We're posting the letter Rowley Downs sent to the Public Utility Commission, taking exception with the administrative law judge's ill-reasoned ruling. If you want to read the full ruling, the strong, legal exception filed by the Office of Consumer Counsel, or any public comments,

1) Visit https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI_Search_UI.search

2) Type 14A-0287# in the box marked proceeding

3) Press search button

Here's the letter:

Dear PUC Commissioners,

I write as president of Rowley Downs Homeowners Association, Parker, Colorado, and as a supporter of Halt the Power Lines, a grass-roots, community-based group opposed strongly to the proposal that Public Service Company/Xcel has presented to the PUC in proceeding 14A-0287E.

Whether we are able to file a legal exception to the “Recommended Decision” or not, we cannot allow our major concerns with the “facts” and positions in the Recommended Decision to stand as presented. We call on the entire Commission to review the ruling and reject Xcel's request for a CPCN.

While we find major concerns in many areas of the recommendation, I highlight four of them.

First, in item 7., the ruling notes:

On July 23, 2014, the public comment was held in Parker, Colorado. ...In addition to well over 100 written public comments filed in this proceeding, numerous oral public comments were provided. The vast majority of public comment supports need for the overall project, but a majority also expressed siting concerns outside the scope of this proceeding. Several comments express specific concern regarding electromagnetic fields associated with the Project.

To come to the conclusion that “the vast majority of public comment supports need for the overall project” indicates at the very minimum a major misunderstanding of the statements and intent of many who oppose the project. We, as a homeowners association and later as Halt the Power Lines, have met with Xcel representatives several times, after they first raised with us the project less than a year ago.

Siting is an important element here. From the first meeting, company representatives have presented the proposed path as a core part of the project. The company has given lip service to the fact that it would consider alternative routes once they get a CPCN, however, the cost projections for the project that were presented to the PUC by the company are based on the specific siting plan through Parker neighborhoods. Thus, while the ruling and Xcel argue that legally siting is not under consideration, it is at  least the proverbial “elephant” in the room, if not specifically disingenuous. Several of statements in the ruling make it increasingly important. The decision notes the company did not define the project “in terms of the most cost-efficient manner to serve identified customer loads. Rather, the Company defined the scope of the Project so that the only solution is the one offered by the Company.” Such a conclusion about the company's approach should require the proposal to be rejected out of hand. But it is consistent with the approach we've seen in our dealings with Xcel. Such an approach also does not prove the need for the project. Thus, Xcel has not proven the need for the project.

The ruling mentioned the July 23 public comment meeting. I attended the meeting. I believe, according to PUC staff, twenty four people spoke at the meeting, while I estimate between 100 and 200 people attended the meeting. I recall only four people who spoke to support the proposal. Additionally, the meeting, while publicly scheduled to be held from 4 pm to 7 pm, was ended earlier than 7 pm. Several community members intending to speak against the proposal arrived after the meeting adjourned because they were expecting it to run the publicly announced scheduled time. I personally had expected it to run until 7 pm, even if there were times of “silence,” based on my conversations in the days before the meeting with a PUC staff member. The curtailed time was disappointing on the 23rd, but becomes more troublesome in light of the decision's interpretation of the public voice. It is worth nothing the August 1, 2014 edition of the Parker Chronicle notes “the majority who spoke [at the July 23 public comment meeting] were against the transmission line....”

I also believe the ruling greatly misinterprets the majority of emails and letters that opposed the project. As an indication of public opposition to the project, I attach more than 600 signatures collected in the Parker area as the Board of Rowley Downs sought to know neighborhood feelings and later as Halt the Power Lines publicized the public comment meeting.

The judge's odd and unsupported statements indicating that the majority of those who have commented support the project raises the issue of who does support such a project in advance of alternatives being considered and it being “proved necessary” before the PUC. Support of such a project in advance of a PUC hearing seems more relationship and business based, rather than bearing any actual relationship to the benefits of the project for the public. I believe this is well understood by the presiding judge, PUC staff and Commission. Yet, the ruling presents the statement on public support of the project without such acknowledgement.

While I believe this point is obvious to anyone involved in the process, because of the ruling's incredibly inaccurate statement on public opposition to the project, let me point out several specific examples from this proceeding.

Example One: The president of the Douglas County School Board sent a letter of project support to the PUC on behalf of the board. Unfortunately, the endorsement was never discussed in public or by the entire board, which most importantly includes an Xcel executive. We believe this case calls for a PUC review and investigation into how project endorsements are acquired by Xcel. While claims have been made that the Xcel executive on the board recuses himself from such decisions, an investigation would be required to help the PUC to ensure that what happened behind the scenes in school administration and within Xcel did not compromise the PUC process. If he were involved behind the scenes in any way in obtaining the endorsement, it raises issues of process and public corruption.  

