Colorado’s Power Plants are Major Global Warming Polluters New Report: The Proposed EPA Clean Power Plan Is an Internationally Significant Step Forward on Climate

Denver, CO –As international leaders prepare for the United Nations Climate Summit next week in New York, a new study shows Colorado’s power plants dumped as much carbon pollution into the atmosphere as the entire country of New Zealand in 2012. Environmental advocates, local elected officials and clean energy business leaders pointed to the data to support proposed limits on carbon pollution from power plants. “When power plants here in Colorado create as much pollution as an entire country, we know the climate’s in trouble,” said Travis Madsen, Senior Manager for Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center. “Colorado’s making progress in cleaning up our pollution, but we need to accelerate our investments in clean energy.” The Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center report, America’s Dirtiest Power Plants, comes as more than a hundred thousand activists and world leaders converge in New York City seeking solutions to climate change, which scientists have clearly linked to extreme weather events such as the extreme downpour and flooding that struck the Front Range last September, displacing more than 100,000 people from their homes. The report also comes as the Environmental Protection Agency takes public comments on proposed, first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants. If enacted, the limits would be the largest single step the United States or any country has ever taken to cut global warming emissions. By comparing carbon emissions from U.S. power plants in 2012 to total carbon emissions of entire countries, the Environment Colorado analysis shows why limiting pollution from coal plants would make such a big impact. Key findings include: If the United States’ fleet of coal- and gas-burning power plants were a country, it would be the 3rd-largest carbon polluter, behind the entire U.S. and China. The Craig Station in Craig is Colorado’s largest global warming polluter, followed by the Comanche plant in Pueblo. These power plants are the 52nd and 54th most-polluting plants in the country. Colorado ranks 19th in the nation for total carbon pollution from power plants. Altogether, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan would reduce as much carbon pollution in 2030 as the entire country of Canada, the world’s 8th-largest polluter, emits today. The Clean Power Plan would also spur investments in clean energy like wind and solar power, for which there is vast potential across the country and in Colorado. “Colorado has taken important steps to cut its carbon pollution and invest in clean energy, including measures to strengthen the renewable energy standard, boosting geothermal projects across the state, and incentivizing drivers and companies to switch to electric and alternative fuel vehicles,” said State Representative Mike Foote. “This is a good start, but we all know more must be done to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.” “Solar energy reduces carbon pollution – nationally it will help us avoid 13.8 million metric tons of CO2 this year,” said Rebecca Cantwell, Executive Director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association. “And the Clean Power Plan will help create jobs and economic development with more solar energy. This report shows how important it is to get started right away.” Americans have submitted more than 6 million comments to EPA supporting limits on carbon pollution from power plants; and more than a thousand people testified in support of the Clean Power Plan at hearings held across the country this summer, including a hearing in Denver in August. Local elected officials, small businesses owners and dozens of members of Congress have all voiced support for limits on carbon pollution. In Denver, supportive testimony outnumbered those opposed by five to one and more than 300 people attended supportive rallies. “The Clean Power Plan gives Colorado a new opportunity to take charge of our energy future,” said Madsen. “Senator Udall has supported climate action and now it’s especially important that he continue to stand up to polluters and back EPA’s plan.”

Community solar' power grows in Colorado

The amount of electricity generated by "community solar" power systems has grown rapidly in the last few years in Colorado — and may be poised for even bigger growth. "Community solar" is the name given to commercial-sized solar power systems in which individuals or businesses can buy or lease individual solar power panels — and get credit off their monthly bill for the renewable power generated by the systems. The systems generally range in capacity between 500 kilowatts and 2 megawatts. The systems allow homeowners and business people who want solar power but can't put a system on their own rooftops because they rent the home, live in an apartment complex, or the roof is too shaded or faces the wrong direction. Solar gardens allow those customers to buy into a larger solar array and get credit for the solar power that's generated. The first system came online in Colorado in 2009, when United Power, a Brighton-based rural electric cooperative serving more than 67,000 customers in areas of six counties north of Denver, was the first utility to create a solar garden with 48 solar power panels. The coop installed another 48 panels in August 2010.

76% Of Coloradans Support Rooftop Solar, New Poll Finds

A telephone poll, carried out between August 21-24, found that 76% of Coloradans support net metering. 73% were opposed to the state’s largest utility, XCEL Energy, cutting the amount of credit it provides for customers who feed electricity into the grid. Yet according to Gabriel Romero, a media relations specialist from XCEL Energy, “The only thing regarding rooftop solar that’s on the table right now is a discussion about how to classify net metering.” Keating Research and Public Opinion Strategies contacted 500 registered voters from all across Colorado. According to information in the form, respondents were from all political persuasions and income levels. “This poll demonstrates increased public understanding of and support for solar net metering and a willingness to defend the tremendous benefits it has already delivered to Colorado,” said Walker Wright, spokesperson for The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and Director of Government Affairs at Sunrun. “Coloradans want the choice for self-generated solar power, which contributes to the grid’s improvement while creating jobs in a growing industry.”

Utah commission rejects proposed fee for solar homes

Utahns with rooftop solar panels won’t face a new fee from Rocky Mountain Power after the Utah Public Service Commission ruled Friday that the utility company failed to prove such a charge is “just and reasonable.” But this contentious debate pitting the state’s largest electric company against environmental groups isn’t going away. The Commission is open to revisiting the issue as long as Rocky Mountain Power can provide some hard data proving these customers should be treated differently than others who just use less energy than the average family. Renewable energy advocates hailed the ruling as a major victory. “What a bright day for Utah’s future,” said Sarah Wright, executive director of Utah Clean Energy. “This order protects energy choice in Utah, and recognizes the potential solar has to benefit all Utahns.” Rocky Mountain Power framed the ruling as a minor setback in on an issue that’s far from being settled. “It is a little disappointing that the commission did not take at least an interim step,” said Dave Eskelsen, a spokesman for the power company. “We understand that emotions are running high. We look forward to participating in the accumulation of more information.” This high-profile fight has far more to do with Utah’s energy future than the dollars and cents at stake today. Rocky Mountain Power wanted to levy a $4.65 per month fee for “net meter” customers, a group of early solar adopters who number about 2,700. If the fee was implemented, it would raise just $150,000 the first year. At the same time, the commission did approve a small rate increase for all residential customers that is expected to net the company $35 million in the next year. That 1.9 percent rate increase, which goes into effect on Monday, means the average energy bill will go up $1.76 per month. The commission also approved another general rate increase for Sept. 2015 that would add another 73 cents per month to the average bill. Nevertheless, the number of homes with solar panels is growing and Rocky Mountain Power argued in a contentious two-day hearing last month that these customers are not paying their fair share of the utility’s fixed costs to maintain the power system. Eskelsen said that fixed costs could be as high as $30 per month and that the proposed fee was only $4.65 because that was in line with what the Utah Division of Public Utilities and the Office of Consumer Services, both government entities, would support. Groups including HEAL Utah and the Alliance for Solar Choice questioned Rocky Mountain’s motives, suggesting the power company is trying to dissuade people from going solar to protect its business model and that utilities are using the state as a test case. “It’s a victory for clean air and clean energy, and a strong rebuke to Rocky Mountain Power, who once again showed themselves to be more concerned about protecting their dirty energy monopoly than the health and well-being of Utah’s families,” said Christopher Thomas, executive director of HEAL Utah. For Bryan Miller, Friday’s ruling was not so much a victory for the environment as for property rights and consumer choice. “This is by no means over. We applaud the commission for taking the reasonable step of having a transparent discussion,” Miller said. “The commission concluded doing a thoughtful cost-benefit study was the right approach. Transparency is the interest of all ratepayers.” Eskelsen said the conspiracy accusations are “overreaching” and said the company’s only motive was “to make sure that rates cover the costs of providing service.” Net metered customers bank credit for the excess power they generate and pump into the grid, then redeem the credit at those times of day when their solar panels can’t meet their electrical needs.

Utilities Balk As Customers Embrace Rooftop Solar

The cost of solar is falling rapidly – down 60 percent since 2011. These days, solar is not only good for the environment; it's becoming more of a smart financial move for households and communities. "Since 2006, solar installations in the United States have increased by 1600-percent, and the overall market is expected to grow by a factor of ten between 2010 and 2016." Utilities aren’t all happy about this trend. In fact, many are fighting against it. That’s because more customers putting solar panels up on their rooftops means utilities will be selling less power to them. Additionally, in most states, utilities are actually required to buy any excess power those customers produce beyond what they are using at any given time, through a system called net metering. "That’s a concern," said Xcel Energy Vice President of Policy and Staff Frank Prager. "That’s why we’re trying to address it today before it gets to be too big a concern." Xcel, and many other major utilities across the country, are members of an industry trade group called the Edison Electric Institute. In a 2013 report called "Disruptive Challenges," the institute said this trend – more customers selling electricity to the utility, rather than buying from them – is simply not a sustainable business model. Even though rooftop solar is such a small share of the nation’s overall electricity production at this stage (far less than one-half of 1 percent in most of the U.S.), EEI suggests the industry supports measures that would discourage more rooftop solar expansion. That’s happening around the country. For example, Arizona Public Service fought hard in 2013 to put in place fees on rooftop solar customers of between $50 and $100 per month. State regulators eventually agreed to a much smaller fee of about $5 per month. In Colorado, Xcel is asking the public utilities commission to cut the net metering credit with both sides of the issue sparring over solar's value. For Xcel, it’s meant a major ad campaign, advocating big fields of solar panels controlled by the utility, not by the customer. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research studies how to bring more renewable power online. President Arjun Makhijani said utilities are entrenched, having traditionally relied on guaranteed rates of return. "They’re not used to new things coming along that would challenge this very comfortable state of affairs," Makhijani said. In Boulder, Colorado, Xcel's customers aren't falling on the utilities' side of status quo. "Xcel either changes to match technology or they're gonna get left behind," said resident Don Dugger while looking out at the new solar installation going up on his roof. The way he sees it, battery technology for storing solar is coming along fast enough. "We won’t need the grid at all!" Dugger said. While that may be far-fetched, changes are coming. Even as utilities try to fight rooftop solar, some are also preparing for its continued advance. Even Arizona Public Service, which fought so hard for those greater fees on solar customers, is jumping into the market itself. APS has announced a brand new program – leasing rooftop solar panels to their customers as an option to bring down electric bills.

