural-gas fired generation,” Public Service of Colorado said in the report.

Colorado Energy Office awards $1.2 million grant funding to GRID Alternatives for low-income solar project

The Colorado Energy Office is awarding $1.2 million in grant funding to GRID Alternatives, a nonprofit organization, to implement a solar demonstration project for low-income communities in Colorado. Building on Colorado’s national leadership in community solar, the project will focus on the state’s low-income electric energy burden, making solar more accessible and affordable. “This project will give us the opportunity to demonstrate how solar generation can be a sustainable solution to reduce electric bills for Coloradans who carry the greatest energy burden,” said Jeffrey Ackermann, director of the Colorado Energy Office. “And it will assist Colorado’s electric utilities in diversifying their electricity portfolios.” The demonstration project will involve the development of 5 to 12 community solar systems, ranging in size from 50 kW to 500 kW, solely for low-income shareholders. Cumulatively, the demonstration project will provide more than 1 MW of solar generation. Each system will be developed in partnership with utilities focused predominantly in the rural areas. Once complete, a minimum of 300 low-income households throughout the state will have access to community solar priced at an affordable rate. Approximately 30 percent of Colorado’s households are considered energy burdened, many of which are located in rural parts of the state. Of that 30 percent, 11 percent are considered energy impoverished, paying more than 10 percent of their income on utility bills. Energy burdened households are those that pay more than 4 percent of their annual income on utility bills. “Colorado has been effective in helping to reduce heating costs for low-income households through utility bill assistance and the state’s weatherization assistance program,” said Joseph Pereira, director of the Colorado Energy Office’s weatherization assistance program. “To address Colorado’s low-income energy burden more comprehensively, we have to continue to find ways to reduce electric costs.” The demonstration project aligns with a new initiative launched by the White House, which is designed to increase solar access for all Americans. The initiative includes actions to scale up solar access and cut energy bills in communities across America.

How renewable energy can save utilities money

A number of national policymakers, utilities, and industry groups have repeatedly claimed President Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulations for existing power plants will raise utility costs and sacrifice reliable electricity service. But Colorado tells a very different story, where renewable energy is replacing coal power plants and driving down the cost of electricity service without sacrificing reliability. Consider the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recent rejection of a lawsuit claiming the state’s renewable energy standard was illegal and raised consumer utility bills because it limits out-of-state coal plants from selling electricity. In 2004, Colorado voters passed Amendment 37, the nation’s first renewable energy standard adopted by popular ballot. The original standard was 10% renewables by 2015, since increased twice by the state legislature to 30% by 2020. The first promise of the ballot measure was to “save consumers and businesses money." The latest utility bids for new renewable energy in Colorado show the promise to voters — renewable energy would grow up to save consumers’ money — has been kept. Every four years, Colorado’s regulated electric utilities develop a plan to buy or build new generation to meet future electricity demand. Those plans are submitted to the Public Utilities Commission, which approves a portfolio of resources to be put out for bids. Once the bids are evaluated, utilities submit their recommended portfolio of projects for approval and then negotiate contracts with the winning bidders. In 2011, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) embarked on its scheduled planning, bidding, and contracting process after a decision to close 903 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired generation to comply with EPA ozone standards in the Denver air basin. While new natural gas plants replaced most of the early-retired coal, some of the early-retired coal was temporarily converted to run on natural gas, until the 2011 planning case could reveal better options – with surprising results. PSCo received bids for more than 6,200 MW of new generation in response to its RFP, about seven times the amount sought. Early in the evaluation process, PSCo revealed some wind and solar bids appeared to be lower than the cost of generation from its existing fleet. In December 2013, the PUC approved the utility’s acquisition of 450 MW of wind and 170 MW of solar generation along with some new natural gas capacity. Importantly, the prices bid for these renewable resources were lower than system average generation cost. In other words, the new wind and solar resources will reduce costs and save consumers money. Based on PSCo’s bid evaluations, we know the economics of solar and wind cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. Colorado enjoys terrific wind and solar resources that can be mobilized at low cost. Results might differ where resources are less productive or industry is less mature. Solar and wind investment and production tax credits also improve the economics of these resources. And new financing methods have brought down solar costs, providing lower cost investment funding and reducing energy prices. But other factors worked against these resources. Wind plants had to cover their own transmission costs to reach sometimes-distant points of interconnection with the utility. No carbon costs were considered in the analysis, even though zero-carbon resources like wind and solar reduce the utility’s carbon footprint. With new wind and solar below system average costs, interesting questions arise: Which additional fossil plants should be considered for early retirement? How can utility financial concerns about early retirement be addressed? If this trend of lower renewable costs continues, how will utilities need to change grid operations to accommodate more variable generation? Finally, what incentives could be provided to utilities to move more quickly toward lower-cost clean energy? Several approaches set out in America’s Power Plan can help policymakers answer these tough questions. Drawn from the expertise of over 150 electricity industry experts, the policy recommendations from America’s Power Plan provide a roadmap to a high renewables future without sacrificing affordability or reliability. One of the plan’s main recommendations, moving toward performance-based regulation of utilities to reward shifting to a cleaner and more reliable grid, is already being explored in Colorado. Smart regulation combined with rapidly improving economics of solar and wind are making Colorado’s electricity system more affordable and cleaner. PSCo’s experience shows wind and solar at utility scale can reduce consumer costs when included in a balanced generation portfolio. As wind and solar markets expand, these lower costs will benefit customers in additional states, facilitating the transition to a clean, affordable, reliable electricity system.