Example Two: I corresponded with a member of an area Town Council about a letter he sent supporting the project. We had what developed into a pleasant exchange of emails, but he never produced any analysis he did to show the project was necessary.

Examples Three and Four: I reached out to a local Town Council and to a church in Aurora which sent letters in support of the project, asking specifically for any analysis they did before supporting the project. Neither responded. I suspect that few—most likely none—of those who have publicly supported the project have ever done thorough analysis of the need for the project.

Example from Public Comment Meeting: I could not help but note that at least three of the four who spoke in support of the proposal, left the meeting immediately following their comments in the company with a representative of Xcel.

I feel safe in observing based on on my personal experience that in this case that many, if not all, of those who supported this project seem to have business relationships with Xcel or personal relationships with Xcel representatives. While I am assured this is “standard,” it becomes relevant when considering the judge's statement that the majority of the public comment supports the project.  

Rowley Downs and Halt the Power Lines have long opposed to the proposed line and to the project, if it is not necessary. Following this recommended ruling by the judge, we reiterate our opposition, and based on his statements about Xcel's not considering alternatives during its lengthy planning process, we are more adamant that Xcel should not be granted a CPCN for the proposal and that the project is not needed.

As we've reached out to hundreds of Parker residents, we have found very few who support the project, but many who believe that the PUC process is tilted heavily to favor Xcel—that it will rubber stamp whatever Xcel wants. Based on the Recommended Decision ruling and reasoning therein, I fear if the recommended decision stands, it will reinforce that perception.

Second, the Recommended Decision seems to “punish” the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) for not raising issues earlier, but it gives a free pass to Xcel which is the party that is fundamentally responsible for considering alternatives.

In item 131, the Recommended Decision notes:

As the Commission previously found, a vigorous transparent process is essential to justify reliance on the results of the process. If the OCC had timely presented alternatives in the planning process, it is important that they would have been given appropriate consideration.

I raise two objections to this point.

The decision notes that we are many years from the needing the power projections in this proposal. In it's only timetable, the company expects it to take only four years from PUC granting of CPCN to being in service (2015-2019). The judged recommends the company not be permitted to begin the project until 2020. Thus it seems, based on the company's timetable that there is time for a two-year reconsideration/replanning of the project, taking into consideration other alternatives raised by the OCC. It is in the best interest of all parties (besides Xcel) to take the time before the $170 million plus expense is approved to ensure that it is needed and that there is no other alternative that will be less costly for energy consumers.

The Recommended Decision portrays in the items below that Xcel has used flawed (or, perhaps more accurately, no) processes to consider alternatives to the proposal and in preparing the application for the CPCN. 

144. Despite a lengthy planning process, the evidence of record fails to fully answer some of the very reasonable questions raised by Mr. Neil about how the Company came to propose this project. This leads one to question the least cost solution to serve projected need through 2024.

146. Notably, the Project is not defined in terms of the most cost-efficient manner to serve identified customer loads. Rather, the Company defined the scope of the Project so that the only solution is the one offered by the Company. No feasible alternative was developed through the planning process.

151. One way the Company defined the Project was as an extension of a prior project. This provides the basis for the Company’s position that there is no alternative to expanding the Project except not to expand the Project. In electric transmission, it is highly improbable that there is only one way to serve load. As a purpose, the position does little to advance any required element of proof to obtain a CPCN.

152. There is no indication whatsoever that the Company considered alternative projects to alleviate the constraint. To the contrary the only alternative considered was to not alleviate the constraint. The cost of an alternative means to alleviate constraint, even if part of a different project scope, would help quantify the benefit of constructing the Project to achieve that benefit.

153. Public Service demonstrated a future need, yet chose to define the project differently than how to plan transmission to most efficiently serve that need. Thus, many questions raised by Mr. Neill might never have been considered.

154. The planning process should not permit a utility to define a project such that customer interests are harmed. For example, it is concerning that the stated objective of the transmission study performed was to determine the amount of additional generation that can be accommodated by the Project. While such a study shows that future generation can be supported by the Project, it does little to support that the Project is the chosen alternative that best serves the public interest.

Yet, besides such scolding of Xcel, the decision rejects the OCC-raised alternatives and recommends rewarding Xcel for its sloppy analysis and its lack of alternative consideration. If the OCC should have been earlier in its objections in the open process, to a much greater degree Xcel should have been more complete and diligent in its alternative consideration and in its communication with communities it intends to impact in rates and other ways. The CPCN must be denied because Xcel failed to consider alternatives. 

