Archive for Nonprofits

Five Free (or nearly free) Ways to Learn about Alternative Energy near Denver

I’m often aghast at the price conference organizers ask for people looking to
learn about alternative energy, when there are so may great inexpensive
opportunities available, sponsored by nonprofits a and other organizations
whose mission is to get the word out about our energy options.  Here are
three monthly events that Denver area residents can go to… I go to most of
these regularly.

  1. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Brown Bag Analysis seminar … Free, but make sure to bring photo-ID.
  2. The Colorado Renewable Energy Society’s Monthly Meetings. ($5 or $40 annual membership – snacks usually served afterwards.)
  3. The Colorado Cleantech Initiative monthly meeting. ($10 with RSVP – you get dinner & free beer.)
  4. Smart Energy Living Workshops (Usually about $10-15, lower with membership)
  5. Clean Energy Action monthly meetings (Boulder)

Please leave comments if I forgot (or don’t know about) your regular free
or almost-free event.

Comments (1)

Denver Tour of Solar Homes Sneak Peak; links to National Tour

Preview the Denver Tour of Solar Homes Online


The Denver area Tour of Solar Homes takes place in less than a month, and this year you can preview some of the buildings involved online. 
Check out the Sneak Preview on the right-hand side of the
Tour of Solar Homes page on the CRES Web site

.

 

The 2007 Tour of Solar Homes will take place on Saturday, October 6 in Denver and most locations around the state.  However, some of the activities are slightly different. 
The Boulder tour will take place on Saturday, September 30. 
And the tour in Pueblo will span two days: October 6 – 7. 
See a complete listing of solar home tours in Colorado on the American Solar Energy Society Web site.

 

National Solar Tour

 

Outside of Colorado, people you can find tour in your own community by visiting the National Solar Home Tour website.

 

Volunteers Needed for the Tour of Solar Homes October 6

CRES needs volunteers to help with the Denver Metro-Area Tour of Solar Homes on Saturday, October 6.  If you step forward, you will assist homeowner with visitors.   

There are two shifts: morning from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and afternoon from noon to 4 p.m.  

Volunteers are welcome to spend the half-day they are not working touring homes themselves. Volunteers are also invited to attend a workshop free of charge from 6 – 8 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 4 titled "Solar Photovoltaics and Xcel Energy’s Solar Rewards Program" and presented by Jeff Scott of SolSource and Juliea Gauthier of Xcel Energy.  The
workshops take place at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Visitor’s Center at 15013 Denver West Parkway in Golden, which is two blocks west of the Denver West Marriott at I-70 and Denver West.

Following the workshop, veteran volunteer John Avenson will give a brief orientation for volunteers about the duties the day of the
Tour of Solar Homes
. To volunteer, contact Patty Roberts via email at: patty at pacificmillimeter dot com

Comments off

July 20th–Denver–The Science of Climate Change

Please Join Us on July 20th-9-4 at the Adams Mark Hotel, Denver—Colorful Poster
Attached—Please Post—Thanks!

Take Advantage of Colorado’s Amazing Experts
on Climate Change Science!

 

If we
are going to address the problem of climate change we have to be clear on what
the scientists are telling us—and there is much more to the story than the
media have told us. Please join us on July 20th for a day long
workshop of essential information delivered by some of the world’s top
climate change scientists. Poster and Agenda attached and Agenda copied below.
Please join us—and pass the word!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens Working to Bring Clean Energy Solutions
to
Colorado

www.cleanenergyaction.org

 

The Science of Climate Change and
Leadership in

the Greenhouse Century

 

Friday July 20, 2007,
9am-4pmAdams
Mark Hotel,
Denver, Colorado

How Urgent is the Problem? How Long Do We
Have to Make the Needed Changes?

These World Class Scientists Will Bring Us
the Latest Information

Confirmed Speakers in Bold

 

 8:15- 8:45   
          Registration

 9:00 -9:15   
          Welcome and
Introductions

 9:15-10:00  
          “Leadership in the Greenhouse
Century: A Citizen’s Perspective”

                            
                  
Leslie
Glustrom, Clean Energy Action

10:00-10:15 
          Break

10:15-11:00 
          “CO2—Where Does it Go
and How Long Does It Stay There?”