Adams County, CO first county in nation to invest in community solar garden

The community solar model is quickly emerging as a viable and desirable source of renewable energy. Adams County, Co. is the next community to invest in the shared solar model, making it the first county in the nation to partner in a community solar garden. In 2010, the Colorado State legislature led the nation by passing the country's first Community Solar Gardens Act to allow customers who aren't able to put solar panels on their homes to buy solar energy from a solar array located in their community. Since then, 16 states from Minnesota to California have developed legislation creating their own community solar gardens programs. Denver-based SunShare, who already has more than 11 MW of community solar gardens built or under development in Colorado, is providing the garden for Adams County. SunShare has projects underway with Colorado Springs Utilities and Xcel Energy with the capacity to serve more than 2,200 homes. SunShare customers who buy a specific amount of energy from the solar garden receive a credit on their Colorado Springs Utilities or Xcel Energy bill.

These 10 States Are Leading the Way in Solar Power. What's Their Secret?

And what can the other 40 states learn from them? Solar power has made incredible progress here in the U.S. According to a new report from Environment America. In the last 10 years, solar panel capacity has increased more than 120-fold. In just 2011 to 2013 alone, solar power has tripled. Incredibly, 10 standout states are responsible for a big chunk of that growth. The Lighting the Way: The Top Ten States that Helped Drive America’s Solar Energy Boom in 2013 report notes that even though these 10 states account for only 26 percent of the U.S. population, they’re responsible for a whopping 87 percent of the county’s solar boom. The states deserving a standing ovation? Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and North Carolina, all of which are doing a massive part in helping the entire country curb its reliance on dirty (not to mention, increasingly expensive) fossil fuels by harnessing the power of the sun. MORE: This Man’s Seriously Bright Idea is Giving People the Ability to Create Power Anywhere Here are some of the most interesting points and lessons (highlighted in bold) from the Environment America report. Perhaps the states that didn’t make the cut should take note. - The report emphasizes that the most important factor of solar success is due to support from state and local governments, who have created policies that push for growth in renewables. For example, the report states that New Jersey has a target of obtaining 4.1 percent of its electricity from the sun by 2028. California has an extremely high renewable energy target — 33 percent — by 2020. - Speaking of California, the Golden State state is also expanding its battery storage technology so residents can rely on the sun’s power even after it sets, the report finds. - Several states in the top 10 also encourage small businesses and individual homeowners to go solar by paying them for the renewable energy they create. For instance, Hawaii’s feed-in tariff pays 21.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for small-scale residential solar projects, the report says. Clearly, it really does pay to be green. - Top-ranked Arizona has the highest solar electricity capacity per capita, with 275 watts of solar electricity capacity per resident — about seven times as much solar electricity capacity per person compared to the national average. So why is Arizona a solar success story? According to the report, the state was the first to require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electricity from solar energy. However, the Arizona Corporation Commission (the state’s utility regulator) recently voted to end tax incentives which could hurt businesses and residents who want to go solar, the report points out. - It’s no surprise that sun-spoiled western states rank near the top, but even small eastern states such as New Jersey, Massachusetts and Delaware have made the cut thanks to high electricity prices as well as public concern about pollution and clean energy. It’s clear that many Americans want a clean and efficient energy future, and these states are responding to the call. - North Carolina rounded out the top 10 due to its several large-scale solar energy installations by utilities, which shot the state’s solar capacity per-capita by more than 140 percent since 2012, the report says. The state also allows clean energy companies to compete utilities and lets consumers pick their energy supplier. ALSO: So Meta: Using the Power of the Sun to Create Solar Devices The big takeaway is that these states and their local governments have shown solid support and enacted polices that encourage and incentivize businesses, individuals and communities to make the switch to solar. With the Obama administration’s new limits on emissions, the whole country needs to do their part. Especially since the planet is only getting hotter. Luckily, they can look to these 10 states that are truly lighting the way. Read more: http://nationswell.com/solar-power-top-10-states/#ixzz3AIYFpHA9

Solar Capacity in Colorado Grew by 18 Percent in 2013

Yesterday, Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center released Lighting the Way: The Top Ten States that Helped Drive America’s Solar Energy Boom in 2013, showing strong solar growth across the nation including an 18% increase in Colorado in 2013. The report emphasizes that it is not availability of sunlight that makes states solar leaders, but the degree to which state and local governments have created effective public policy to help capture the virtually unlimited and pollution-free energy from the sun. Colorado’s progress on solar has helped fuel a tripling of solar energy nationwide between 2011 and 2013. In 2013, solar capacity in Colorado grew from 270 MW to 331 MW. “Solar energy is emerging as a go-to energy option here in Colorado and across the country,” said Charlotte Bromley, field organizer with Environment Colorado. “Thanks to the commitment of Colorado’s leaders, this pollution-free energy option is poised to play a major role in helping us meet our carbon emission reduction standards set by the Clean Power Plan.” Solar in the United States increased more than 120-fold in the last 10 years. In the first quarter of 2014, solar energy accounted for 74 percent of all the new electric generation capacity installed in the United States. Ten states with the most solar installed per/capita are driving 89% of the solar installed in the U.S, while, representing only 26 percent of the population and 20 percent of the electricity consumption. “We are so lucky to have so many fantastic days of the year where we have sun, it would be irresponsible if we didn’t take advantage of it,” said Representative Linda Newell, Colorado Senator for District 26. And as the solar industry grows, the cost for installed solar decreases, making it more accessible. The price of installed solar systems fell 60 percent between the beginning of 2011 and the end of 2013. Jobs in the solar industry are also growing rapidly. In 2013, there were more than 140,000 solar jobs in the U.S., including 3,600 in Colorado. “The solar industry provides more jobs than both the coal industry and the steel industry; that rate has grown over 50 percent since 2010 and is at a current rate of about 20 percent job growth per year which is ten times the national average” said Carly Rixham, Executive Director of the American Solar Energy Society. Another major driver for solar energy is that it produces no pollution; including climate-altering carbon emissions. According the report, solar power produces 96 percent less global warming pollution than coal-fired power plants over its entire life-cycle and 91 percent less global warming pollution than natural gas-fired power plants. “Colorado’s solar industry has grown up around favorable state policies so that we now have more than 230 companies providing 3,600 jobs in communities across our state,” said Rebecca Cantwell, Executive Director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association who joined Environment Colorado in the release of the report. “Since Colorado voters became the first in the nation to adopt a renewable energy standard, the solar industry has contributed about $1.5 billion in economic benefits. But this leadership position is threatened. Xcel Energy's attack on the critical solar policy of net metering must be stopped for our state to remain a solar leader.” “Moving towards a positive environment is also moving towards a positive economy, and it’s really important to remember that solar jobs in particular are good, clean jobs with livable wages, and those are the kind of jobs we need to see more of in Colorado” said Newell. Several strong policies adopted by the top 10 solar states, like Colorado, helped encourage homeowners and businesses to “go solar:” 9 states have strong net metering policies. In nearly all of the leading states, consumers are compensated at the full retail rate for the excess electricity they supply to the grid. 9 states have strong statewide interconnection policies. Good interconnection policies reduce the time and hassle required for individuals and companies to connect solar energy systems to the grid. All 10 states have renewable electricity standards that set minimum requirements for the share of a utility’s electricity that must come from renewable sources, and 8 of them have solar carve-outs that set specific targets for solar or other forms of clean, distributed electricity. 9 states allow for creative financing options such as third-party power purchase agreements, and 8 allow property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing. Here in Colorado solar progress is attributed to a number of programs, including Colorado’s Renewable Energy Standard, which requires investor-owned energy utilities to produce 30% renewable energy by 2020. “Colorado officials deserve tremendous credit for recognizing the environmental and economic benefits of solar and taking action to make it a reality,” said Bromley. “As more people see the benefits of solar energy, we’re confident clean, limitless energy from the sun will be a growing part of Colorado’s plan to reduce pollution from power plants.”