If the ruling stands, the OCC which has done rapid, extensive and laudatory work on this proposal may get involved earlier in the process in the future, but, if I'm Xcel, I am left believing that using incomplete alternative analysis in the future is still the best course to my ends. I may be criticized for it, but because of time pressure, I'll get what I want.

As the representative of the people of Colorado, the PUC should hold Xcel accountable for their poor planning and demand better in the future.

Third, the Recommended Decision notes:

Public Service has conducted more than 70 meetings to introduce the Project to stakeholders and solicit feedback. In 2013, meetings with local elected officials provided overviews of the proposed project and timeline. Meetings have also been held with economic development groups, homeowner associations, developers, and many other stakeholders within Aurora and Parker.

The meetings that representatives of Xcel held with Rowley Downs (and later with Halt The Power Lines) were clearly meant to answer questions about the project as proposed in such a way as to defend the proposal, not to present or consider proofs or alternatives. The meetings, from my experience, were held only to check off the PUC box that the company had reached out to community groups. There was no discussion of alternatives. Now we learn in the judge's ruling why: they hadn't considered any. At our first two meetings, a company representative promised alternatives would be shown at the later public open houses. No one at the open houses could or expected to show us considered alternatives. Again, now we know why: They hadn't considered any.

Fourth, the OCC's concern in item 86, at a time when we want to ensure our power grid is safe and diversified, is important and deserves careful consideration. The Recommended Decision notes the OCC raised the “lack of geographic diversity if the Project is approved because approximately half of Public Service’s 2014 peak demand will depend upon three transmission lines running in one transmission corridor. [The OCC] contends this risk was not given proper consideration in Public Service’s analysis because of the absence of less risky alternatives considered.” In an age of terrorism, we believe the full Commission needs to consider the risk associated with the approach outlined.

On behalf of both Rowley Downs and Halt the Power Lines, I petition the full PUC Commission to reject the Recommended Decision and to deny the CPCN.

Thank you for your consideration, and again, I attach more than 600 petition signatures against Xcel's proposed project to reinforce the message that the Recommended Decision was completely wrong related to community support. The vast majority of the community is opposed to this proposal.

Respectfully,

President, Rowley Downs HOA Board

Supporter, Halt the Power Lines 

Who Cares? Apparently Not All of Our State and National Candidates

Over the last eight months, we have asked various elected officials (beyond Parker Town Council) to get involved in finding better solutions than Xcel has proposed. As they say, the silence has be deafening.

We also reached out 10 days ago to many of the candidates who are running for state and national offices. (We haven't written to all candidates, and we apologize to any who didn't get a chance to respond.) Below we've listed the responses we've received to date, so you can consider their responses and responsiveness as you consider who you'll support in the election.

The list of folks we've reached out to includes at the State Governor level John Hickenlooper and Bob Beauprez; at the US Senate level, we've written to Mark Udall and Cory Gardner; at the US House level, we've written to Ken Buck and Vic Meyers; and at the state house level (district #44), we've reached out to Karen Jae Smith, Kim Ransom and Halt the Power Line activist and Rowley Downs resident Lily Williams.

Their answers or summaries of our interaction with them follows in reverse alpha order by office. Some answers are cobbled together from responses to Halt the Power lines and those sent to HTPL supporters.

Candidates for Colorado House Seat #44:

Lily Williams (Resident of Rowley Downs and active supporter of Halt the Power Lines)

"I am a long time resident of Rowley Downs. I am the Libertarian candidate for HD44. I have been involved in the grassroots halt the power line project in our community and went to the PUC public comment meeting in Parker to express my opposition to Xcel's proposal to install ultra high power lines cross the very dense residential areas. The residents have legitimate concerns about the health impacts and property values but they are not adequately addressed. I hope PUC judge will delay the project and order Xcel to work with us to come up with a better solution. People's voices need to be heard. ...You can find out more details about me on my campaign site: www.lily4liberty.com or FB: Lily4Liberty. I am the only candidate for State House lives in Parker."

Karen Jae Smith

No Response

Kim Ransom

"I've done some reading about potential health risks of high voltage transmission lines, although I was made aware of the Xcel proposal you've described just this week. Research exists that goes back 30 years, and at least some of the results include recommendations that certain power lines be buried. There are other options as well, such as re-routing. More homework is needed on my part before I can provide a definitive opinion or answer to your question. I can certainly commit to doing my homework and listening to both sides.

"I reviewed the website you provided: www.haltthepowerlines.org. It appears somewhat outdated, so I'm hoping to get a current project status once the site is updated. The most recent post is from July. I'm not aware of any pending legislation, either local or state-wide, that would change existing regulations. I've not been notified of any scheduled hearings,  nor whether a permit has been applied for.