                            
                  
Dr.
Pieter Tans, NOAA

11:00-11:45           
“Coming Climate:
Thresholds, Feedbacks and Predictable Surprises”

                            
                  
Dr.
James White, CU-Boulder
 

11:45-1:00            
Lunch (On Your Own)

1:00 – 1:45            
“Leadership in the Greenhouse Century”

                            
         
        
Governor Bill Ritter or
His Representative—Invited

1:45  -2:30            
“Leadership in the Greenhouse Century—A Republican Perspective

                            
         
        
Mike Bowman  25 x25

2:30-2:45              
Break

2:45-3:30              
Climate
Impacts and
Colorado: Bringing it All Home”

                            
                  
Dr.
Martin Hoerling, NOAA

3:30:4:00               
Wrap-Up Discussion

                            
                  
Members of Clean Energy
Action

                            

Registration–$30/person–before July 17t;
$50 after July 17th

Call 303-245-8637 or send an e-mail to lglustrom@gmail.com to reserve a seat

Organizational Pass for NonProfits, State Agencies and
Companies with Fewer than 15 Employees–$150

Organizational Pass for Companies with More Than 15 Employees–$300

Organizational Passes Provide Unlimited Attendance for the
Organization; Must be Reserved by
July
17, 2007

 

If you live on this planet you should be
there!

 

Comments (1)

Colorado Renewable Energy Conference, June 8-10, 2007

CREC logo Next month is the annual Colorado Renewable Energy Conference, held this year from June 8- 10, 2007 at the Steamboat Grand Hotel in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Keynote speakers are Dr. Chuck Kutscher and Patty Limerick.

CREC is a great place to fnd out what’s happeninging renewable energy in Colorado, and to network with people in the business here.

If you’re really desperate for something to do Saturday Evening from 4-5pm, you can go to a panel led by some guy named “Dr. Tom Konrad” on “Investing in Renewable Energy Stocks.” If you’re lucky, it will be dark in the back of the room and you can take a nice nap.

LINKS:
CREC 2007 Flyer
Registration
More info

Comments (1)

Colorado News: Doubling of Colorado’s RPS

Colorado House Bill 1281, which doubles Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio standard (RPS) (as well as the solar set-aside) passed the state Senate on Friday, and is certain to be signed into law by state lawmakers.

Here’s how the new requirements stack up against the old Amendment 37 requirements (passed by a popular vote in 2004.)

rps.GIF
Not exactly a “doubling,” but is there a better way to describe it?

“A37″ are the old requirements for investor owned utilities (affectionately known as IOUs,) “HB 1281″ are the new requirements for IOUs, and “Co-ops” are the new requirements for Rural Electric Co-ops (which previously had an opt-out, although a few decided not to opt out.)
The opt-out contained a provision that each Co-op’s members (i.e. customers) vote to opt out, which most of them proceeded to do (one exception is Holy Cross, which chose not to opt out, however, this has led to some contention with Xcel as to whether or not their existing power purchase agreement with Xcel included the renewable energy credits (RECs) associated with Xcel’s generation of electricity from renewables… since both utilities use these RECs to meet their requirements.)

While the opt-out elections all seem fair and democratic, that is before you realize that all the information most members were getting was coming from their co-op’s management. This is fine with progressive co-ops like Delta-Montrose and Holy Cross, but when it comes to troglodytes such as the management of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), it’s a little more Orwellian.

In the recent House and Senate hearings, IREA was arguing for another opt-out from HB 1281, arguing that IREA’s members had voted against it in the first election, and that it would force IREA to raise rates (despite the fact that the bill specifically states that rural co-ops only have to meet its requirements if they can do so with less than a 1% rate increase (the more stringent requirements for IOUs can be met with an up to 2% rate increase.) In some ways IREA’s failure to get their opt-out into HB 1281 was due to their own maneuverings. In response to IREA’s funding of a global warming skeptic this summer led many of IREA’s members to wonder what else Stan Lewandowski was doing with their money that they did not know about. They founded IREA Voices to try to get a greater say in how their customer-owned utility is run. (If you know anyone who lives in IREA territory (just south of the metro Denver area, make sure they know to vote for the IREA Voices candidate in their district. (Mike Kempe, Mike Daniels, or Jake Meffley, if one appears on the ballot that came with their last IREA bill.) If you don’t live in thier districts, they are funding their campaigns out of their own pocket, plus any donations. Help out if you can!

It’s ironic that co-ops, which supposedly exist to serve the best interests of their members (as opposed to shareholders) are often the laggards (and in IREA’s case, even deniers) of the environmental effects of our reliance on coal for electricity. I believe that Stan Lewandowski believes he is doing the right thing by trying to keep rates down, and damn everything else, but in the end, the farmers he feels he is serving will be the ones who suffer some of the worst effects of global warming.

Anyway, it looks like momentum is finally on the side of those of us that realize the magnitude of the disaster facing us, but time is also of the essence, and the faster groups like IREA Voices can catalyze change, the better for all of us.

