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Is Xcel hoping they can blow some old-fashioned, out-of-date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.