"In general, I support local control wherever possible, allowing cities, counties, and municipalities to choose a level of regulation that works well in their specific area. I'd like to research whether regulations in Parker differ from those in unincorporated Douglas County. Zoning regulations may require a USR, but as I mentioned, I've heard about this very recently."

Candidates for US House:

Vic Meyers:

Question: "'What is your position on Xcel's proposal?'  A: I'm not yet familiar with Xcel's proposal."


Question: "At this point, what do you believe you could do as a representative of the people to mostly effectively influence the final outcome of this proposal and ensure it meets the needs of Colorado neighborhoods? A: A primary issue in my campaign is for us to fight for investment in a 21st Century infrastructure.  Part of this infrastructure investment needs to be in a new, 21st Century smart grid for electricity transmission.  The lines you describe in your email reflect 20th century technology.  We need new lines that allow for two-way transmission, large enough to carry today's power needs and buried.  By replacing our current grid with a buried system we cut down on power losses due to mother nature.  We also give ourselves the capability to simultaneously install the infrastructure for digital communications to every corner of the country.  This investment will create jobs that pay well and are long lasting.  If we don't start paying for it today, our future generations will have to pay significantly more when they do it.  As a Congressman, I'll be working with other future-looking members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, to make these investments."

"I will be your congressman, not a corporate congressman.  But I'm underfunded (Washington Dems haven't been helping me) and an underdog in this race.  If you want a Congressman who puts you ahead of corporate sponsors then please share this message with your friends on Facebook, Twitter and email.

"For more information about me and my positions, please go to my website www.vicmeyersforcongress.com.  I am personally answering this email, you're not hearing from a staff member.  I answer all emails that come to this email address.  Feel free to send more questions.  I am grateful to anybody who wants to go to my website, www.vicmeyersforcongress.com,  and make a contribution to help me get radio and mail advertising in these final days of the campaign."

Ken Buck:

No response.

Candidates for Senate:

Mark Udall:

Automatic email response only.

Cory Gardner:

We wrote to the congressman earlier as Rowley Downs HOA. His office called for details. We presented our concerns on the phone and then made comments and provided background material directly to him during a meeting sponsored by IREA. We have received no response since.

Candidates for Governor

Govenor Hickenlooper:

He did not respond to our most recent query, however his office did respond to an earlier:

"Thank you for taking the time to contact Governor Hickenlooper's office. We understand your concerns with children health and the possible dangers of the power lines. Unfortunately, the Governor cannot intervene in changing the plan for Xcel, that is controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As you said, you have already sent them your concerns which is what we would highly recommend you to do."

An email following up their response went unanswered.

Bob Beauprez:

"Thank you for contacting our campaign. Bob has asked me to help with the large volume of mail we have received.

"We have received several letters from your organization. As you well know we are 20 days out from election day and our candidate is completely booked, as is our policy consultant. We would like to more fully research this proposed project and then give you an informed opinion.

"May I offer this, would you like to come to our office at 4201 East Yale, Suite 130, Denver, 80026, bring your information and sit down with me."

Parker Town Council Candidate Power Line Positions

On September 30, we reached out by email to Parker, CO, Town Council Candidates, asking each his or her position on Xcel's controversial and neighborhood-destroying transmission line proposal.

The following is a compilation of the responses we and/or Halt The Power Lines supporters received. We are not in the business of endorsing candidates, and leave that up to you to consider their responses on this topic, along with your concerns on other issues. However, we have noted mildly our significant concerns with one response.

We believe non-response is a significant indication about the candidate. The following candidates have not yet responded to Halt the Power Lines or, to our knowledge, to any HTPL supporters: Dustin Jensen and Mark Malsam. (If anyone knows either, you may want to encourage them to share their thoughts with us, as it may only indicate missed communication. If they do give us info., we'll update this post.)

Our next post will address candidates for other offices.

The responses appear in order of receipt:

(September 30) Josh Martin (current member of town council)

(He wrote to us and several supporters, adding bits of information along the way. We are cobbling together his position from several different emails.)

"As a sitting Councilmember, due to significant legal constraints, I cannot take a position on the power line issue.  As you know, since there is not an application in front of the Town at this point, for me to state an opinion would be considered prejudicial, and potentially open the Town to legal prosecution. That being said, the Town has engaged an independent 3rd party to complete a top to bottom review of the potential impacts of the proposed additional power line."

(Note: One supporter reports Josh wrote to him that town council has hired Tom Ghidossi, an exponential engineer, for an independent review, with results are expected in 60 days.)

"As a resident of Canterberry crossing, I am very familiar with the current power line and Xcel easement through both of our neighborhoods."

"I have spent probably 10-15 hours researching the topic, including websites, etc. from all sides of this issue, as well as what other communities have done when proposals like this have come in front of them.  Also, the Council has received a number of emails both in support of and against this project. I've read all of them and have taken both the support and concerns under advisement."