So let’s cheer Colorado’s doubling of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, but let that one victory inspire us for the struggles ahead. We’re a long way from the time when we can declare victory and go home.

Comments (1)

Solar panels for the price of the electricity

Many of us would like to have put solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on our home, and generate our own Citizenre Corporationelectricity.  Until now, I’ve always told people that they have better uses for their money.  Even with the recent extension of the federal tax credit until the end of  2008, and (in Colorado) the rebates being offered by Xcel Energy in order to meet their Amendment 37 requirements for customer sited solar electric, the return on investment for the electricity generated at current prices (about $8 per watt for the panels & system; $4.50 per watt rebates from Xcel, and a $2000 federal energy credit), a 4 kW system only returns 1.4% per year in electricity savings.  (I got these numbers from a workshop presented by Jeff Lyng, who will be vice-chair of The American Solar Energy Society next year, and calculated the return from those.  Jeff was speaking as a consultant for Xcel on their solar rebates program.)   To me, it makes more sense to invest in renewable energy or energy efficiency companies, which are likely to yield a higher return (or put the money in a CD and use the interest to buy RECs or give away CFLs).

Until now.  CitizenRE is offering to install photovoltaic panels on you house, and charge you only for the electricity.  Better yet, the price you will pay is equal to the same price (or less) than your utility charges.   If you like, you can lock in your current price for electricity for up to 25 years (although 5 is standard.)

You do still have to get power from your utility company… there is no provision for battery backup, and they require a $500 deposit which you don’t get back until the end of the contract.  Also, you are only renting the panels from CitizenRE, but you are responsible for damage to them from other than normal wear (as you would be for any other rental), so they suggest that you include them in your homeowner’s policy.

Still sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?  Here’s the big catch: they are signing people up now, but they plan to manufacture the panels at their own plant, which will not start operation until at least September 2007 (and, being a cynic, I’d expect further delays.)  Realistically, don’t be surprised if you don’t have your panels until mid-2008.  But for people who don’t have an extra $10,000 burning a hole in their pocket, you probably weren’t going to get a system until 2008 or later anyway.

This is probably not the only place you’ve heard about them… I’ve read several other blogs (here, here, here, and here. ) about them so far, and part of the reason for that is they are using a multi-level marketing scheme (MLM) (although they don’t like to call it that).  I don’t think any of the blogs I linked to back there are MLM-ers… I also came across several blogs like that (most of which had clearly been started for the sole purpose of selling CitizenRE), and decided not to do them the favor.  I’m not generally a fan of MLM, but I have to admit that it’s probably the best way to reach a lot of homeowners quickly.   As part of my research for this blog, I decided to sign up (it was incredibly easy… I did have to get 4/5 on a quiz, but three of the questions were general ones about solar and electricity, so I only had to guess right on one out of two, which I managed on the first try (but I could have tried again after 2 hours)… they have tutorials for people who are serious about this stuff, but who has time for that?)

Instead, I spent my research time reading the Forward Rent Agreement (FRA) contract their customers have to sign, which is where I got some of the above caveats (also note that they do reporting through a land telephone line, so if you sign up, you have to maintain telephone service for the duration of the contract.  That might be a problem for me, since I use Voice over IP.)

I also browsed through their marketing material, which was available after I took their little test.  After all, if putting solar on your own home is not a good financial proposition, why are they paying their associates $150 for each sale, plus 4% or more of the electricity sold in order to put panels on your house for you?  Here’s what I concluded:

  1. They will have lower costs than an individual homeowner.  Most of us have to pay contractors around $8 a watt for our systems.  Since they will be hiring their own dedicated installers, and install only equipment that they manufacture themselves, they think they can do it for around $4.50 per watt, a price which (In Colorado Xcel territory) would be covered completely by Xcel’s Solar*Rewardsprogram referenced above.
  2. As a business, they can deduct 30% of the full amount of the installation cost under the production tax credit, and it is not capped at $2000, as it is for homeowers.
  3. Also as a business, they are eligible for accelerated depreciation, which basically amounts to an added massive tax deduction.
  4. They get interest on your $500 deposit.  Not much, but if you have 1000 deposits, it starts adding up to real money.   1/15/07: Via PeakEnergy and The WorldWatch Institute I read that interest on the deposit is credited to the consumer.  Checking the associates’ website, it says: “Deposits are invested into 1 year treasury notes. Interest is compounded for the benefit of the customer.”

Starting to come clear?  By my ballpark estimate, if it costs them as much as $6 a watt to install a system in Colorado, they will be able to collect at least that much back under the various tax programs and rebates, and any money they collect from you, the customer, will be pure profit.