Xcel Energy: Swiftboating for Solar

Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest investor-owned utility, is attacking net metering once again. Rather than pay solar customers full, fair credit for the energy they put back into the grid, the company would undermine the solar market altogether. To protect its profits, the company is claiming solar is bad for the grid, despite having championed the industry in a former life. Xcel has been trying to cripple Coloradans' energy choices and the state's distributed solar market for years now. In 2011, the energy monopoly poured nearly $1 million into a campaign to stymy the city of Boulder's attempt to municipalize its utility grid - and failed. This past June, Xcel filed a lawsuit to try to block Boulder from implementing its successful municipalization measure. It was not always thus, however. In a simpler, less competitive time, Xcel championed incentive programs. This press release reveals a window into a time long past, when a clear-eyed young Xcel lauded the benefits of solar net metering to all ratepapers. Xcel once danced hand in hand with the Colorado voter down roads paved with solar panels, eager to comply with the state's renewable energy standard. Xcel's response to critics if net metering would impact non-solar ratepayers: Balderdash. As the Denver Post put it back in 2007: "Yet Xcel officials maintain that all customers benefit, because solar systems delay the need to build expensive power plants and reduced prospective future taxes on carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power." This same Xcel currently uses its resources to influence ballots, obfuscates wherever possible to skew data in its favor, and executes on the national utility playbook to stop the growth of rooftop solar. Xcel is helping lead the bandwagon in campaigns against net metering. So what has Xcel swiftboating on solar? Behind all of the company's actions is a thinly-veiled profit protection plan. When the solar market in Colorado was its alone, Xcel was happy to boast its support for rooftop solar growth. When there was no competition to hold Xcel accountable, it lauded the growth opportunities offered by net metering and the environmental benefits of local energy generation. As the nascent solar leasing industry began to pick up steam, however, Xcel changed its tune. This is not to say, however, that the company does not still fly its solar flag high. Lately, it has been sporting a new advertising campaign under the jazzy tagline "Doing Solar Right." Like many other corporations looking to make hay out of the environmental movement, Xcel has been greenwashing with gusto. The new image comes replete with chirpy narration, crisp graphics and opaque accolades. The mercurial utility is hedging. Unwilling to give the free market a chance to decide the best solar model, it would slash net metering credit and take the consumer's choice out of the equation. Thus far, energy consumers have pushed back against reactionary private utilities and preserved net metering in states across the country. Polling in Colorado shows that 78% of voters support net metering and disapprove of Xcel's roll-back of its own incentives programs. With the deck stacked against them like this, Xcel should keep in mind that the American public has typically been unkind to flip-floppers.

Xcel Flip Flop on Rooftop Solar Policy Net Metering

Last week in Denver, Coloradans packed into the Public Utilities Commission meeting rooms to support the cornerstone rooftop solar policy net metering. Meanwhile, a new finding shows that Xcel also knows the true benefits of net metering. A Denver Post article from 2007 says "Xcel officials maintain that all customers benefit because solar systems delay the need to build expensive power plants and reduce prospective future taxes on carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power." Xcel's current attacks on net metering are a flip-flop meant to protect the utility monopoly from competition. "Xcel supported net metering when it served their political purposes," said Bryan Miller, TASC President and Vice President of Public Policy for Sunrun. "Now that rooftop solar is a true form of competition, they oppose it." As indicated by the large turnout at last week's net metering panel, Coloradans will continue to stand strong for net metering. They support rooftop solar for Colorado's energy future, and don't want Xcel to succeed in stifling it. The Xcel flip flop affirms that their current opposition to net metering is a thinly-veiled profit protection plan.

EPA Holding Public Hearings on Carboon Emission Plan

DENVER—Hundreds of people will tell the Environmental Protection Agency what they think of proposed rules to cut pollution from power plants during public hearings Tuesday and Wednesday in Denver. With just five minutes each to make their case to the EPA, opponents and supporters also are staging rallies around the city. Besides Denver, the EPA is holding hearings this week in Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington on President Barack Obama’s plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030, with 2005 levels as the starting point. The rules are intended to curb global warming. The Denver hearings are the only ones in the West, where the topic of air pollution traditionally sets off a loud debate over environmental values and economic vitality. Three of the top 10 coal-producing states are in the West — Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. Wyoming is No. 1, producing nearly 40 percent of the U.S. total and more than three times as much as West Virginia, the No. 2 state, according to the National Mining Association. Coal mines, electric utilities, labor unions, environmental groups, renewable energy companies, government agencies and religious and civil rights organizations are sending representatives to the Denver hearings. Mark Fix, a Montana rancher signed up to speak Tuesday, called the rules a “good step in the right direction.” He blames climate change for a tornado, flooding and other extreme weather he has witnessed on his ranch. “There’s things out there we need to develop — the hydro, the wind, the solar, a lot of the renewables,” Fix said Monday. Fix ranches southwest of Miles City, Montana, and is a member of the Northern Plains Resource Council. Jonathan Downing, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, plans to argue against the rules. “I think they need to go back to the drawing board,” Downing said Monday. “It takes time to develop those (anti-pollution) technologies and have conversions on power plants,” and U.S. competitiveness could suffer during the transition, he said. EPA technical experts will listen to the comments, and a transcript will go into the EPA record, agency spokeswoman Lisa McClain-Vanderpool said. The EPA plans to release the final rules next year. The agency expects 400 people to speak in Denver and a total of 1,600 in all four cities. Written comments will be accepted until Oct. 16. Former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said hearing testimony can range from serious questions to political theater. “People ask some ridiculous ones, which means that they don’t care about the answer,” said Whitman, a former New Jersey governor who headed the EPA from January 2001 to June 2003. But the hearings are a legitimate part of the agency’s decision-making process, she said.

Government Report Forecasts Big Gains For U.S. Solar

The Solar Industries Association (SEIA) says a new U.S. federal study forecasts that solar energy will play a big role in the coming years. Citing a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), SEIA notes that the government agency predicts most new electric generation capacity in the U.S. through 2040 will come from natural gas and renewable energy. Of the 83 GW of renewable capacity additions being forecast, nearly half is expected to come from solar photovoltaic systems. “Solar is the fastest-growing source of renewable energy today - and, as this report bears out, it will continue to be for years and years to come,” says Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA. “The continued, rapid deployment of solar nationwide will create thousands of new American jobs, pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy and help to significantly reduce pollution. Just as importantly, it will also provide Americans with the freedom to decide how to power their homes, businesses, schools and government facilities in the future. “This report predicts that 60 percent of all new PV installations in the years ahead will be rooftop solar, creating significant savings when it comes to future energy costs,” continues Resch. “But this progress could be jeopardized if smart public policies, such as the solar investment tax credit (ITC), net energy metering and renewable portfolio standards, come under renewed attack by entrenched fossil fuel interests. “Of immediate concern, we are strongly urging Congress to adopt ‘commence construction’ language this year, allowing project developers to take full advantage of the highly-successful solar ITC and giving Americans access to new, affordable clean energy sources.” According to SEIA, applying the "commence construction" standard across the renewable energy sector would drive the installation of an additional 4 GW of solar capacity in 2017 and 2018.

Xcel Energy Offers Solar*Rewards 'Bridge' For Colorado Solar Installations

As part of its 2014 Renewable Energy Standard Plan, Public Service Co. of Colorado, an Xcel Energy subsidiary, filed a plan with the Colorado Public Service Commission (PUC) to add 36 MW of customer-sited solar capacity to its Solar*Rewards program. Xcel's Solar*Rewards offers customers incentives to install solar panels on their homes and businesses. The rebate program, which started in 2006, has helped to install more than 200 MW of capacity through 19,800 PV systems. The program has paid more than $297 million in incentives to Colorado customers. Solar*Rewards provides incentives across three tiers: the small program (for installations of less than 10 kW), the medium program (more that 25 kW but less than 500 kW) and the large program (for installations exceeding 500 kW). Since May 2013, Xcel Energy has been operating under a settlement that called for 33.6 MW of installed solar capacity. However, by June 2014, the capacity for the Solar*Rewards program had been exhausted. "We're looking at the options to keep the Solar*Rewards program open," says Robin Kittel, director of regulatory administration for Xcel Energy. "In order to re-open the plan, we have agreed to advance a certain amount of capacity." Under the agreement, Xcel has agreed to advance 4 MW per month - capped at 20 MW - for the small program and 7 MW for the medium program. Kittel says the agreement is intended to serve as a "bridge" until the PUC approves the utility’s 2014 plan that includes 24 MW of capacity for the small program and 12 MW of capacity for the medium program. Advancing capacity, she says, will keep pushing Colorado solar development forward. "It's the middle of July, and the solar industry has been clear that the stopping and starting [of policy] has hurt them," explains Kittel. "We recognize that the summer is a busy time." According to Kittel, a decision by the administrative law judge examining the case is expected sometime this month. However, a decision does not necessarily mean the matter is resolved. Kittel explains that once a decision is rendered, interested parties can file exceptions with the PUC. Therefore, she does not anticipate a final ruling for a few months at the earliest. This is not the first time that demand has exceeded supply. In 2012, for example, the allotment for the program sold out in 30 minutes. And to further illustrate the program’s popularity, Kittel says the 7 MW advanced from the medium program have already been exhausted.

Colorado and Denver Clean Edge Ranking

Clean Edge, a leading clean-tech research firm, released its 2014 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index today. The Index tracks the clean-tech activities of all 50 states and the 50 largest metro areas in the United States. Colorado is in fourth place among the 50 states, and Denver ranks tenth out of 50 American cities. The Index includes all clean energy activities from electric vehicles and renewables to patent and investment activity. Colorado placed a very close fourth with a score of 66.8, up one place from the 2013 Index. Strong renewable energy deployments and its performance in energy intelligence/green buildings helped it place fifth in Technology, but Colorado’s best category is a #4 rank in Capital. Golden is home to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory which is an increasingly vibrant ecosystem for clean-tech startups. The good news is that clean energy is gaining market share. Clean Edge points out that eleven states now generate more than 10 percent of their electricity from non-hydro renewable energy sources, with two states — Iowa and South Dakota — exceeding 25 percent. New solar installations climbed more than 40 percent year-over-year in the U.S. last year and registrations of all-electric vehicles more than doubled between the 2013 and 2014 indexes, to nearly 220,000 nationwide. The top 10 overall states in the 2014 State Index, ranked from one to ten are: California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado, New York, New Mexico, Washington, Illinois, Vermont, and Connecticut. The top overall metropolitan areas, ranked from one to ten are: San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Portland, OR, Sacramento, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Austin, and Denver. Not surprisingly, four of the top ten cities were in California. What is somewhat surprising is that Austin ranks in the top ten given its location in the middle of oil country. Eight of the top 10 metro areas are located in the top four states. Clean Edge points out that over the past year, states and cities continued to be where most of the clean tech action is in the United States due to a total lack of action by Congress. Supportive policies and aggressive technology deployments from Connecticut to California have made clean-energy generation, in particular residential and commercial solar PV, increasingly a popular energy choice for mainstream America. “Climate disruption and the growing availability of market-competitive clean-energy technologies are driving many states and cities to tackle climate issues head-on,” Clean Edge founder and managing director Ron Pernick said in the release rolling out the new Index. “More than ever, this year’s Leadership Index highlights how some top regions are taking climate action seriously, with double-digit clean-energy adoption rates, new policies like California’s energy-storage mandate, and the deployment of clean-energy investment vehicles such as New York’s green bank.” “Net-zero building and energy-storage mandates and new public-private investment vehicles are just a few of the emerging policies that are dramatically shifting the energy landscape,” Clean Edge senior editor Clint Wilder said. “While there have been some regional attacks against clean-tech supportive policies, such as net metering and renewable portfolio standards, for the most part, the clean-tech industry and its allies have successfully fought off such efforts.”

