A Foothold For Renewable Power?

Washington Post: Battle Over Wind, Solar Power In Colorado Presages Nationwide Energy Debate

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Peter Slevin.

---

When Colorado voters were deciding whether to require that 10 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable fuels, the state's largest utility fought the proposal, warning that any shift from coal and natural gas would be costly, uncertain and unwise.

Then a funny thing happened. The ballot initiative passed, and Xcel Energy met the requirement eight years ahead of schedule. And at the government's urging, its executives quickly agreed to double the target, to 20 percent.

In Colorado -- a state historically known for natural gas and fights over drilling -- wind and solar power are fast becoming prominent parts of the energy mix. Wind capacity has quadrupled in the past 18 months, according to Gov. Bill Ritter (D), and Xcel has become the largest provider of wind power in the nation.

The politics and economics of energy are shifting here in ways that foretell debates across the country as states create renewable-energy mandates and the federal government moves toward limiting carbon emissions. One advocate calls Colorado "ground zero" for the looming battle over energy.

Despite a continuing boom, oil and gas companies here are on the defensive. They are spending heavily as they try to prevent the repeal of as much as $300 million in annual tax breaks that would be shifted to investment in renewables and other projects.

The industry, already facing a rebellion among some longtime supporters angered by its toll on the environment, also finds itself in a fight against new regulations designed to protect wildlife and public health from the vast expansion in drilling. Beyond the merits, the proposals reflect the strengthened hand of environmentalists and their friends who feel that the fossil-fuel companies have held sway too long.

"Now is a terrific time for renewables to launch. I hope they get all the capital they need, and all the great minds and talent. But I don't want it to come at the expense of the oil and gas industry," said Meg Collins, president of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association. "As goes Colorado, so goes the West, as far as this energy policy debate."

State leaders are thrilled with the economic benefits that have come with the hundreds of new research and manufacturing jobs in pursuit of alternative power. Yet the fledgling renewables industry is also facing challenges, from a desire for tax credits of its own to a need for a stronger transmission grid that will make power more portable.

"The future in Colorado is building wind farms in wheat fields," said Ritter, a former Denver prosecutor, recalling the 2006 campaign pitch that helped carry him into the governor's office. "Quite frankly, it's how we should have been thinking for 10 years."
Ten years ago, Xcel began offering wind-generated electricity, but it was a niche market for eco-conscious customers willing to pay extra. That changed in a significant way after 2004, when Xcel lost the referendum fight.

After legislative efforts failed, proponents of renewable energy turned to the ballot that year. The initiative, Amendment 37, required the state's biggest utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Advocates found themselves facing off against Xcel, which said it feared for its bottom line.

"We ended up opposing that amendment. In retrospect, I wish we hadn't," said Frank Prager, Xcel's vice president for environmental policy. He said utility companies are inherently conservative, yet find themselves facing a transformation in an industry that, as he put it, has changed little since Thomas Edison's time.

Voters rejected the utility industry's arguments and approved the measure, making Colorado the first state to mandate renewable-energy use at the ballot box. Today, legislatures in more than 25 states have set prescribed levels, known formally as "renewable portfolio standards."

"It was one of those cases where the public was ahead of the politicians," said Tom Plant, Ritter's top energy strategist.

Once Xcel executives began to come to terms with the new rules, they discovered that federal tax credits made wind power affordable, especially in relation to rising natural gas prices. The cost of wind power is relatively constant and provides a hedge against future emissions regulation, such as the cap-and-trade approach favored by presidential candidates Barack Obama (D) and John McCain (R).

"It was good for the system," Xcel's Prager said, referring to the utility's mix of energy sources, "and it was good for the customer."

By the end of 2007, Xcel had met Amendment 37's goal and endorsed Ritter's request to double it to 20 percent by 2020. That measure passed the Colorado legislature easily: With the utility on board and public sentiment clear, the bill collected 50 sponsors in the 65-member House.

Executives at publicly traded Xcel stress their twin desires to make money and to insulate the company from the risks of unproven technology. As Prager put it during an interview in the company's downtown Denver headquarters: "It's absolutely essential that the state offer us something that makes it worth our while to be green."

Amendment 37 allows utilities to collect a fee from customers to invest in renewable fuels; it averages $12.72 a year for a typical homeowner with a monthly bill of $73. When the renewables goal doubled last year, so did the fee. Prager said the fee has provided Xcel $37.6 million between March 2006 and July 2008 for capital investment in wind and solar.

Colorado is adding wind-power capacity at a higher rate than any other state, its hundreds of turbines delivering one gigawatt of generating power at the end of 2007. That is triple the total of 12 months earlier. Six states produce more than one gigawatt with wind, with Texas far in front and California second.

Solar power remains a small part of the equation in Colorado, in part because concentrated solar generation is expensive. Xcel is sponsoring an 80-acre field of photovoltaic panels in the San Luis Valley, a project expected to provide 8.2 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 1,500 homes. But only 4 percent of Xcel's renewable megawattage is required to come from solar.

Meanwhile, Xcel's latest plan, filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, calls for retiring two of its aging coal-fired power generators.