So it sounds like a legit business model to me.  In fact, when you look at the above, it’s somewhat surprising that no one has done it before.  If you still want to sign up (and if you want solar on your roof, this seems like the best financial deal currently on offer).

I don’t want to sign up anyone myself… I already have two full time jobs as an investment advisor and environmental activist, but if you use this link, for Frank Knight, who has agreed to make a donation to an environmental charity for any referrals (but not untl you get panels and he gets paid.  Contact me if you have a particular charity you would like to see the money go to.

If you want to become an associate, here’s the link for that.

If you think this whole thing is a scam, and want a random associate, go directly to CitizenRE (there will still be as sales commission paid to some associate, but it will be someone assigned at random.)

I never thought I’d be telling people they could put solar on their roof (in an economical way) so soon.  Keep in mind, this does cost more than your normal electricity bill, because you pay for insurance for the panels, as well as losing the interest on your security deposit, but if you don’t plan on moving, and expect electricity prices to go up a lot, you may come out ahead anyway, because they let you lock in your electricity rate for the duration of the contract (up to 25 years, at your option.)

By the way, I think I read an article recently about a company that’s doing the same thing with solar hot water in Canada (only charging for the price of natural gas not used), but I can’t seem to Google it.  If you saw it too, please let me know.

(Note: apparently you can avoid the deposit if you sign a 25 year contract.  I’m not sure  if that’s a better deal or not… how many of us stay in one house (or even two) for 25-years?  Also, five to ten years from now, the technology will probably reach the point where it does make sense to borrow the money and put up your own panels.  I guess I’m just not a big fan of 25 year contracts for anything.  Mortgages, for instance.)

12/14 I’ve been thinking about this some more, and here are a couple other things to be wary of:

  1. They say they’ll start production of panels in September 2007.   But these things always take longer than expected.  If you sign a contract with them, you’re basically saying that you’re not going to use your roof for anything else while you wait.  At best, you’ll have your panels a year from now, but at worst, they might end up stringing you along for years, when you could have gotten solar from some newer outfit that came along in the meantime… if this model really works, it won’t bee too long before they have competition.
  2. Don’t expect to make money as an associate (salesperson) before 2009, or even later.  A lot of associates are already paying (out of their own pockets) for classified ads, but they don’t start earning any money until systems are installed on homes.  And who is to say that your sales are going to be the first in line… as far as I can tell, they can install systems in whatever order they choose, which means that the location with the highest rebates will probably get all the first panels produced.  Basically, the better a financial deal this is for the customer, the later they are likely to get their systems.  If you are considering signing up as an associate, treat it like a hobby, and don’t pour a lot of money into it.  Frank may be kicking in $75 to charity for each referral I give him, but at least he’s not putting a lot of money in up front… he does not pay unless he is paid.

You may also hear about the CitizenRE offering under the product name ReNu, as well as a couple of thier marketing websites www.jointhesolution.com, and www.powur.com.  The /xxxx at the end of the url is the associate’s ID which they use to track which associate brought in that particular customer.

2/14/07: Given the recent growth in controversy about CitizenRE, I’ve written a followup article here. 

Comments (18)

Net Zero Electricity for less than $700

A few months ago, I wrote a blog comparing the number of negawatts you could produce by giving away Compact fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs) to the amount of electricity you can produce with a rooftop photovoltaic system.  The CFLs had photovoltaics beat six ways from Sunday, and I concluded that you could do better by putting the money you were considering investing in a PV system in a Bank CD, and using the interest to give away CFLs.  Since I actually believe my own calculations, I set out to do just that.

 

I offered a $2 a bulb rebate (up to $5) for anyone who bought CFLs and sent me a receipt.  Apparently, $5 is not enough money to get most people off the couch, and I did not get a single receipt sent to me (the offer is still on, by the way.)  However, I also give away CFLs (usually something interesting like an outdoor spot or a candelabra bulb… most of my prospects have already replaced everything they can with the twisty type) to potential clients who come by my office, and the blog started making the rounds of the internet, eventually making it to Marc Dreyfors, who is on the board of the Environmental Educators of North Carolina (EENC).  EENC was planning their annual conference, and they usually offset the carbon from their conference by giving away CFLs, and Marc had the bright idea of asking me to fund it.

 

They calculated (with the help of Clean Air Community Trust) of
Asheville, that they needed to replace 51 60-watt incandescents with CFLs to offset the 16.7 tons of Carbon their conference was expected to produce.  My thought was: “we need to think bigger than that!” because I wanted to offset some of my own carbon as well.  They were fine with that, they just didn’t want to be greedy.