Showdown looming for solar energy in Colorado

Xcel Energy has applied to the Public Utilities Commission for approval of a new voluntary program. The program would enable customers to offset their annual electric usage with solar energy, without installing a system of their own. It's called "Solar Connect," and it's modeled after the company's Windsource program that sells subscriptions for wind power. Under the proposal, Xcel would offer short-term solar subscriptions to customers for solar energy that would be generated from a new, large solar facility. The utility says the program is an alternative to onsite solar or community solar gardens. It looks like Xcel may be changing the game for solar energy in Colorado. A showdown may be looming between the utility and the rooftop solar crowd. The company has decided to take its solar segment to a new level, which may disappoint customers like The Johnson's of Centennial. They are sold on their rooftop solar array. Their electricity bill this month was only $8.25. If you combine that with their gas bill of $50.07, it comes out to a total of $58.72 for heat and light. Even when they add in the monthly cost of leasing their rooftop array, which is $87.72, they are still under $150 a month for energy. "We really wanted to put in solar years ago," Mary Johnson said. "So we're very pleased that we did it now, and we do get the benefits." The power meter on their house actually spins backwards, even on a cloudy day. It's an experience that continues to drive the rooftop solar industry in Colorado, which is very healthy. "There are over 150,000 solar jobs in the United States, and about 3600 of them are here in Colorado," said Blake Jones, President and CEO of Boulder's Namaste Solar. "It's a very large industry." Jones says with solar currently generating less than 1 percent of our electricity, the industry is just scratching the surface. But now comes a game changer. Xcel is building a massive $220 million dollar "utility-scale" solar system next to its Comanche Generating station in Pueblo. That's 450,000 solar panels on 990 acres. It will be large enough to supply energy to more than 30,000 homes. It's the largest solar project of its kind east of the Rocky Mountains. "The Comanche project is great because it's not only solar, and not only clean, but it is so low priced and so low cost, that we're actually able to save our customers money by having it on our system," said Xcel Vice President Frank Prager. The array will look much like this one in Lafayette, only dramatically bigger. The designers believe the power industry is making a move toward these larger utility scale projects, because by some estimates, they deliver more affordable power than thousands of rooftop arrays. Sam Sours of Community Energy designed the Lafayette array. He believes the larger scale projects will be the industry standard. "Yeah, if you look from the west, the California's, the Arizona's, the Nevada's, these larger solar scale projects have been slowly creeping their way east of the Rocky's," said Sours. Eric Blank, President of Community Energy, agreed. "When you get this scale, you can really drive down procurement cost and capital costs, so I think it's trending this way," Blank said. That could spell trouble for rooftop solar. Xcel is currently paying 11 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity generated by rooftop solar. If it decides to suspend those payments, under what is called its "net metering policy," the rooftop industry in Colorado will disappear. Namaste's Blake Jones agreed that could happen. "Yes, that's correct. I think that will be a very tragic day for the Colorado solar market, because without the foundation of that net metering policy, I think that our solar market could go away," Jones said. The Public Utilities Commission will evaluate rooftop solar at the end of 2014.

Wind and solar power ready to help states meet EPA rule

With the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issuing its first-ever rule limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants, many policymakers in Congress and state capitals are wondering: How can states meet the proposed standards most cost effectively? Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can get behind two affordable, reliable, and business-friendly solutions that are ready today – American wind and solar power. These sources of carbon-free electricity already foster economic development in all 50 states, creating jobs and benefitting rural and state economies by attracting new investment. In just three heartland states, Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado, wind power has grown to support 12,000 good-paying jobs and attracted nearly $20 billion in capital investment. In total, American wind power attracts up to $25 billion a year in private investment into our economy and supports over 50,000 jobs. More than 560 factories in 43 states make wind energy components. Last year, $13.7 billion was invested in solar nationwide – making it the fastest-growing source of renewable energy in the United States, accounting for nearly 30 percent of all new electric generation capacity installed in 2013. And across the U.S, 143,000 Americans are at work every day at more than 6,100 solar businesses. Both technologies are experiencing rapid price declines, and those savings are passed onto consumers. The American-made taller towers, longer blades and improved gearboxes, and over 30 years of experience in the field have helped drive down wind costs. According to the Department of Energy, the cost of energy generated by wind has dropped 43 percent in just four years. When the Midwest utility system operator (MISO) recently reached the milestone of supplying more than 25 percent of its momentary electricity demand from wind, it noted that it’s “one of the fuel choices that helps us manage congestion on the system and ultimately helps keep prices low for our customers and the end-use consumer.” The cost of solar has plummeted, as well. The average price of a residential photovoltaic (PV) installation has also fallen 43 percent, by watt, since 2010. Utility-scale PV prices fell 61 percent in that same time period. That’s an incredible decline that has helped solar to consecutive record-breaking years. Utilities in states as diverse as Colorado, Minnesota and Texas have all recently chosen solar as a cost-competitive source of new generating capacity, diversifying their energy mix – as demonstrated on March 8, 2014, when solar provided a record 18 percent of California’s 22,700 MW demand. Unlike many traditional sources of energy, wind and solar emit no air or water pollution, and create no hazardous waste. Electricity generation is the largest industrial source of carbon emissions in the U.S. The EPA’s proposed rule is an opportunity for the U.S. to again be the leader that the rest of the world can follow. We’re already on our way. Zero-emission wind power avoids enough carbon pollution every year to take the equivalent of 20 million cars off the road. More than 10 states are already reducing carbon emissions by 10 percent or more from wind energy alone (California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington state). And, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, obtaining 30 percent of the U.S. electricity needs with wind power will cut U.S. power sector emissions 37 percent. Solar currently installed in the U.S. is already generating enough pollution-free electricity to displace 18 billion pounds of coal or 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline. That’s the equivalent of removing 3.5 million cars off our roads and highways. Regulators looking to meet their states’ changing needs find solar energy to be reliable, cost-competitive, environmentally friendly, and easily scalable, fitting the needs of the state implementation plans soon to be necessary for meeting the EPA’s Section 111(d) carbon pollution standard. Some members of Congress worry we could hurt our economy by working to meet the EPA’s proposed standards. They may not have heard the good news about these newly affordable solutions at hand. While there’s no single solution to meeting the much-needed goal of reducing carbon emissions, wind and solar power are two of the biggest, fastest, and most cost-effective ways to meet the EPA’s proposed rule. Governors all across the country already know how they grow economies and create jobs – and a strong majority of Americans support scaling up these clean, homegrown energy sources. That’s why we urge all members of Congress to look to wind and solar power as leading solutions to help meet America’s future energy needs.

Meeting renewable energy targets turns out to be inexpensive

It turns out that adding renewable energy to the electricity generation mix doesn’t end up costing all that much, in at least one case it has even saved money. In Colorado the cost came to less than a penny per kilowatt-hour in 2012. Among the 24 states with renewable portfolio standards that were analyzed, the cost of complying between 2010 and 2012 was equal on average, roughly 1 percent of retail electricity rates, according to study by two national laboratories. The average additional cost in 2012 for renewable energy came to about 2 cents for each kilowatt-hour. Oregon saw and slight decrease in costs as renewables replaced more expensive generation. Wisconsin had the biggest incremental cost, about 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The study was done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif. “The cost is fairly modest, though not insignificant,” said Galen Barbose, one of the study’s co-authors and a Lawrence Berkeley researcher. There has been upward pressure on the cost of compliance as renewable-energy targets are raised and more renewable sources are added, Barbose said. In Colorado that compliance cost roughly doubled between 2010 and 2012. But since most states, including Colorado, cap the rate impacts of renewable energy the pressure likely will not translate to higher bills. In Colorado, the cost to customers is capped at 2 percent of a residential bill. This Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment raises money to cover the above market cost of renewable-energy sources. Most of the money has gone into the Solar Rewards program for residential and small business rooftop solar installations. Since 2006, Xcel Energy has offered incentives for residential and small commercial solar installations under the Solar Rewards program. The program has provided more than $276 million in incentives to Colorado customers and installed nearly 17,800 photovoltaic systems, the company said. Solar Rewards has, however, run up a $42 million deficit that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission has pressed Xcel to reduce. The utility did away with rebates and trimmed the incentives for solar systems. It now offers a credit for of 3 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated by home solar panels, down from 9 cents in 2012 and the utility anticipates soon erasing the deficit. At the same time, the cost of solar installations has dropped from $9 a kilowatt to less than $4 a kilowatt — with Colorado having just about the lowest installation cost in the country, according to another Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study. As a result of the deficit, Colorado actually spent 3 percent of sales on Solar Rewards, in effect surpassing the cap, even though it did not appear on customers’ bills. There were two drivers in Colorado’s higher renewable-energy costs, the study said. First are the higher renewable-energy targets the state set. Colorado’s investor-owned utilities must get 30 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Only California, with a 33 percent standard, is higher. “The state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, attained renewable procurement levels equal to 15 percent to 22 percent of retail sales over the 2010-2012 period compared to renewables procurement levels of 5-10 percent in most of the other states,” the study said. The second driver is a requirement that portion of the target be met with roof-top solar, or distributed generation, which is more expensive than some other renewable sources, such as wind. “Part of that it is an accounting issue,” Barbose said. “The cost for distributed generation has been heavily front-loaded with rebates and incentives, but once the system are up, there is less cost.” Even with all that, Colorado costs for meeting the renewable standard were relatively modest. Twenty-four utilities in eight states put a surcharge on customers’ bills, which in 2012 averaged $1.99, according to the study. The Xcel charge on a Colorado customer’s bill was $1.44, putting it in 16th place. The highest surcharge was by Citizens Electric & Gas in Arizona at $4.50. The lowest was Indiana Michigan Power at 7 cents. “The takeaways from the study that the costs for meeting the standards have been pretty modest,” Barbose said. “But going forward meeting the targets will put pressure on compliance costs, but most state’s have some kind of cost containment that will blunt that upward pressure.”