"We've reached this critical point where we're seeing the deployment of these technologies accelerate," said John Nielsen, an energy analyst with the nonprofit environmental group Western Resource Advocates. "There was slow progress over the last decade, and you're now seeing this tipping point."

Among the signs is the arrival of Vestas, a Danish wind turbine company, which announced Friday the construction of two more manufacturing plants and 1,350 new jobs, bringing the company's total in Colorado to 2,450. ConocoPhillips announced this year that it will locate its alternative-fuels research operation in the state. The Colorado-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory is adding 100 jobs.

Colorado's growing political and economic commitment to renewables is causing fear in the oil and gas industry, which is fighting to keep its tax breaks and its influence over state rulemaking.

"We're not feeling very cherished," said Collins, whose oil and gas association represents more than 30 companies. The group objects to an initiative on the ballot in November; it would eliminate the industry's 87.5 percent property tax exemption, estimated to cost the state treasury $230 million to $320 million a year.

If the ballot rule passes, the tax money will be channeled to renewable fuels, wildlife conservation and education. The industry also objects to proposed rules that would require greater public health and environmental protection in areas where drilling takes place.

"It could have been done in a different way, and things wouldn't have gotten so heated," Collins said.

Alice Madden, the Democratic majority leader in the Colorado House, looks at the oil and gas industry today and recalls Xcel before the passage of Amendment 37. She has little sympathy for Collins's arguments, especially at a time when oil and gas profits are soaring.

"It's Chicken Little all over again: 'The sky is going to fall,' " said Madden, who also chairs Western Progress, an advocacy group. "The oil and gas companies see the writing on the wall, the shift to renewables. They want to make as much money as they can, right now."

Looking ahead, supporters of alternative fuels are counting on securing some advantages their fossil-fuel predecessors have enjoyed. One request is the renewal of a federal tax credit set to expire this year. Another, Prager said, is "some clear rules on the national level, especially on climate policy."

With 34,000 active gas wells in Colorado and 28 new permits issued each day, there is no chance that the oil and gas industry will fade away soon. And, as powerfully as the wind blows and the sun shines, the transmission grid for renewable energy is limited and the strength of the current is unsure.

"Unlike a coal plant or a gas plant," Prager said, "you can't flip a switch and make the wind blow."

[dnsallday]

The irony here is that no players are better situated than energy companies to install and benefit from wind or solar--they have vast capital, privileged access to power grids, expertise in connecting to grids, insider knowledge of when alternative power will be more profitable than fossil, etc. If they can''''t see the opportunity it presents to their own interests then they must not be very savvy businessmen...

Posted by razzl at 10:56 AM : Aug 19, 2008
************************************************************ Why would they change anything? They are pretty happy to be subsidized by the taxpayers of America where the minions have been convinced that corporate socialism is perfectly acceptable, but the public should expect no services from the Government that we pay for.

[tryhonesty]

Do you like living an a constant heavy wind area? Most do not. Use your brain, use some common sense. There are many prime areas for wind, solar and alternative energy...far away from where people prefer to live. Moving forward...

[tryhonesty]

We support our enemies of terrorism by buying their oil. The money = power to the Middle East...

[lovesamerica]

How many of you would welcome 50 towering windturbines in your back yard?

[talkingham]

The lying oil and gas companies have fought environmentalists every step of the way and reaped an ungodly amount of tax breaks for the last 30 years. Our payback for granting them the tax breaks are the highest oil and natural gas prices in history.

And the manner in which natural gas prices are artificially linked to the price of oil is yet another example of of highway robbery. We produce a huge amount of natural gas in this country but you never hear about it in the media do you. Yet, it''s priced as though it were shipped all the way from Saudi Arabia.

If we don''t win this war against the oil companies that are literally terrorizing our economy we deserve to go down.

[dan9111]

We have had so-called "breeder reactors" which in a way produce more nuclear fuel than they consume.

That is renewable energy, lasting longer than we can imagine Earth will last. Sure you can worry about waste, but remember we know eventually our sun will explode and our oceans will boil away long before than. The nature buffs should stop pretending our planet is immortal and the new renewable technology that saves us requires lifetime of infinity.

If we do the cost-benefit analysis, every town could have a breeder reactor safe enough for the ecosystem to live out exactly the same lifespan. If the sun will blow up anyway, don''t think humanity is safe from the radiation by shunning fission.

[Razzl]

The irony here is that no players are better situated than energy companies to install and benefit from wind or solar--they have vast capital, privileged access to power grids, expertise in connecting to grids, insider knowledge of when alternative power will be more profitable than fossil, etc. If they can''t see the opportunity it presents to their own interests then they must not be very savvy businessmen...

[homespunlady]

OIL SLAVES SUPPORT TERRORISTS.

Alternative ENERGY ENTREPRENEURS are FREEDOM FIGHTERS!!!

[homespunlady]

Posted by terrorislamz at 03:52 AM : Aug 19, 2008

Interesting that YOU SUPPORT TERRORISM through your MINDLESS INSISTENCE on PAYING THE TERRORISM SUPPORTING COUNTRIES (15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDI and the rest came from other OIL countries).