 

In the end, I funded the replacement of 320 60-watt bulbs (with 11w CFLs) and 80 100-watt bulbs (with 25w CFLs).  After the tax deduction, that cost me about $600, and EENC was able to use my grant to persuade Progress Energy (their local utility) to stump up a $500 donation to expand the program further.

 

I arbitrarily decided that EENC would get half the carbon offsets from my donation for their work, and I’d get the other half for coming up with the cash.  Assuming the bulbs we gave away are used just 1 hour a day, that means that all my CFL giveaways are saving someone over 12 kWh of electricity each and every day, which is more than my wife and I use.   With the help of a programmer-friend, I’m tracking the progress on my website. (on the right hand side.)  Note that the offsets cost only about half a cent per kWh over the lifetime of the bulbs, about a third of the cost of buying green tags from someone like Sterling Planet.   If I tried to produce 12kWh a day with a PV system here in Colorado, it would cost about $12,000 after all the rebates, and I’d save about $170 a year on my electricity bill.

Now I just have to do the calculations to figure out how many bulbs I need to give away to offset my use of natural gas, gasoline for my wife’s Prius, and biodiesel for my Jeep. 

Comments (5)

Down at the Public Utilities Commission

I just testified on Friday in the Colorado Public Utilities Commission rate case for Xcel Energy.  The case has been going on since April, and is in its last stages.  I only recently got involved (Who pays attention to rate case hearings, anyway?)
To be clear, a rate case is not a Least Cost Planning (LCP) process, which is when the regulators decide if the utilities plans to meet future needs of consumers are prudent.  That is, when they decide what sort of generation they need.  This is somewhat relevant because much of the opposition to this rate case is really opposition to the new coal plant being built by Xcel in
Pueblo, Comanche 3.  

Given the reality of global warming (which many people are just now starting to realize is a real and immanent threat), the fact that coal is our most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (not to mention all the other emissions associated with coal), and the fact that the planned life of a coal plant is 50 years, the opposition is understandable.  Unfortunately, this rate case is not the proper forum to oppose construction of new generation.

A rate case, is about how Xcel is allowed to charge for their electricity, and how much they are allowed to charge.  When it comes to how much they are allowed to charge, this is determined by setting an allowable Return on Equity (ROE) for shareholders, as well as a Debt/Equity mix.  Because debt is cheaper for a company to raise, a higher ratio of debt to equity will be cheaper for ratepayers, but the more debt to equity there is, the less stable a company will be, and the higher return both debt holders and equity holders will demand in order to take the risk of owning the debt or stock.

I made three basic arguments. 

  1. In order to avoid perverse incentives, it is best that in any situation, the parties should share risk in proportion to their ability to take action to reduce that risk. 
  2. The return on equity allowed under the settlement agreement was higher than is necessary to induce shareholders to own the stock under current market conditions,
  3. The rate mechanism, as envisioned in the settlement, contained several perverse incentives which would lead to behavior by Xcel that will likely place costs on ratepayers which would likely be prudently avoided if Xcel has an incentive to do so.

The first point about perverse incentives is important mainly for future planning.  If Xcel bears the risk that costs will exceed their projections, they will be much more conservative about their cost projections.  In this case, that means that cost projections will be higher, and take more of the unpredictability of fuel costs into account.  In addition, holding Xcel accountable for unexpected environmental costs will lead them to be much more conservative about their assessments of future environmental costs. This better information both of these effects will lead renewables to be seen in future least cost planning cases much more favorably, because many have zero fuel cost (and hence zero fuel cost risk), while their lower environmental impacts will lead to lower future environmental costs.

Energy efficiency measures, demand side management, time of use pricing, and investments in large scale energy storage, all of which lower fuel costs by reducing or shifting fuel use will also be more likely to be pursued by a company that bears modeling risks, because these measures all reduce risk by reducing fuel use or shifting it to lower cost times.

Widespread adoption of demand side management, time of use pricing, and energy storage also all favor intermittent renewables such as wind and solar by shifting usage to times when these resources are available.

Basically, energy efficiency and renewables are excellent way of addressing both the price and environmental risks that are currently borne by ratepayers for utilities.  Shifting some of these risks to the utility will lead the utility to take more proactive action to address these risks, both through renewables and through other mechanisms we may not yet have thought of.  That is the beauty of incentives rather than mandates: they inspire creative thinking, and usually come up with cheaper and more effective solutions to the same problem.