Colorado reaction to Obama's 'Clean Power Plan'

President Barack Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” — designed to slash the nation’s carbon dioxide production by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels — drew responses from across the spectrum in Colorado. Colorado Senate President Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, said that the Senate Republicans were “disappointed" in the rules and pledged that his Republican colleagues in the Senate would propose a bill in January 2016 that requires the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to hold public hearings on the state’s compliance plan. Cadman said he’ll also seek to have the commission approve the state’s plan "before any state agency adopts rules to implement this costly electric power generation mandate in Colorado.” On the other end of the spectrum, Bob Keefe, the executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) — a national community of business leaders — said the now final rule is “the most significant environmental policy we’ve seen in recent years, and also a huge catalyst for economic growth.” The Denver Business Journal's story about the plan is here. Read on for a roundup of what folks around the state are saying: Colorado Senate President Bill Cadma n (R-Colorado Springs): “Senate Republicans are disappointed by the EPA rules rolled out today by the Obama administration. I can promise that Senate Republicans will offer legislation in January to require full PUC public hearings and PUC approval before any state agency adopts rules to implement this costly electric power generation mandate in Colorado. This President continues to show complete disdain for Congress with another end-run around the legislative process. The liberal extremists are conspiring with the White House to eviscerate federalism, the separation of powers and state’s rights.” U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette(D-Denver) "We are already experiencing disruptions due to climate change, and the overwhelming scientific consensus says that such problems will only get worse. In Colorado, that has meant severe drought, wildfires, unprecedented floods and many other severe events that cost our communities dearly. If we can take steps to reduce the odds of such disasters in the future, we have an obligation to do so. Fortunately, our experience in Colorado shows that we can take meaningful action that breathes new vitality into our economy at the same time. The Clean Power Plan will push states to transition to cleaner power sources, reducing the emissions from the sector that currently produces more carbon pollution than any other. Colorado has already taken important steps towards using renewable energy, and we have seen clean new businesses, industry sectors and our broader economy flourish as new clean and renewable energy options come to market." Jill Ryan , Eagle County Commissioner “Ski resorts are already feeling the impacts of a warmer climate on the length and quality of ski seasons, and climate change could threaten their very existence. It doesn’t take much to undermine our tourism economy. Only a 1 percent dip in tourists to Colorado ski resorts would cost more than $375 million and 4,500 jobs. The Clean Power Plan represents an opportunity for Colorado to craft a plan to continue its leadership in reducing carbon emissions. It is a necessary but flexible step to effectively address climate change and keep visitors from across the world coming to Colorado for world-class skiing.” Chris Brown, President of Vestas-American Wind Technology, Inc. “The Clean Power Plan is a significant step in the right direction. It’s not something that will alter our market potential in the short run but if the plan is adopted, it will create a more stable U.S. market for renewable energy in the long run. ... The Clean Power Plan is definitely achievable, and wind energy is the quickest and most cost effective way for states to meet the reductions. Wind is already helping states meet their clean energy needs and can do more while creating new jobs and benefiting local economies. More wind can be integrated into the grid reliably; many states and regions are adding large quantities of wind to the electricity mix while maintaining grid stability.” Ben Fowke, chairman, president and CEO of Xcel Energy Inc. “Implementing clean energy is familiar ground for Xcel Energy. We have worked for years with our states to increase the use of renewable resources, to help customers save energy and to modernize and retire our coal plants – all at a reasonable cost. This approach has put our company on a sound course to achieve a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide by 2020. “We appreciate the EPA’s willingness to work with stakeholders in developing this groundbreaking and complex set of regulations. It will take time to thoroughly review and assess the full impact of the rules. While we expect the Clean Power Plan does not provide everything we hoped for in terms of fully recognizing the early actions of proactive states and utilities, Xcel Energy is ready to move ahead. We look forward to working with our states in the best interest of our customers, ensuring we continue to meet their expectations for clean, reliable and affordable power.” Joel Serface, managing director of Brightman Energy, a renewable energy development company. “The Clean Power Plan is a huge opportunity for Colorado’s economy. By tackling the rising economic costs of climate change, we can modernize our energy infrastructure, stimulate innovation and help create thousands of good, new Colorado jobs in high-growth sectors like wind and solar.” State Sen. John B. Cooke(R-Weld County): “The Governor needs to commit himself to a true public process, including a rigorous review by the people’s representatives in the Colorado General Assembly, before giving a green light to Colorado’s implementation of this new federal mandate. These rules are being challenged in federal court by sixteen states, and I hope that Colorado’s Attorney General will join that lawsuit now that the EPA rules are final. The fact is, the Clean Air Act passed by Congress does not authorize these costly dictates, and there is a good chance the US Supreme Court will block these rules for that reason.” Kim Tyrrell, Air Quality Programs Manager, American Lung Association in Colorado “Nationwide, the Clean Power Plan will prevent up to 90,000 asthma attacks and 3,600 premature deaths each year starting in 2030. That’s important for Colorado’s more than 135,790 children with asthma who face greater health risks from air pollution and climate change. Undeniable evidence tells us that our warming climate threatens public health and safety. Right here in Colorado, we see the impacts firsthand: in our air quality, where our ozone is worse than it should be; where we have more particle pollution from more wildfires and drought; and where we face more extreme weather events, including heat waves and flooding." Jonathan Lockwood, executive director for Advancing Colorado, which advocates for free markets “This very strict, and extreme, so-called power plan is dirty, expensive and unnecessary. What we are seeing is a job-killing ideological push that will increase energy costs on Colorado families. This is a costly crusade that hurts our families and communities, and we need to speak out against politicians like Sen. Michael Bennet and Gov. John Hickenlooper who praise and bow down to this plan.” Rebecca Cantwell, Executive Director, Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association “Colorado’s solar industry looks forward to playing a leading role in achieving Clean Power Plan targets while driving down the long-term cost of power, increasing reliability and providing thousands of jobs across our state.” Tim Gaudette, Colorado Outreach Manager for Small Business Majority "Energy expenses can adversely impact small businesses’ bottom lines and cut into their profits. That’s why small employers want sound policies — like the Clean Power Plan — that transition the U.S. to a clean energy economy so they can spend less on utility bills and have more cash available to invest in and expand their companies."