Key Details of E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Proposal

WASHINGTON — A rule proposed by the Enivironmental Protection Agency would cut carbon pollution from power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 – the equivalent, according to the agency, of taking two-thirds of all cars and trucks in America off the road. Here are some things to know about the rule: • The E.P.A. expects that under the regulation, 30 percent of electricity in the United States will still come from coal by 2030, down from about 40 percent today. • The E.P.A. estimates that the rule will cost the economy $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion annually, but will lead to benefits of $55 billion to $93 billion, primarily by preventing premature deaths and mitigating respiratory diseases. • Critics complain that the rule will drive up electricity costs, but the agency forecasts that the rule will increase energy efficiency across the power sector, leading to lower electricity bills when the program is fully implemented in 2030. • The rule will not, on its own, lower greenhouse gas pollution enough to prevent catastrophic effects of climate change. But, in combination with other regulations, it would allow the United States to meet its commitment to the United Nations to cut carbon pollution 17 percent by 2020 and press other major polluting countries, particularly China and India, to follow suit. • The draft proposal is just the beginning of the process to cut emissions. The agency will now take public comment and spend the next year completing the proposal before releasing the final rule in June 2015. States will then be given another year to submit compliance plans, or apply for an extension. • The rule is not an executive order. Under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. is required to regulate any substance defined as a pollutant, which the law defined as substances that endanger human life and health. A 2007 Supreme Court decision led to an E.P.A. determination that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, thus requiring that the agency regulate it or be in violation of the law.

EPA's Approach on Carbon Limits to Spark Court Challenges

The expected legal battle over the Obama administration's coming limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants could provide a rarity for environmental litigation: a case for which there is scant court precedent. The Environmental Protection Agency is turning to a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act for its new rules, because carbon dioxide isn't regulated under major Clean Air Act programs that address air pollutants. The EPA says it has only used the section, called 111(d), to regulate five sources of pollutants since the provision was enacted in 1970—and none on the scale of CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Enlarge Image Because the provision has been invoked so rarely, courts have had little opportunity to weigh in on it, creating the unusual circumstance in which potential challengers to the carbon rules would be litigating largely on a blank slate against the EPA. The Clean Air Act provision gives the agency authority to regulate pollutants emitted by facilities already in operation, but the expected lawsuits from states and industry could test how far a president can go in using the long-standing air-pollution law to try to address climate change. The coming EPA regulation "is in many ways unprecedented, so it will attract a challenge to its core," said Jody Freeman, a Harvard University law professor and former adviser to President Barack Obama on energy and climate issues. The administration's approach is expected to generate stiff legal pushback from industry groups and states such as West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alaska and Texas, according to lawyers familiar with the matter. Potential challengers face hurdles in court. Under long-standing legal principles, courts give deference to administrative agencies like the EPA as long as they don't regulate in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The looming fights also come amid a legal winning streak for the EPA, in which courts have upheld an array of agency actions in recent years. The Supreme Court last month revived agency regulations that curbed power-plant emissions blowing across state lines, reversing a lower-court ruling that went against the agency. And a key appeals court has ruled for the EPA on several occasions in recent months, in cases brought both by industry groups and by environmentalists. Among the decisions, it upheld EPA regulations of mercury emissions from power plants. The same appeals court previously upheld the EPA's 2009 conclusion that CO2 and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health, and it upheld subsequent rules on automobile emissions. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected next month on one issue related to the EPA's imposition of greenhouse-gas permitting requirements for some facilities. The CO2 rules expected to be announced Monday will set emissions benchmarks and give the states flexibility in meeting them—a partnership mandated by the Clean Air Act. The administration plans to allow states to use cap-and-trade systems, renewable energy and other measures to meet aggressive goals for reducing power plants' carbon emissions. An EPA spokesman declined to comment on the legal underpinnings of the coming regulations, but an informational video posted on the agency's website has top officials saying Congress wrote Section 111(d) broadly, with the intention of giving the EPA leeway to address air-pollution problems not covered by other Clean Air Act programs. The section "gives us room to be creative, innovative and flexible as we think about how to design a cost-effective program to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants," said Janet McCabe, an acting EPA assistant administrator, in the video. Legal objections from industry are likely to center on the EPA's expected interpretation that it can set pollution standards across fleets of power plants, instead of directing individual plants to meet the standard by installing pollution technology or taking other steps at each facility to cut emissions, said Jeff Holmstead, an attorney who represents coal-industry interests at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. Mr. Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator under President George W. Bush, said that because there is so little precedent, the EPA is going to be "as creative as possible," but he noted that it "creates more openings" for industry and states to challenge the agency in court. Washington environmental lawyer Sean Donahue said the lack of court precedent could cut in the EPA's favor: "There's more room to make legal arguments because the courts haven't specified what the statute means and doesn't mean, but it also leaves more room for the agency's judgment." While the specific bounds of the EPA's authority to regulate power plants' carbon emissions haven't been tested in court, a 2011 Supreme Court opinion said the agency had the power to take action to curb emissions. That came in a pro-industry ruling barring a group of states from proceeding with a public-nuisance lawsuit seeking abatement of power-plant emissions. Next week's EPA rules come as the agency is separately proposing greenhouse-gas regulations for future power plants that are more stringent. Those rules are also likely to be challenged in court, and that litigation could affect the agency's regulations for existing plants. The court challenges could for last years, potentially beyond Mr. Obama's second term.

In Colorado, clean energy battle is far from over

Green energy proponents scored a big win recently when a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Colorado's renewable energy standard. However, the fight over clean power generation requirements is far from over. This case is one of many attacks on renewable energy mandates playing out around the country. And even though the Washington, D.C., law firm leading the charge against Colorado's law lost this round, it has vowed to appeal. Coloradans, who created the first version of the state's renewable energy standard via ballot initiative in 2004, should be prepared for a long battle if they want to continue to require utilities to look to renewable sources of power. In all, 30 states have initiated renewable energy standards. Efforts to weaken those standards — whether by legislation or court challenges — have taken place in 22 states during the last year, according to an analysis by Greentech Media, an independent publication focused on the green technology market. In Colorado, for instance, the lawsuit was brought by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, which used to be called the American Tradition Institute. The plaintiffs, who include a Morrison man, contended the Colorado renewable energy standard violates the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause. So, how does the commerce clause come into play? First, it's helpful to understand Colorado's standard. Investor-owned utilities, such as Xcel, must get 30 percent of the power they sell in the state from renewables by 2020. Large cooperative electric associations must get 20 percent by the same deadline. The plaintiffs argued that energy transmission and purchase is fluid, crossing state lines. In requiring renewables, the law burdens interstate commerce by restricting marketplace access to those generating non-renewable energy. U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez disagreed, saying the quota didn't force out-of-state energy generators to do business in a particular way. The plaintiffs wasted no time in saying they would appeal, hoping to ultimately take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. They contend an opposite decision out of Minnesota on renewables makes a high court review probable. We hope they are unsuccessful. Colorado's renewable standard has been a success, prompting energy diversification and job growth. It would be a shame if this home-grown standard were dismantled by outside interests with different priorities. Read more: In Colorado, clean energy battle is far from over - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_25777671/colorado-clean-energy-battle-is-far-from-over#ixzz32SY9uHBw Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

As Coal Plants Shut Down, Electricity Prices Go Up

Electricity prices are probably on their way up across much of the United States as coal-fired plants, the dominant source of cheap power, shutdown in response to environmental regulations and economic forces, according to the Associated Press. New and tighter pollution rules and tough competition from cleaner sources such as natural gas, wind and solar will lead to the closings of dozens of coal-burning plants across 20 states over the next three years, and many of those that stay open will need expensive retrofits, the AP reported. The Obama administration, state governments and industry are struggling to balance this push for a cleaner environment with the need to keep the grid reliable and prevent prices from rocketing too much higher, according to the AP. Coal is the workhorse of the U.S. power system and is used to produce 40 percent of the nation's electricity, more than any other fuel. Because it is cheap and abundant and can be stored on power plant grounds, it helps keep prices stable and power flowing even when demand spikes, the AP reported. Natural gas, which accounts for 26 percent of the nation's electricity, has dropped in price and become more plentiful because of the fracking boom, but its price is on the rise again, and it is still generally more expensive to produce electricity with gas than with coal, according to the AP. Burning coal releases toxic chemicals, soot and smog-forming chemicals, as well as twice the amount of carbon dioxide that natural gas produces, the AP reported. The Supreme Court last month gave an important approval to one Environmental Protection Agency clean-air rule which cleared the way for a new rule expected to be announced by President Barack Obama early next month. This rule, the first to govern emissions of carbon dioxide from existing power plants, could accelerate the move away from coal, according to the AP. Already, the current rules are expected to force power companies to shut down 68 coal plants across 20 states between 2014 and 2017, according to Bentek Energy, a market analysis firm, the AP reported.