"I have not spoken with any representatives of Xcel.  I have had (mostly email) feedback from a number of citizens that support the project." [Editor's Note: Refers only to his communication he's had with project supporters. One wonders what would motivate anyone to support this project at this point unless they have a vested interest in its outcome or a relationship with Xcel. Many of the letters sent to the PUC (remember the school board) are provided by "friends" of Xcel. That's why the company maintains such an extensive community and government relations organization.)

"The study will be made public and it will be presented and discussed in a Council Study Session, like anything else of it's type would be."

(Note: Another supporter--a realtor--reported that he included the following in his response to her/him, "I see the 'Godzilla Towers' from my back deck, and having been a VP for a mortgage company for 9 years in a past life, I certainly understand the impacts things like this can have on property values.")

(October 6) Renee Williams

"I appreciate you for bringing this concern to my attention.  The emails I received on September 30 were the first I heard of this topic....  Since becoming aware of the issue, I have started to educate myself on it.  I have reviewed your website and joined your email list.  Please feel free to forward me any additional information you have.  At this time, I do not feel I have enough understanding to respond to your questions...."

(October 12) Al Bollwerk

"I personally am opposed to having the new Xcel Power Lines being planned to be constructed across Rowley Downs.  I am not sure at this time if the Parker Town Council has plans to try an impede or delay the progress of the building of the High Power Lines.  I heard that Xcel proposed plans now lies with a PUC judge to decide where the plan needs to go from here for the next step of approval. If elected to the Parker Town Council in the Nov 4th election, I would oppose any passing of the plan and vote for delaying it as long as possible. Putting the high power line underground would be probably make the most sense."

(October 13) Amy Holland (current member of council)

"As a responsible citizen and Councilwoman, I can assure you that I am staying on top of all of the literature, presentations, videos, newspaper articles, e-mails, letters and social media to ensure I am gaining the most accurate and detailed information regarding this issue.

Meanwhile, to maintain the ability to serve in the best interest of the citizens of Parker, I must uphold my responsibility to all concerned by adhering to the current legal constraints at this given time.

I certainly hope that you are able to respect me and the position I hold and take very seriously as a current Councilmember. Please know that I am not taking this situation lightly by any means."

(Follow up question not yet responded to: Have you ever discussed this project in a meeting or otherwise with an Xcel representative or anyone supporting this project?)

(October 14) Mark Schmitt

(Cobbled together from two different responses.)

"I share your concerns as I am a resident on Sagewood Lane [Hidden River] in Parker. My boys and I play in the parks on the circle too. I have lived here for the last 7 years. I drive under the unsightly lines twice a day. I too prefer the sky to be beautiful and clear. ...Comments must be very cautious in nature but [that] doesn't mean [you] can't say at least a stand or opinion."

(October 14) Mark Lane (Mr. Lane gives the most complete answers, but it seems most of his "facts" come from Xcel.)

The answers to the following questions will explain my views on the (not yet) proposed Xcel project...

·       What is your understanding of the Xcel proposal?
Xcel Energy is predicting that due to the growth of Douglas County and areas south that the demand for electricity will increase and that they will need to supply another 550 MW (Mega Watts) in the next 6 years to meet this demand. The transmission lines will run adjacent to the current lines in the existing right-of-way. The new poles will range from 70' to 150' in height. As the existing poles are right at 140', not much of a difference.

·       What have you done to understand the proposal and process?
I have spent many hours on the phone gathering information. Many more researching online and reading the reports and talking with both Xcel and Douglas County. The only comment I can get from the Town of Parker is that an application has not been submitted so they cannot offer any specifics on what the proposal may look like. It is my understanding that this project will be submitted in the fall of 2015.

·       What have you done to understand constituent concerns related to the proposal?
I have received many comments and concerns from my fellow constituents on this project. Mainly from residents who live closest to the existing lines. I do understand their concerns and have researched them. The two links below show photos of what the additional line will look like. I have also researched the electromagnetic effects it may have and there is no research I have found that determines that power lines cause adverse reactions to those living near by. As far as real-estate values, I have learned that there may be a 2-9% decrease in property values. However, as this is an addition to existing lines I don't see it to be a factor.
     http://www.sb100transmission.
     http://www.sb100transmission.