THAT SUPPORT STATEMENT FOR the ME OIL COMPANIES REALLY SHOWS your TRUE PURPOSE. What a HYPOCRITE!

[deacon20081]

I read all of these statements concerning the "downside" of wind power on the environment; so I ask What Down Side? The birds know better than to hit the things, get real here if that is an issue. The Oil and Gas company mouth pieces are posting on this board.. obviously. If you haven''t noticed the Oil and Gas rip-offs are going to come to a halt soon enough and kiss those Tax Breaks for NOTHING Good Bye.

[ubrew12]

ausus said: "To mention the positives without the negatives is a form of push-polling."
Oil is cheaper. It could destroy our planet.
You were mentioning about push-polling? In my opinion, we''ve been ''costing'' oil for 20 years without its major ''negative'' costed in.

[ubrew12]

ausus said: "To mention the positives without the negatives is a form of push-polling."
Oil is cheaper. It could destroy our planet.
You were mentioning about push-polling? In my opinion, we''ve been ''costing'' oil for 20 years without its major ''negative'' costed in.

[ausus-2009]

It appears that the cost to the people of Colorado for this renewable energy is at least a 17% increase in their fuel bill over what it would have been if the legislation had not passed.

When people are asked question like "Do you support renewable energy" it sounds great and they say yes.

If you asked the question "Do you support a 17% premium on your energy prices" you might get a different answer.

To mention the positives without the negatives is a form of push-polling.

[lovesamerica]

whats a shill? I am against anything that hurts the environment. unfortunately I am a human and my very existance effects it. No pesticides mam, 15 bird feeders, tree hugger,every animal and plant lover,kind to every creature, tortured soul. The trouble is,we humans jump at the next best thing without checking the impact on our environment fully. Bio fuels are horrible for the environment. not saying anything is good or all bad,but to erect windfarms just so we can keep all our useless toys is a crime against the very planet we habitate. Maybe we can get all the exercise junkys to run like hamsters on a wheel,they can get their fix for the day,provide their own energy and feel good all at the sme time. Chubby people can snuggle as their body heat will warm each other...hey whats the answer? I don''t know but as much as everyone says people are lambs to the oils companies,so too are the people who jump on the newest bandwagon.

[nearl4511]

The funny thing about analysis is that it is easy to skew to your political advantage.

This finding in CO shows that the potential amount of energy from wind is well UNDERESTIMATED in previous studies that point _ Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.

There are some simpler ways of utilizing Sun than solar cells too.

[ubrew12]

downsteamjim said: "Numerous giant windmills constructed and all connected by a huge power grid. It is truly amazing that this didn''t impact the environment. "
Everything impacts the environment, including your words. Windmills are FAR from perfect: all renewable power methods have environmental downsides, some of them are DRASTIC (look at what dams have done to the Columbia Rivers salmon population). That''s why diversity in energy generating means is the best solution, and conservation where appropriate.

The only unforgiveable environmental offense is to burn energy you didn''t need to burn "just because you could". That kinda behavior is just a big ''fvck you'' to God, where all energy comes from.

[homespunlady]

Posted by lovesamerica at 08:57 PM : Aug 18, 2008

Guess you DON''T have shiny windows, CATS, a vehicle or use ANY pesticides - ALL of which KILL MORE birds than a few wind turbines.

Heck if HUGE moving objects is a problem then those bobbing, stinky gas and oil wells KILL MORE than a few birds.

IF you''re REALLY worried, rather than a SHILL FOR THE LAZY DECADENT, OUT-DATED, CLOSED MINDED PROFITEERS why don''t YOU put some effort into DESIGNING some MORE bird safety features than they ALREADY HAVE out there.

Then again, you FAIL to mention the OIL SLICKS that HAVE KILLED THOUSANDS of birds. Yep, nice to hear a LAZY OIL company SHILL complain.

[homespunlady]

downsteamjim

It''s all relative to OTHER options.
I suspect it impacts MUCH LESS than say a thousand years of genetic mutating and cancer causing radiation over a wide area or the BLACK LUNG effects in the Appalachian coal mining area.

Then again the ENRICHING of TERRORISM through OUR SHORTSIGHTED KICKBACK POLITICS might NOT seem to be an environmental issue - until you find out that GWB our "decider" has AGREED to give the SAUDIS (15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11) OUR NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY because he "feels" they "need" it for their "energy" shortfall!

Yeah, Riiight - the land of endless sun, an ocean of oil, as well as wind and tides that could power the whole middle east.

As for my perspective - the LESS WE GIVE to TERRORIST BREEDERS the better!

DECENTRALIZING our power grid through THOUSANDS of interconnected feeds makes that grid almost INVULNERABLE TO ATTACK whereas a CENTRALIZED system of NUKE, or EXPLOSIVE COAL GAS and OIL plants is a very TEMPTING TARGET to the people that want to MANIPULATE and CONTROL ALL future energy for THEIR OWN chaos causing, SELF-ENRICHING PURPOSES.

[lovesamerica]

watch out migrating birds and wildlife for windturbines and blind selfish human beings

[downsteamjim]

A $25.54 charge on an electric bill of $73. That should really help the poor, but since it is a fee and not a tax it''ll be okay.