Massive Energy Shift Taking Place

Speakers at the opening plenary of the IEEE’s Power and Energy Society international conference in Denver on Monday talked about big, sweeping changes now underway in how we produce, distribute, and consume electricity. Solar and wind soon will be competitive with fossil fuels without the need for subsidies. They’re being integrated into existing systems at volumes thought impossible a decade ago. They talked about game changers, return on investment, and the need for policies that Dan Arvizu, director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, says are needed to spur capital markets to invest in new technology and infrastructure. It’s clear, said Arvizu, that the resources are available to create electricity while severely reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But new business models are needed to make it happen. “We’re in the midst of a massive transformation, not just domestically but globally,” he said in opening the plenary. In 2013, he explained, the amount of new generating sources from alternative energy surpassed new generation from conventional fossil fuels. Within a decade, he predicted, three-quarters of all new energy coming on line will be from renewables, mostly wind and solar. In the United States, 13 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources, about half hydro and the other half wind, solar, and other renewables. Arvizu also predicted disruptive technologies on multiple fronts. Solar today has 200 gigawatts of capacity globally. About one-tenth of that is in the United States. “We’re now looking at power-purchase agreements globally that are less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour,” he said. That’s competitive with and in some cases lower than electricity from coal and natural gas. Photovoltaic, he said, will not provide the technology for the big jump, however. “It is not the technology that will get us from gigawatt scale to terawatt scale.” Instead, he explained high-efficiency thin films that will boost commercial module efficiency to 16 percent. Tandem cells have the potential to improve efficiency from 10 percent to over 30 percent. “Very shortly, these technologies will be available in the marketplace without any subsidies (needed),” he said. Integrating renewables into the electrical system will require changes, but not necessarily giant infrastructure investment. He cited an NREL study that found the grid in the Western states can absorb up to 35 percent renewable energy. “This can be done, and it can be done now,” he said. “It requires we do some things differently. It requires that we do it in a different way. But it can be done.” Wind technologies, he went on to say, are now delivering electricity at 3 cents per kilowatt hour “and progress continues to be made.” More is coming, he added. “There are lots and lots of technology opportunities in this space.” Arvizu also talked about the energy systems integration in a new major laboratory at the NREL campus in Golden as well as 16 other national labs. The national programs are spending roughly $200 million in grid modernization. The labs seek to fundamentally redefine how renewables and demand-side management strategies are integrated into homes and businesses, a shift from the centralized power plants of the 20th century that sought to simply—and wastefully—always have power whenever anybody turned on a switch. At the NREL campus, for example, scientists are studying how electric cars provide home-based battery storage. Local storage is, in some ways, a game changer, in Arvizu’s view. And that was also the view Mark McGranaghan, the vice president of power delivery and utilization for the Electric Power Research Institute, the research and development arm of the utility industry. But he said utilities have to be in the middle of the storage. But like Arvizu, he also sees the maturing of solar technology such that subsidies are no longer needed. David Sun, senior fellow and chief scientist at Alstom Grid, emphasized the fundamental shift to engage consumers into choices. “I am no longer a passive consumer of kilowatt hours. I have many choices,” he said. “I am not speaking