·       From town staff, we understand the mayor and town administrator have met with Xcel representatives to discuss the proposal. Have you ever discussed this project in a meeting or otherwise with an Xcel representative or anyone supporting this project?       Of the many meetings I have attended, this project has not been discussed. As I stated, it won't even be proposed until fall of 2015. In fact, most of the residents I ask about this project don't even know about it. If the PUC determines that the transmission line is needed, than I don't see it not happening. I do believe that running it next to the existing line would have the least impact on the 5.5 mile run through Parker

·       What have you done or plan to do to engage the interested parties in a search for a solution that works for all parties?
When it does get proposed and becomes an issue that can be worked on then I believe being informed on the issues and getting input from our residents we will be able to come up with the best case option. I do know that to run a transmission line is approximately 1.8 million per mile where as burying the line cost 40 million per mile! Do you realize the huge increase we would all be burdened with? Now that will be a very hard sell.

·       What is your position on Xcel's proposal?
As I stated earlier, if this is deemed to be needed for future needs, then it is going to happen whether we want it or not. All we can really do is to make the project happen with the least impact to our community.

·       What do you believe the Town Council can do to most effectively influence the final outcome of this proposal and ensure it meets the needs of the Parker community? If I am elected to serve, I will do everything I can to ensure the project will have the least amount of impact.

Xcel's Proposal Guesses that the Future Will Look Like the Past

What will happen to the need for transmission lines by 2024? 

The energy industry is not what it was 10 years ago. Think how far we've come. Where were LED bulbs in 2004? Electric cars? Wind power? Solar power? Entrepreneurs and innovative companies have reinvented the world of electric power seemingly overnight with dramatic efficiency improvements, new and improved products, increased supplies of natural gas and with wind and solar resources blossoming across the west thanks to government support and technological advances and economies. And we seem to be transforming energy generation at a faster and faster clip.

So why would you plan a project that won't be needed until 2024 based on today's market and technology?

Xcel's current proposal for Colorado transmission lines and new generation between Pawnee Station and Daniels Park does just that. Even according to the company, the generation and transmission will not be needed (under current projections) until 2024, but the company wants to get it built in the next several years. Why? What's the hurry? It surely won't take that long to get it done--the company wants it up, running and raising your rates by 2019. (Interestingly, a group of large companies opposes this project because among other reasons they think it is premature.)

Is the project being hurried along because Xcel wants to lock in the $178-230 million project (and its guaranteed returns) before the energy revolution we're seeing makes such a project obsolete and the increased consumer rates unnecessary?

What would happen to forecasted demand for new transmission lines if communities up and down the front range installed solar gardens and generated energy right where it was needed?

Far fetched in 2004. Yes, undoubtedly! Far fetched in 2014? Not so much according to the Mark Jaffe's Denver Post article (September 7, 2014) on just that topic:

The main driver in Colorado has been Xcel Energy's Solar Rewards Community program, which created 25 solar-garden projects with a total of 18 megawatts in the past two years.

...Solar gardens are easy to connect to the grid, and kilowatt-hours put on the grid get a credit that is negotiated with the utility.

"Utilities generally like community solar rather than rooftop solar," said SunShare's [Jonathan] Postal.

"Operationally, it is a very clean process," said Xcel's [Lee] Gabler.

Still, the Colorado solar industry is banging up against Xcel's program.

"Clearly, there is tremendous demand," said Rebecca Cantwell, director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group.

"This is a program that should be expanded."

Had you heard of solar gardens in 2004, just 10 years ago? We hadn't. What haven't you heard about in 2014 that will be viable in 2024? We can't even imagine the possibilities.

Here's hoping the PUC, even before the next decade's technological advances come into focus, will send Xcel home to rethink this project and requires the company to expand its solar garden program.

Transmission Lines for Energy Demand or Just Corporate Profits? You Decide!

Xcel has been pitching the need for the new, disruptive Pawnee to Daniels Park extra high voltage

Is Xcel hoping they can blow some old-fashioned, out-of-date
data our way to "prove" the need for their proposal?

transmission line because of past and future economic and population growth.

Sounds good, doesn't it. After all, the Front Range is expected to grow dramatically in coming years.

But . . .

Trends in energy use are changing: Energy may no longer be tied to economic and population growth. In fact the EPA's goal, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, "is to offset any increases in energy use because of population growth by promoting energy-efficiency measures."

So, why is Xcel really pushing this project?

​The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above and one from January 2013 may offer insight.

From the article noted above:

Even though Americans are plugging in more gadgets than ever and the unemployment rate had dropped at one point to a level last reported in 2008, electricity sales are looking anemic for the seventh year in a row.

Sluggish electricity demand reflects broad changes in the overall economy, the effects of government regulation and technological changes that have made it easier for Americans to trim their power consumption. But the confluence of these trends presents utilities with an almost unprecedented challenge: how to cope with rising costs when sales of their main product have stopped growing.

...​The U.S. Energy Information Administration said recently that it no longer foresees any sustained period in which electricity sales will keep pace with GDP growth. ...​Energy efficiency blunts the impact of population and economic growth, because upgrades in lighting, appliances and heavy equipment reduce energy needs.