I’d like to be clear here that I don’t think that Xcel is the problem; I see Xcel as the solution.  What I hope to accomplish is to provide carrots and sticks will induce Xcel to be much more responsive to environmental and energy cost concerns.  With those properly designed incentives, I expect that Xcel will be able to accomplish more than many environmentalists could ever hope to win in mandates.  And Xcel shareholders should be well compensated for the risks of these investments; I want them to be able to do well by doing good. My second point, that the return on equity (ROE) allowed under the settlement agreement hinges on weaknesses on the various methods of calculating appropriate ROE.  ROE is the compensation that shareholders demand and are entitled to for taking on the risks involved in operating a public utility.  These calculations are inherently tricky: the formulae are fairly simple, but actually getting good numbers to put into the calculations can be very tricky.  The essence of the problem is that financial markets, and the formulas are all forward looking.  To really know what ROE is appropriate, we would have to know about future growth and risks of the company.  This information is unknowable, and in practice, the calculations are based on past information, and stock prices.

There were three calculation methods used, two of which depend on estimating the risk premium (Risk premium and Capital Asset Pricing model or CAPM) that shareholders demand in order to hold the stock, and the other (Discounted Cash Flow model, or DCF) of which depends on analyst predictions of future growth rates.  The Risk premium and CAPM use historical market data to derive those risk premiums, and the results of those calculations from those methods led to almost uniformly higher estimates of ROE than the DCF method.  I believe this is because the markets are currently demanding much lower risk premiums than they have in recent years.  These lower risk premiums are partly a function of the market run-up since 2002, and partly a function of the run-up of the late 1990s, which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other market analysts whom I respect.  I bring up Alan Greenspan, the former fed chairman in my testimony, but I also include Richard Russell, Nouriel Roubini, Pimco’s Bill Gross, and Yale’s Robert J. Shiller in that.  I chose Alan Greenspan because he has the most kudos and is most likely a recognizable name.  I note that when Xcel’s witnesses were trying to trash my testimony, they convieniently chose not to mention Greenspan.

 However, if I’d been able to travel a week into the future, I would have probably tried to include Bill Gross’ November Investment Outlook  column in my testimony as an exhibit.  As allways, Bill leaves me in awe with his depth of research and clear reasoning. 

The DCF method is also flawed in its reliance on analyst estimates, since analysts can easily be caught up in the market mood as well, but they are often a much more sober lot, and so based my recommended ROE on the low range of the DCF calculations of other analysts.  If you look at the confidence index graphs at the International Centerfor finance at Yale, you will note that institutional and individual confidence tend to follow the same long term ternds.           

Finally, in reference to the perverse incentives in the Electric Commodity Adjustment (ECA) primarily concern two parts of the ECA: the Baseload Energy Benefit (BLEB) and time of use (TOU) pricing.           

With regard to the BLEB, this is an incentive for Xcel to keep their coal plants running as much as possible, under the assumption that coal is the cheapest form of electricity generation that is dispatchable (i.e. that they can turn on and off at will.)  I have serious problems with a lot of the assumptions that go into the BLEB.  I had problems with the form of the equation they used, given that it was based on annual average prices for natural gas, as opposed to real time prices, but that was a minor point compared to the things which the BLEB left out. Carbon Intensity of various fossil fuels, lb Carbon/MBtu.

Source: Treepower.org           

The BLEB left out of the costs of coal all the environmental costs of its use, thereby giving coal a great incentive than it deserves.  Also, only natural gas an coal were had reference at al.  Xcel’s explanation of this is that only gas and coal are dipatchable, yet part of what they say the BLEB is designed to encourage is improved maintenance of their coal plants to ensure that they are always available.  All forms of generation can benefit from improved maintenance.  Using their logic that the form or generation with the cheapest fuel cost should be incentified, there should clearly be strong incentives for improved maintenance of renewable resources such as wind and solar.            Finally, while wind and solar power are not now dispatchable, with the addition of energy storage such as pumped hydro or CAES, they can be made dispachable.  Incentives for coal will only delay investments which improved the dispatchability of other forms of generation. 

Here are links to my testimony, as well as all the testimony in the case, and the settlement agreement. 

Xcel did me the honor of spending several hours of the hearing trying, with various degrees of success, to tear apart my arguments.  I almost didn’t get any chance at all, but Ratepayers United Colorado’s attorney Gina Hardin managed to get me about 5 minutes to respond to multiple comments from several other witnesses.  Thank you, Gina!

             Here is my take on what they had to say (from my notes.) Frederic Stoffel – Testifying in his former capacity as VP Energy Policy development for Xcel. Stoffel totally misinterpreted my testimony, by saying that he felt that I wanted Xcel to take on all environmental risks, and the price risk of any deviation from projections.  Note that while this blog makes it clear, I’m not sure if he didn’t get it because I was unclear, or because he simply chose to misinterpret what I was saying to make it easier to defend against.  I feel I managed to counter this argument effectively in my five minutes on the stand the next day. 