of a centralized market. I am talking about a free market place where we have choices.” Electrical providers going forward can’t just be suppliers but must find ways to provide “valued services,” he said. The next panel had representatives of Colorado’s two largest electrical providers. Xcel Energy delivers power to roughly 60 percent of Colorado customers through its subsidiary, Public Service Co. of Colorado, and it has gained a name for itself as the nation’s largest developer of wind energy, at least partly the result of voter and legislative mandates in Colorado beginning in 2004, as well as those in other states. A decade later, the results have been almost shocking. On Nov. 1 last year, at midnight, 61.1 percent of all electricity delivered by the Public Service Co. of Colorado came from wind power, reported Teresa Mogensen, senior vice president of transmission for Xcel. Admittedly, she added, it was a time of low demand. But forecasting is a large part of being able to add on substantial amounts of renewables, she said, “so we continue to grow in capability there.” Integration of renewables can be done, but “it just takes time.” But Mogensen also emphasized the need for cost recovery of investments. There is much misunderstanding and many misconceptions about what it takes to drive change, she said and described communication of that as a major challenge. The most skeptical speaker in talking about changes was Joel Bladow, senior vice president of transmission for Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association. Tri-State is the wholesale provider for 44 cooperatives in a four-state region. The service territory is as large as all of California, Bladow said, but with one-10th the load. That means Tri-State’s 1.5 million customers are widely dispersed, with just four meters per mile, on average, unlike the more densely and hence economically serviced cities and suburbs. While Tri-State has added substantial amounts of wind and solar generation to its portfolio in the last 10 years, Bladow struck a cautious and conservative tone. “At the end of the day, affordability and reliability is what we focus on,” he said. He also cautioned about studies with sweeping and optimistic results. A lot of times, you need to go to the appendixes to study the assumptions upon which those projections are based. And it comes down to money. “One thing I have learned over my career is that there were a lot of great ideas that are not economical.” Some great ideas of just 10 to 15 years ago have disappeared, he added. As for developing future renewables, Bladow talked about the difficulty of siting transmission lines. He used the example of Colorado’s San Luis Valley, where Tri-State and Xcel proposed to partner on development of the vast solar potential. To get it to consumers, the utilities proposed a high-voltage transmission line across the Sangre de Cristo Range, using a corridor over La Veta Pass and the ranch of billionaire hedge-fund manager Louis Bacon. Bacon successfully rebuffed the transmission line, and the defeat obviously still stings. “And the governor (Bill Ritter) did not issue one public statement in support of building that transmission,” he said. “Ultimately, it died.” In response to a question, Arvizu shifted the discussion from technology to policy. If it’s really 80 percent carbon education that we need, he said, then it’s not just a matter of technology. “It’s now understood that we have available resources that are abundant, and we can do a lot more.” But the right policies are needed to stimulate the private market to make changes, he added. He did not identify the policies he thinks are needed. He called the renewable portfolio stand and feed-in tariffs “blunt tools” that have been effective in creating markets, but are not the policy tools “that we need to get us to the objectives.… Ultimately, those policy tools will need to change.” “The capital markets must be the ones making the trillion dollar investments that are required for transformation over the next 20 years. The capital markets will need to be engaged.” Was Joel Bladow wrong in his caution and Dan Arvizu right in his optimism? We’ll know in another decade.