...Electricity demand is likely to be even more subdued in coming years. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to slash greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in part by trimming electricity use. Its goal is to offset any increases in energy use because of population growth by promoting energy-efficiency measures.

January 2013 article excerpts:

...Many utilities with regulated and unregulated operations are redirecting spending to their regulated side, where regulators practically guarantee them a profit. PSEG plans to triple its investment in its fully regulated electricity-transmission business to $2.4 billion in 2014 from less than $866 million in 2008.

Ralph Izzo, the company's CEO, recently told investors that he likes spending on power transmission, because "it's not dependent on [electricity] load growth." Part of his motivation is the return on equity of 11.7% to 12.9% set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Wow! It's not what we expected when we first started questioning this proposal. Energy demand will not naturally increase as Xcel has been claiming or implying. And how might the company deal with less than robust energy growth: Based on the 2013 Wall Street Journal article, it just might want to invest more in transmission lines where it would be guaranteed a good return.

Is that, then, Xcel's real bottom line? Higher corporate financial returns from an unneeded project? An unneeded project that harms neighborhoods in Aurora and across Parker?

We again challenge the need for (and question the motivation behind) the Pawnee-Daniels Park Transmission proposal.

Is Xcel Just Speculating on the Backs of Rate Payers?

Is Xcel Just Speculating on Our Backs?

Is Xcel's current proposal just “deja vu all over again”? Is the company just speculating on the backs of rate payers--as it appears it tried to do in Southern Colorado just a few years ago?

It's current proposal to build long-distance, extra-high voltage lines from Brush, Colorado to Daniels Park, according to Xcel's project website, is:

“part of the company’s Senate Bill 07-100 portfolio of transmission plans and is a critical component of the Colorado long-range transmission plan. The project will allow for the interconnection and delivery of new generation resources, including renewable energy to Front Range customers to meet new load growth and improve system reliability.”

Sounds convincing, doesn't it? Until you look at what Xcel tried to do in Southern Colorado. Here's what that project website claimed:

It was “needed to meet the challenges identified by the Colorado General Assembly, the Governor's Energy Office, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and numerous stakeholders. The project is essential to meeting Colorado's goals of clean, reliable, affordable, and secure electrical power now and in the future.

It sounds the same: Government demands! Essential/Critical! Clean/Renewable Energy! Reliability! New Load Growth/The Future!

It's the same excuses. Why do we say “excuses”? Read on to see what happened when the PUC suggested that Xcel should bear some of the risk if the project didn't live up to Xcel predictions:

We quote from website smartvalleyenergy.com:

Xcel Threatens to Walk Away from Transmission Line
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

Xcel has recently threatened to walk away from the Southern Colorado Transmission Line Project if the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) doesn’t give-in to their demands to put public money – and only public money – at risk in the project.

Who is regulating whom?

The PUC will soon decide whether to approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) application for the transmission line project. In her recommended decision to the PUC, the Administrative Law Judge placed a condition for the CPCN that . . . puts some investment risk on the utility, rather than on ratepayers who have no say in whether or not the line is built. In fact, this condition should be even stronger and provide more protection to ratepayers from abuse by Xcel.

Parties in the case filed responses late last week.

Xcel’s response? “If the Commission does not remove this condition, Public Service will be forced to withdraw from this Project.” That is quite a threat.

Xcel had the audacity to go on in their response and state that,“it would be irresponsible for an investor-owned utility to put shareholder funds at risk…” Xcel is happy to rake-in hundreds of millions of dollars from ratepayers as long as its shareholders’ money is not at risk.

In another recent PUC filing, the PUC’s own staff complained about Xcel’s many attempts to improperly control the Commissioners: “Staff is troubled by what has become an all too familiar theme of [Xcel] that the sky is falling and urgency prevents [Xcel's] proposed actions from being properly vetted and approved” by the Commissioners. Staff asked, “…who is in charge in Colorado, the utility or the Commission.”

The Denver Post reported,

Xcel Energy has threatened to drop plans for a controversial transmission line that it seeks to build in southern Colorado because of regulatory conditions that might be imposed on the project.

In a filing this week with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Xcel took issue with an administrative law judge's recommendation that Xcel face financial sanctions unless it keeps the $180 million line supplied with large amounts of power.

...The line is intended to help carry power from solar-energy generating stations in the San Luis Valley to Colorado's Front Range and other population centers.

Xcel said its main concern is a provision that would require it to refund 50 percent of the development costs it collects from ratepayers if the transmission line fails to carry at least 700 megawatts of power within 10 years of completion.

In its filing, Xcel said the power requirement "is clearly not in the public interest" and is "arbitrary and unreasonable."