I did not fare so well at the hands of George Tyson, Xcel VP and Treasurer.  In my analysis of appropriate ROE, I glossed over a major salient point, saying Public Service of Colorado had a “high” bond rating from S&P.  I had gotten this impression reading other testimony in the case, but in fact, PSCo’s senior unsecured debt rating is BBB-, one tiny notch over junk status.  Oops!   This makes a lot of my arguments about risk premiums irrelevant, because a debt downgrade (which might indeed follow if the commission were to assign my recommended ROE of 8.9%) would seriously impinge on PSCo’s ability to operatate, even if shareholders at the moment are not worried about such an event.  (In fact, shareholders shouldn’t be worried about this case, because the realistic chances of this settlement being thrown out are nil.  The main reason we were doing what we were doing is to demonstrate that there is real ratepayer unhappiness, so, when we have a more sympathetic PUC with one or two new appointments from Bill Ritter, who we hope and expect to win the election Tuesday – If you have not voted yet, do it! – then we can go back and appeal this.)   

But Xcel did feel that they needed to counter what I had to say, since for both Tyson and Robert B. Hervert spent much more time attacking my testimony against the settlement than they did on any aspect of the settlement itself.  Considering how little they said about the settlement agreement, I get the feeling that they probably would not have even taken the stand under other circumstances. Hervert is a CFA charterholder, and economic and financial consultant for Xcel.  He took me to task for my conclusions about risk premiums.  His points were basically that he sees no indication that investors are currently asking lower risk premiums, and that analysts are not being swept along with that sort of mood, either.  I really can’t argue with that: it’s impossible to judge if valuations are currently high now because the current outlook really is good, or because people are too exuberant.  All I can say is, “Time will tell.” 

He also took more to task for saying that the VIX is at historically low levels.  If you will note from the graph, it has currently only been this low once before (the index did not exist prior to 1990,) and, he noted that it is currently within “one standard deviation” of its mean.  This is bad analysis, which I would not expect from a Charterholder, and it really gets me steamed because I wasn’t able to dissect his mistake fast enough to pass a good question to Gina Hardin to allow her to challenge it by crossing him. 

(Skip this paragraph if math makes your eyes glaze.)  Hervert’s mathematical sin is that the VIX does not conform even roughly to a normal (or even symmetrical) distribution, and so talking about “standard deviation” in reference to a lopsided distribution such as the VIX really is not relevant.   

Anyway, I wish I’d had time to bring that point up in the few minutes I actually got on the stand.  Not that anyone would have understood it, which is why I stuck to my main points about incentives and Stoffel’s misinterpretation of my testimony. 

I really don’t care that much what ROE Xcel is authorized.  I’m much more concerned about the incentives that they are given. With the right incentives, Xcel would stop trying to build coal plants and instead invest heavily in energy efficiency, demand side management, time of use pricing, energy storage, transmission, and renewable energy generation, and make a lot of money doing it.  That’s what I would hope to come out of a rate case.  Maybe under our next governor, we’ll get something like that.

So go vote Tuesday (even if you don’t live in Colorado.)   It really does matter who wins even the small races.  If you had the time to read through this multipage diatribe, surely you have enough time to make it to the polls.

Comments (1)

Tilting at Wind Turbines

I’ll be testifying for Ratepayers United Colorado in the upcoming hearing starting Thursday on the Settlement Agreement reached between Xcel, regulators, and consumer advocates (representing large commercial purchasers of electricity.) 

I’ve been told that hardly anyone fights settlement agreements in these cases, but environmentalists and clean energy advocates were left entirely out of this agreement, which actually contains an incentive, refered to as the BLEB, or Base Load Energy Benefit, for Xcel to burn as much coal as it possibly can, in preference to all other types of electricity generation.Coal dominates Xcel Energy’s power generating capacity - Xcel Energy is a major US electricity and natural gas energy company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ratepayers United asked me to help out because 1) I volunteered, 2) I understand economics, and 3) there wasn’t anyone else with the first two qualifications bull-headed enough to go ahead this late in the game.

Links:

Denver Post Article

Denver Business Journal article

What I had to say afterward

Comments off

25x’25

I spent much of the last week at the 25x’25 “Twenty-Five by Twenty-Five” second implementation planning meeting.  25x’25 is a coalition advocating the vision that “By 2025,
America’s farms, forests and ranches will provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the
United States, while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed and fiber.”   That’s at least 25% of our energy from renewable sources.