With record profits, Xcel still plans to seek rate increase for Colorado Ratepayers

Citizens question the validity of the utility’s six back-to-back rate increases since 2003. A recent report from Xcel Energy detailing earnings on electric energy in Colorado shows the utility exceed the maximum profit set by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) by more than 11 percent. Despite excess earnings for the company’s Colorado subsidiary, known as the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), a May 1 statement from Xcel says the utility plans to file for future electric rate increases in the state in 2015 and beyond. Documentation compiled by local Xcel watchdog agency Empower Our Future shows that Xcel has asked for, and been granted, six back-to-back rate increases since 2003. With record profits in 2013 and the company’s plan to seek a seventh increase in 2015, some citizens are raising questions about the validity of the utility’s requests. “I think the overall allocation of profits for utilities probably needs to be reviewed — are we setting up incentives correctly so that we get the behavior we want out of the regulated monopoly that provides us with power?” says Boulder City Council member Sam Weaver, who acted as the main author of the report from Empower our Future prior to his election to Council last year. Weaver says he used federal 10-K financial filings and public reports from Xcel to compare the utility’s sales and generating capacity to their pre-tax profits from 2003 to 2012. “When you look through the [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s] 10-K forms where [Xcel/PSCo] file their peak capacity [in megawatts] and they files sales in terms of kilowatt hours, it’s pretty straightforward,” says Weaver. “Demand is not growing. Even though they are not providing us with additional sources of electricity or additional capacity, Xcel is getting huge increases in profits.” According to the Empower our Future report, the Colorado division’s pre-tax profits have grown from $316 million to $691 million between 2003 and 2012. Weaver says the company filed more than 700 million in pre-tax profits in 2013. In a May 1 press release, Xcel acknowledged that as a result of their last rate increase — a first-time, threeyear rate plan that set up tiered increases from 2012 to the end of 2014 — the company has asked the PUC for permission to credit customers across the state with $45.7 million. So beginning Aug. 1, residential customers in Colorado would see a $1.17 credit per month while small business owners will see a $2.33 credit each month. The three-year agreement raised rates by a total of $114 million. “At the time that this three-year plan was approved, it was approved as part of a settlement agreement that was reached by pretty much every party in the case: Xcel, PUC staff, the [Office of ] Consumer Council, a number of medium and large electric consumer groups and trade groups, and all of them agreed this was a fair resolution to the case and provided fair rates to the company and rate payer,” says PUC spokesman Terry Bote. Bote says the commission created the profit-sharing mechanism as a protection, for customers when the utility exceeds their target profit. When asked how he would respond to criticism of the record profits stemming from the multi-year agreement, Mark Stutz, a spokesperson for Xcel/ PSCo, says that “it’s difficult to predict some aspects of our business in terms of weather, in terms of what your expenses will be.” Stutz reiterates Bote’s statement that the authorized profits from the multi-year settlement were found to be “prudent” by all parties involved, and the profit-sharing mechanism had not been so well defined in previous settlements. Regarding the utility’s plan to file for future rate increases, Stutz says it would be the company’s preference to have another multi-year plan, “because we think they’re good for the customer and good for the utility.” While Colorado’s Consumer Council — an advocate for customers of electric, gas and telecommunications businesses — agreed to the multi-year rate increase plan, director Cindy Schonhaut says it’s not in the public’s best interest. “We don’t like multi-year plans in this office,” says Schonhaut. “We think [multi-year plans] allow for this opportunity to overearn and later keep some of [the excess profits] and then give refunds, which is not in the longterm consumer interest. [The longterm consumer interest] is to pay the right rate at the time they are billed.” Weaver says that the system that governs the profit-making of the utility seems “a little broken” to him. “And it’s really not simply Xcel’s fault. It’s a matter of [how] Xcel, PUC, and the state legislature has set up a series of incentives that allows Xcel to make increasing profits as it makes additional investments in generation faculties,” says Weaver. “Xcel has every incentive to build more whether or not additional generation is needed.” The last coal-fired power plant built in Colorado, the Comanche 3 plant in Pueblo, was heavily criticized by environmental groups who questioned the facility’s impact on emissions and surrounding wilderness. “The tragic part of all of this is that Xcel’s back-to-back rate increases during the worst economic crisis in a century have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from their ratepayers, including businesses both large and small as well as fixed and low-income ratepayers, to pay for a billion-dollar coal plant that never should have been built — a billion dollar toxic and polluting mistake that is rapidly becoming a stranded asset,” longtime Xcel watchdog Leslie Glustrom said in an email to the Boulder Weekly. Xcel says that future rate increases in Colorado will go toward completion of infrastructure investments, “including the estimated $1 billion investment in the Colorado Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act,” which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 28 percent. Property tax expenses and “other cost changes” will also be covered by rate increases, according to the utility. “If the legislature was doing to taxes what the PUC has been doing to electric utility rates, all hell would break loose,” Glustrom added.

Xcel, solar industry groups agree on Colorado incentive plan; net metering still at issue

DENVER — Xcel Energy Inc. and two solar industry groups have made a joint proposal to Colorado utility regulators on incentives that encourage customers to put panels on their roofs, they said Tuesday. In announcing their agreement a day before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission opens hearing on Xcel's renewable-energy policy plan, they made clear the contentious issue of net metering remains unresolved. Xcel, the Solar Industries Association and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association called in their agreement for the commission to approve 3 cents per kilowatt-hour of Solar Rewards for customer-owned installations of up to 25 kilowatts, and 1 cent per kilowatt-hour for small installations owned by parties other than the homeowner, keeping the program active pending approval of the overall renewable energy plan. They also proposed restarting a medium program for solar arrays of between 25 and 500 kilowatts that had been closed since October 2013, when that program's capacity was reached. For the medium program, incentives were proposed of 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6 megawatts and 5 cents for the final megawatt. Terry Bote, spokesman for the utility commission, said the commission will set a shortened notice period of 10 days on the agreement at a meeting Wednesday. If the commission decides to shorten the notice period and hears no opposition to the proposed settlement, commissioners could consider the merits of the settlement at a weekly meeting later this month, Bote said. The agreement will ensure the market is not disrupted, good news for solar companies like California-based Sunrun, said Susan Glick, Sunrun's senior manager for public policy. But she made a clear distinction between the Solar Rewards incentives and net metering. "Net metering is not an incentive. It is a billing mechanism," she said. Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz told The Associated Press the Solar Rewards agreement "does show that there are issues that we can agree on." But Stutz said Xcel still had concerns about net metering, which allows homeowners with rooftop solar arrays to, in addition to Solar Rewards, get credit for the energy they put back into the grid to be sold to others. The commission earlier this year separated a discussion of net metering from the overall review after Xcel proposed taking steps to inform consumers what part of the net-metering credit reflects the value of the energy produced and what part should be seen as a subsidy. Solar proponents have objected, saying they believe Xcel is laying a foundation for changes to net metering that could hurt the solar power industry. Utility companies have been challenging net metering around the country.

Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Energy Briefing Lunch: Colorado’s Solar Energy Industries Association

May Energy Briefing Focuses On Solar With the weather getting warmer and the days getting longer it seems only appropriate that our next Energy Briefing on May 14th will focus on recent developments in solar energy. Rebecca Cantwell, Executive Director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) will keynote this luncheon. Colorado is one of the states leading the effort in using renewable energy. About one year ago COSEIA, and solar business leaders kicked off the state’s million solar roofs campaign, an effort to get one million homes and businesses utilizing this renewable resource. All luncheons start promptly at 12:00 PM and registration, including lunch is $15 for GJACC members. When: Wednesday, 5/14/2014 12:00 PM to 1:15 PM Where:Mesa County Libraries 443 N 6th St Grand Junction CO 81501 How Much: $15 Register Here: Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce 970-242-3214 or 800-352-5286

U.S. Solar Capacity Grew Over 400 Percent In The Last Four Years

Solar energy is booming across the U.S., with capacity up an astounding 418 percent in the last four years alone, according to data released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Residential and commercial rooftop solar, along with other forms of photovoltaic (PV), have grown steadily over the past four years, specifically those that are net-metered. When customers install their own solar panels in states with a net metering policy, they are compensated for the excess electricity they send back to the grid. According to the EIA, these net metered applications have increased every year by approximately 1,100 MW since 2010. California currently has the largest net metered solar capacity with 38 percent of the nation’s total. Not far behind are New Jersey and Massachusetts, which together represent 21 percent of the total capacity in the U.S. Solar_Capacity Net metering has been at the center of several recent battles between the solar industry, consumers and utilities across the U.S. As rooftop solar in particular booms, utility companies are growing increasingly concerned about the threat it poses to their bottom line. As more customers install solar panels, utilities will sell fewer units of energy and argue they’ll have to charge more in order to cover the cost of maintenance and labor. But distributed energy sources like rooftop solar also provide a benefit to utilities by generating during peak hours, when a utility has to provide electricity to more people than at other times during the day and energy costs are at their highest. Solar panels feed excess energy back to the grid, helping to alleviate the pressure during peak demand. In addition, because less electricity is being transmitted to customers through transmission lines, it saves utilities on the wear and tear to the lines and cost of replacing them with new ones. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the shadowy conservative group funded by fossil fuel corporations and petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, has set its sights on weakening net metering laws across the country. Net metering survived attacks in Colorado and Kansas and Vermont increased its policy in a bipartisan effort. Last year, Arizona added what amounts to a $5 per month surcharge for solar customers, a move that was widely seen as a compromise, particularly after ALEC and other Koch-backed groups got involved. In the most recent net metering fight, Oklahoma took the controversial step of passing legislation to level a fee on customers who install solar panels or small wind turbines on their own property. Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed the measure this week but took the rare step of issuing an executive order emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and fair implementation of the new legislation. According to the new EIA data, “utility scale PV applications, which are 1 MW or greater, have also expanded significantly and currently account for 5,564 MW.” And the third principal contributing factor to the explosive growth of solar energy in the U.S. is from solar thermal energy. Three major solar thermal plants — Solano, Genesis and Ivanpah — came on line in 2013, adding a total of 650 MW of capacity. Solar thermal technology is particularly groundbreaking for its use of a ‘salt battery’ that allows the plants to keep generating electricity even when the sun isn’t shining. While an increase of 9,731 megawatts (MW) in solar generating capacity since 2010 is remarkable, solar still accounts for just 1.13 percent of total electric generating capacity in the U.S. Electricity generation in America is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. As of November 2013, renewable energy sources, including hydro, accounted for about 13 percent of total net generation, according to EIA data.