Xcel eventually pulled out of the project.

Is the Pawnee-Daniels Park project just the same—a speculative effort to keep control of energy along the front range, at a time when market forces and technology are moving in other directions? Is this just speculation on the backs of rate payers (raise their rates) for the benefit of Xcel shareholders? As they say, "Follow the money."

We make the same point folks in Southern Colorado made: “We shouldn’t have to foot the bill for an overbuilt, overpriced, unnecessary project.”

Will Xcel's Pawnee to Daniels Park Proposal be Quickly Obsolete?

Hundreds came out in Denver to protest Xcel's plan
to decrease payments to rooftop solar customers.

The energy business is changing—dramatically and rapidly--and changes are already impacting Xcel. For proof, just look at Mark Jaffe's recent Denver Post article on the conflict solar panel customers and installers are having with the Minnesota-based Utility company in Colorado because Xcel wants to lower its payments to solar customers for energy they contribute to the grid.

Current and coming changes raise a core question: Is the Pawnee to Daniels Park extra high voltage long-distance transmission line necessary, or is Xcel's proposal just a head-in-the-sand, monopole-in-the-air wish to keep us in the 1890's?

If the PUC approves the transmission line as currently proposed and it's not needed, Coloradoans will be stuck with unnecessary power transmission? If so, the poles and wires will stay uselessly in place and rate payers will be paying for them for decades. (Even under the best circumstances, this proposal raises Xcel customer rates.) Are Xcel managers and investors the real beneficiaries here?

In a blog on the website www.yourenergyblog.com, Jessica Kennedy writes:

Developed nations all over the world take pride in the technological advancements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, as they should, but, the United States is functioning in 2014 with essentially the same power delivery system developed in the 1890’s. The electricity we depend on every day travels along a transmission system based on nineteenth century technology. ...Historically, energy infrastructure has been maintained to preserve the status quo instead of improved to keep pace with technology. ...there is no excuse for the system to have stagnated and decayed for over a century.

...We can’t expect electric utilities in 2050 to operate in the same fashion they do today. Energy industry practices are already outdated, and there is a big shift in energy distribution and generation on the way.

In order for utilities to remain profitable as our grid transforms they need to adapt, and fast. ...The biggest change for utilities by 2050 will be the emergence of distributed energy resources (DERs)...[,] a competitive threat to the traditional utility model because consumers will soon have a choice between buying power through the grid, or investing in onsite generation and producing their own power. ...As consumers gain diverse and low cost choices in renewable and distributed generation resources, utilities will need to integrate DERs, and carefully blend the needs of customers with their own, in order to stay relevant.

...David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy . . . said, “[i]n the future I see an at-home, disaggregated system, with the home like a brain, with supply and demand of electricity being generated in that home.”

Morgan Stanley published a report in early March 2014 that predicts a realization of Crane’s vision of homes powering themselves with solar panels and batteries. The financial firm points to the already enormous distributed solar market, and electric car company Tesla’s innovative battery production concept as indicators that consumers may soon choose to abandon the electric grid altogether. Tesla’s “gigafactory” will drive down costs of energy storage exponentially once it is built and in operation. Morgan Stanley states in the report that Tesla’s proposed battery production can not only make off-grid energy cost-competitive with utilities, but it will likely evolve to be more inexpensive over time. ...It seems to be a matter of when, not if, renewable and battery configurations are the power systems of choice for homes and businesses across the country.

Energy development, production and transmission are entering a new era. Is Xcel's Pawnee to Daniels Park project, even if it were solely based on leveraging wind power, just a way to hold on to Xcel's monopoly in many parts of Colorado, even as energy production shifts closer to your home? If so, who will be the losers? Rate payers, who will see their bills increase if this proposal goes through--even if the line never performs as promised--and residents of Parker and Aurora who will see additional power lines and poles installed even if they are quickly obsolete.

Xcel needs to look to the future, innovate and develop projects that integrate with the independence we will increasingly have in our energy production. Nineteenth Century transmission technology has no place in our 21st Century neighborhoods.  

Welcome to Our Q & A Blog

Over the last several months, Halt The Power Lines has learned much about Xcel's intrusive proposal to add extra-high voltage power lines through suburban Denver. Many people have asked good questions ("Where else can the line run?," "Doesn't Xcel need these lines?"), and some have bought into falacious assumptions ("We all need energy, so we need these transmission lines.") So we're starting this feature to answer questions and take on misconceptions about electricity, transmission lines and Xcel's Pawnee-Daniels Transimission Line proposal that will run through neighborhoods, in Southeast Aurora, Parker and Douglas County.

We'll help get the truth out about this project, because unless we work together these aerial lines may shortly be coming to a neighborhood near you (maybe even your neighborhood).