Ontario Shuts Down Last Coal-Fired Plant

Ontario has become the first jurisdiction in North America to fully eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation. The Thunder Bay Generating Station, Ontario's final remaining coal-fired facility, has burned its last supply of coal and will be converted to burn biomass. According to the Ontario Ministry of Energy, this means the province has fulfilled its commitment to close all of its coal plants in advance of its year-end 2014 target. Ontario has replaced coal with a mix of emission-free electricity sources like wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower, along with lower-emission electricity sources like natural gas and biomass. Last year, Ontario also introduced the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, which the ministry says would ensure coal-fired generation as a source of electricity in the province never happens again. Citing a 2005 independent study, the ministry says the estimated cost of coal generation was approximately $4.4 billion annually when health, environmental, and financial costs were taken into consideration.

Battle Lines Drawn in State-by-State Defense of Net Metering and Solar

It’s been an interesting month on the net-metering front. Investor-owned utilities (IOUs), led by their trade group the Edison Electric Institute, last fall launched a state-by-state campaign claiming that net metering creates an existential threat to their traditional regulated-monopoly business model. Beginning in 1982, net metering laws have been adopted in 43 states, where state legislatures were convinced that the practice was fair value to both utilities and all ratepayers. IOUs want to slash net-metering rates, or impose high fixed-rate connection fees or surcharges, or eliminate net meter entirely. Where they’re successful, they will reduce the value of solar to homeowners and sharply cut the profits of third-party solar providers (often called leasing companies) like SolarCity, Sunrun, Sungevity and Verengo. The solar lease companies have formed their own lobbying group, The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) to defend net metering. TASC finds allies among local installer groups (state solar energy industry associations), advocacy organizations like ASES chapters and Vote Solar, and even with the new, conservative-leaning political group TUSK (Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed), now actively lobbying on behalf of solar in Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Louisiana and both Carolinas. The name was not chosen randomly: TUSK’s logo features an elephant, and the organization is co-chaired by Tom Morrisey, former chairman of Arizona’s Republican Party, and former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr. While Vermont last month greatly expanded its net metering provisions, the battle continues in other states. In California, where state law requires a replacement for the existing net metering system by the end of 2015, the Public Utilities Commission voted at the end of March to let existing solar owners keep their existing net metering contacts for 20 years from the time of installation. Here in Colorado, the public utilities commission separated the issue of net-metering rates from the Xcel Energy rate-setting process. A series of meetings to hash out the value of rooftop solar is scheduled to begin April 29. Xcel, which now pays 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour, will argue that the rate should fall to 4.5 cents. TASC and allies like Vote Solar and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA) will argue that the rate should reflect the savings solar provides in all costs of providing power to homes, including the costs of fuel, central power plants, transmission lines and pollution abatement. Xcel’s home state of Minnesota has already begun that process to determine the value of solar (VOS). The result may turn out to be a rise in rates paid to solar homeowners. In Austin, Texas, where the municipal power company pioneered the VOS concept, the VOS tariff paid to solar homeowners dropped from 12.8 cents/kWh to 10.7 c/kWh in January, due mainly to the reduced cost of generating electricity with natural gas. Louisiana’s Public Service Commission last month decided to hire a consultant to figure out VOS issues, and after a false start in the bidding process now hopes to name that consultant within a month. Casting Loose from the Grid? While all this is going on, the Rocky Mountain Institute issued a report claiming that the real long-term threat to regulated utilities lies in the falling cost of energy storage systems. Driven by the growing popularity of hybrid and fully-electric cars and delivery fleets, efficient batteries are growing cheaper. That process will accelerate rapidly as Tesla and Panasonic carry through plans to build the world’s largest battery factory somewhere in the American Southwest. When solar homeowners can afford to store their own electricity in a big, cheap battery bank, they’ll no longer need the grid, RMI argues. In less than 20 years, if electricity prices continue to rise, consumers will begin to leave the grid in droves, just as cell phone owners have cut loose from land lines over the past decade. Source: American Solar Energy Society

Colorado solar advocates speak up for net metering

Rooftop solar advocates raised their voices in Colorado this week. The Alliance for Solar Choice, a solar industry group focused on public policy, coordinated several events aimed at raising awareness and support for solar among Colorado lawmakers and regulators. Colorado is one among many states where utility companies are pushing to reduce net metering benefits. Net metering is the policy in 43 states that require utilities to pay home and business owners for the excess power they generate and feed back onto the grid. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy pays the retail rate for excess solar – 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour – that rooftop solar customers generate. However, the utility is arguing that the power is only worth 4.6 cents and has asked the Public Utilities Commission to change the net metering policy. Hundreds of Colorado solar industry leaders showed up on capital hill Tuesday for Lobby Day, said Meghan Nutting, TASC member and director of government affairs for SolarCity. “We don’t have a legislative play in Colorado right now,” Nutting said. “We just wanted to get the conversation started. We did have a really good discussion with the house majority leader.” There was also significant public support for solar spreading throughout the state Tuesday. “Colorado Solar Rights was the most trending topic on Twitter in Denver,” Nutting said. On Wednesday, the PUC heard from stakeholders in three hours of comment. The speakers had signed up in advance and brought great insight and perspective to the discussion, but there was no public comment allowed. Commissioners will be taking public comment through April 29 when they are expected to make a decision about how to proceed. PUC Chairman Joshua Epel said he wanted everyone to “put their stake in the ground” and say what they thought the price should be excess power generated with rooftop solar panels. “He’s definitely ready to get into it,” Nutting said. Others said the PUC should commission a study. And still others argued there are already too many studies – it’s time for action. One recurring point in the discussion was that net metering poses no serious threat to utilities yet. Less than 1 percent of Xcel’s energy portfolio in Colorado comes from distributed solar, Nutting said. That hasn’t stopped utilities in other states from fighting net metering either. The Kansas legislature just secured the future of net metering there. The utilities tried to do away with the benefit even though only 201 of 900,000 households have rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines. “With such a tiny solar market, these powerful utilities thought they would be able to completely eliminate net metering without anyone noticing,” according to a release from TASC. “Instead, more than 550 customers contacted their Senator in support of net metering.” The various battles against net metering around the country are just a distraction from the real issue, Nutting said. “This is really about the utility business model,” she said. “It hasn’t changed in more than 100 years. It’s time.”

Xcel Energy Will Offer Solar To Ratepayers at a Higher Price than Customer Owned Rooftop Solar

According to an April 4, 2014 story on KUNC, a public radio station in Northern Colorado, Xcel, a local utility, is asking Colorado state regulators for permission to offer its customers the option to receive some of all of their electricity from a centralized solar power plant. The catch is that those who opt for solar over more conventional forms of energy production will have to pay a surcharge for the privilege. Customers would be able to buy solar created electricity in 25 percent blocks to up to 100 percent of their monthly electric bill. Thus customers can go solar without installing solar panels on their rooftops. Apparently there are a number of residential and business customers who will pay a premium to get their electricity from renewable energy sources. Xcel already has a wind power program called WindSource which charges an extra $2.16 per 100 kilowatt hour. The program has 36,000 customers. The new program, to be called SolarConnect, will start in 2015 pending approval by state regulators. The amount of the surcharge is yet to be determined.

Colorado’s largest solar power facility coming to Pueblo

Xcel Energy and renewable energy developer Community Energy of Boulder on Tuesday announced plans to build the state’s largest solar farm — and the largest east of the Rockies — near Xcel’s Comanche power plant and substation. The solar farm will cover 900 acres of privately owned land. It will feature more than 450,000 small solar panels that move in tandem to track the sun as it crosses the sky. The electricity generated will be equal to the power used by 31,000 homes, according to the developer. Xcel’s main customer base is the Denver area. The project will take about 15 months to build with construction set to begin by late this year or early next year, pending land-use approval by Pueblo County government. The start date for operations is tentatively set for summer 2016. The number of construction jobs tied to the project remains to be finalized, the developer says. The final project cost is undetermined but in excess of $200 million, the developer says. “This project is part of our vision begun in 2010 to bring utility scale solar at a competitive price to Front Range Colorado,” Eric Blank, president of Community Energy’s solar division, said in a statement. “We were drawn to Pueblo County and the Comanche substation as a great combination of high solar insolation, a welcoming community with open land and a strong interconnection point” to the Front Range’s electricity grid, he said. In a telephone interview Tuesday morning, Blank reiterated the company’s yearslong interest in Pueblo and the building site. “We just really liked a number of things about it . . . It just seems a really nice match.” The announcement comes five years after Pueblo County leaders responded to the nation’s call for more solar energy by launching a campaign marketing Pueblo as a prime spot for solar development. Key selling points are the area’s 300 days of sunshine per year and its location on the Front Range grid. Initially, utilities and the solar industry — along with federal and state government officials — opted to focus in Colorado on the San Luis Valley but that push has slowed over the need to build a transmission line to link with the Front Range grid. The Pueblo site is near the electricity substation at the Comanche power plant, which provides a “strong interconnection point with existing infrastructure close to Front Range load centers,” Blank noted. The company says the location offers other benefits: It is under-utilized grazing land surrounded by existing and future industrial users; and the land also is gently sloping that will require minimal grading to prepare it for the solar installation. The solar farm will ultimately be comprised of more than 450,000 mono-crystalline PV modules utilizing a single-axis tracking technology, the company says. The tracking technology follows the sun as it rises in the east and sets in the west, producing power during Xcel Energy’s peak demand periods and generally providing a nice match to daily summer air conditioning loads, the company says. Over the course of its 25-year life, the project will produce more than 6 billion kilowatt hours of solar energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 3.5 million tons, the company says. Pueblo County Economic Development Director Chris Markuson called the project a “huge win for our community” and a “tremendous shot in the arm for our local economy.” “This project demonstrates that renewable energy is ready for prime time and Pueblo County is perfectly positioned to be the center of utility-scale renewable energy production in Colorado,” Markuson said in a statement. “The clean energy produced by solar arrays in Pueblo is both profitable and sustainable while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. David Eves, president and CEO of Public Service Co. of Colorado, a part of Xcel Energy, issued a statement noting the project continues Xcel’s efforts to diversify its energy portfolio. “We believe strongly that solar is for everyone and it is clear that many of our customers and fellow Colorado citizens share our passion for solar energy,” Eves said. “This large-scale generating facility provides the advantage of renewable energy at a price that is right. Solar energy is a part of our future and we want to make sure that solar energy policy encourages the development of solar technology.” - See more at: http://www.chieftain.com/news/2346770-120/solar-energy-pueblo-project#sthash.zuJyc6e0.dpuf

The "value of solar"— utility-scale or rooftop?

In his March 16 Camera column, "Renewables? Yes!" Bob Greenlee praised the recently announced plan by Xcel Energy to construct a large utility-scale solar PV project in Pueblo County which he claims will be "two to three times more cost-effective than smaller rooftop projects." Although a dubious claim, such a project might still seem like a good idea — to those unaware of the incredibly rapid changes taking place in the energy world. But the ground is moving under Greenlee's (and Xcel's) feet. Over the last year, and particularly in the last few months, the main debate has shifted from fossil vs. renewables to centralized renewables vs. distributed renewables — specifically rooftop solar PV. Just over one year ago, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the investor-owned utility policy and lobbying organization, issued a brief, but prescient report titled "Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric Business." The report offered its members a "heads-up" that their basic 100-year old business model was threatened by rooftop solar, and it recommended that they rethink their whole business. The costs of rooftop solar panels (called Distributed Generation or DG) have dropped so dramatically that in some places they are already cost competitive with utility-supplied electricity. The conventional economies of scale of centralized generation is simply gone — solar modules are just as efficient at small scale as large. Public pressure has been mounting for PUCs to adopt new tariffs that recognize the "Value of Solar" to society and to encourage its use by moving beyond the ancient "cost-of-service" regulatory model that does not recognize the externalized costs of traditional generation (e.g., to air, water, health, jobs, environment, etc.) or the benefits of DG. Late in 2013 utilities in California, Arizona, Colorado, and other states began asking their regulators to slash the net metering tariffs that have encouraged the growth of rooftop solar, and to impose onerous fees for solar customers connecting to the grid. In November, the public pushed back in Arizona and won a victory with regulators, in spite of millions spent by utilities on lobbying. In another landmark decision last week the Minnesota PUC actually adopted the nation's first "Value of Solar" tariff. The EEI study warned that a consequence of resisting the trend to solar DG would be that those who could afford to would go off-grid by adding storage to their solar, and then strand the utility as conventional costs were shared by fewer and fewer rate-payers — resulting in a utility "death spiral." Two weeks ago, the Rocky Mountain Institute issued a 70-page cost study that validated the EEI warning, "The Economics of Grid Defection: When and Where Distributed Solar Generation Plus Storage Competes With Traditional Generation." The following general guiding principles ought to be applied in evaluating the present and any future electricity generation projects: 1) produce power as close as possible to where it will be used, and local utilities should 2) only manage the "wires and poles," and 3) let the customers generate the power wherever possible. Some may ask, why not build large-scale renewable projects that could be located on spoiled, unproductive, or ecologically unimportant brown fields near existing transmission facilities? The answer is that society's preference should be to favor smaller-scale distributed renewables located at or near the point-of-use, and on fostering the markets for such technologies and products. Every dollar sucked up by a large utility-scale project is a dollar that cannot be invested in rooftop solar, smart inverters, battery storage, small scale hydro, smart appliances, and other mass market technologies that result in long-term community-based jobs and manufacturing. The big projects tend to be one-time deals that primarily feed short-term construction jobs for outsiders, as well as provide rewards for bondholders, investors, land speculators, and utility's rate-base return-on-capital assets. Transmission losses can waste 8-14 percent or more of the power. If Xcel builds their farm, what they will actually do with the power? Will they will then retire the Comanche (or any) coal plant? For a glimpse of how consumers might see solar in the future in America, look at the present in Germany (http://bosch-solar-storage.com/). Xcel's 900-acre solar farm may be obsolete long before it is off the drawing board. R.J. Harrington is with Clean Energy Action in Boulder; Timothy Schoechle is an engineer and entrepreneur who lives in Boulder.

Xcel approves $200M Colorado solar power project in Pueblo County

Xcel Energy said Tuesday that it plans to buy power from a $200 million solar installation to be built near its power plant in Pueblo County. The move underscores Xcel's move to focus on utility-scale solar, which the utility says is two to three times more cost-effective than rooftop solar. "This large-scale generating facility provides the advantage of renewable energy at a price that is right," said David Eves, chief executive officer of Xcel's Colorado subsidiary, said in a statement. Rooftop solar installers and leasing companies have been critical of Xcel's actions. The energy company is seeking to cut the "net meter" payment for electricity put on the grid by new rooftop systems. "Xcel would have saved its customers money if they'd invested in rooftop solar instead of this utility-scale plant," Meghan Nutting, policy and electric markets director for SolarCity, the largest solar lease company in the state, said in an e-mail. Edward Stern, president of the Colorado Solar Industries Association, said that "utility solar is key, but Coloradans need the option of installing solar on their homes." The project, to be built by Radnor, Pa.-based Community Energy, will meet 70 percent of the 170 megawatt solar generation goal in Xcel's current renewable energy plan. The plan was approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in December 2013. The 120-megawatt Comanche Solar project will be the largest solar installation east of the Rocky Mountains, according to Eric Blank, president of Community Energy Solar, who is based in Boulder. Community Energy has solar projects in 10 states, including Colorado. The Comanche installation, with a price tag of more than $200 million, will be the largest by far, Blank said. At top performance, the system, slated to come online in 2016, will generate enough electricity to power more than 31,000 homes, Xcel said. "We were told by Xcel that is project was cost-competitive with the alternatives," Blank said. "This may be transformative, where solar becomes a real alternative." The installation, located on 900 acres of private land near the coal-fired Comanche Generating Station — will have about 450,000 photovoltaic panels on carriages that track the sun. Part of the cost-effectiveness of the project comes from being able to tap into the Comanche power plant's substation and transmission lines. "It is a very much cheaper interconnection," Blank said. Read more: Xcel approves $200M Colorado solar power project in Pueblo County - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25271720/xcel-approves-200-million-solar-power-project-pueblo#ixzz2vyeLV2aT Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

New Website Highlights Popularity of Rooftop Solar, Opposition to Xcel’s Attacks on Solar

Coloradans support rooftop solar. They have made that abundantly clear time and time again. A recent poll demonstrated that 70% of Coloradans support net metering, a critical solar policy. In December, hundreds of residents descended on Xcel headquarters to oppose the utility’s attacks on rooftop solar. And at the beginning of February, Coloradans packed a Public Utilities Commission hearing room to voice opposition to Xcel’s proposal to limit energy choice in the state. Homeowners understand that rooftop solar can provide savings on their electric bills and pave the way for a strong, clean energy future. Xcel Energy has chosen to ignore the public – its own customers – and oppose rooftop solar. The utility wants to roll back net metering, a critical policy for Colorado’s environment and economic growth. In 43 states, net metering gives rooftop solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they deliver back to the grid. Utilities like Xcel turn around and sell this exported energy at the full retail rate to the neighbors, even though they paid nothing to generate, transmit or distribute that cleaner power. Xcel wants to eliminate net metering to stifle rooftop solar and protect its monopoly. This week, The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) launched a new website highlighting Coloradans’ opposition to Xcel Energy’s efforts to undermine successful solar policy. The site, cosolarvoices.com features three Coloradans’ personal stories about why they support rooftop solar. Each of the speakers come from a different background but they share the conviction that rooftop solar is the key to Colorado’s energy future. These voices also share frustration over Xcel’s determination to hold onto its monopoly at any cost. “We should all be able to make the choices that we want to make,” says Jamie, a mom of two from Denver. “The utilities should not be controlling those choices.” Gary, a rancher and rodeo star agrees that “Xcel knows there went some profit for them, and that’s all they care about.” “It’s like they have the gimmes… gimme, gimme, gimme,” says Richard, a Veteran and lifelong Broncos fan. These personal stories echo across the entire state. Coloradans know that rolling back net metering now would have a chilling effect on Colorado’s solar industry, the jobs it creates, and the consumer energy choice it provides. Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/25/new-website-highlights-popularity-rooftop-solar-opposition-xcels-attacks-solar/#AvJpwM08KSQeeB0Y.99