            25x’25 is an open alliance; the participants are the organizations who have endorsedthe 25x’25 vision outlined above.  These include 18
US Senators, 91 Congressmen, 18 state governors, 4 state Legislatures (including
Colorado).  I attended the conference as the representative of the
Colorado Renewable Energy Society. 

            I highly encourage my readers to endorse 25x’25 (you can endorse as an individual, or as an organization, or both.)  Your endorsement helps them demonstrate that a broad swath of Americans support the 25x’25 vision, and will help convince the US House and Senate to pass the concurrent resolutions for 25% of the nation’s energy supply to come from renewable sources.

We are currently in the process of coming up with our vision of how
America can achieve 25x’25.  Any endorsing individual or organization can participate.  The goal is agree on a series of recommendations (the Implementation Plan) as to how we can achieve the 25x’25 vision.  When the Implementation Plan is complete, which we plan to achieve by January, in time for the next congressional session, all partners will have a chance to endorse the plan.

Since the whole process is by consensus, and the 25x’25 goal is an ambitious one, it would be easy to believe that the Implementation Plan will turn out to either be watered down to the point where it does not say anything, or end up endorsing so many points of view that it would be ludicrous to call it a plan at all.

Having now participated in two conference calls and two days of face-to-face meetings, I’m happy (and somewhat surprised) to report that we’re actually managing to form a consensus among a large group of people and organizations you would not expect to get along under ordinary circumstances.  For this, I can only shake my head in wonder at the diplomacy and perseverance of the Steering Committee.  They managed, though two days of what could have turned into a verbal free-for-all, to keep us all focused on the need to work together to reach the very ambitious goal we’ve all agreed upon.  (In that same spirit, and understanding that many of the participants have been willing to voice their true opinions and step away from the party line, I will not name any names here.  This also has the advantage of covering for my lousy memory for names.)

How do they do it?  By keeping us focused on the fact that we all agree on the goal: 25% of our nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2025, and reminding us that we’re never going to get there by half measures.   The second thing they did was keeping the discussion focused on “Yes, if…”: continually reminding people to stay in the mode of working together, and instead of thinking about all the reasons that something was impossible to accept, to instead say “I could accept that if it were this were also to happen.”

So my kudos to the people I met on the steering committee.  I was impressed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (3)

That “Free” set-top box isn’t free

Here’s an article from Reuters about the hidden costs of set top boxes… up to $76 a year in electricity bills for a cable set-top box.

This is one of those opportunities for energy conservation that I really like to push: you not only can save energy, but money as well, and it does not require sacrificing quality of life.  CFLs and Passive Solar architecture also come to mind… there are so many energy saving opportunities that pay for themselves, it breaks my heart.

Most consumers don’t see the money or electricity they’re wasting here, and so they don’t know that they need to be more discriminating.  These hidden cost provide a great opportunity for useful government regulation.  Requiring that A/V equipment have a sleep mode that uses 1 watt instead of 30 watts would only add marginally to the cost of most equipment (See this great Economist in-depth article on the subject from this spring)  Oops- it’s only available to subscribers.   Some highlights:

 STRANGE though it seems, a typical microwave oven consumes more electricity powering its digital clock than it does heating food. For while heatictq237.gifng food requires more than 100 times as much power as running the clock, most microwave ovens stand idle—in “standby” mode—more than 99% of the time. And they are not alone: many other devices, such as televisions, DVD players, stereos and computers also spend much of their lives in standby mode, collectively consuming a huge amount of energy. Moves are being made around the world to reduce this unnecessary power consumption, called “standby power”.

In 1998 … standby power accounted for approximately 5% of total residential electricity consumption in America, “adding up to more than $3 billion in annual energy costs”…. results, published in 2000, revealed that standby power accounted for as much as 10% of household power-consumption in some cases.

…In 1999 the International Energy Agency, based in Paris, adopted Dr Meier’s proposed “one-watt” standard as a target for standby consumption. In 2000 Australia became the only country to adopt this standard nationally, in the form of a voluntary scheme that began in 2002. The aim is for most new products to meet the one-watt standard by 2012.

In addition to these various voluntary schemes, there have been some mandatory measures. Perhaps surprisingly, one of them was introduced by President George Bush, as a result of the California energy crisis of 2001. That year, Mr Bush issued Executive Order 13221, which states that every government agency, “when it purchases commercially available, off-the-shelf products that use external standby power devices, or that contain an internal standby power function, shall purchase products that use no more than one watt in their standby power consuming mode.” Given that Mr Bush is not renowned for his environmental credentials, this came as quite a surprise to those in the industry.

That law does not apply to consumers, and there are a ton of energy hog products out there.

What can you do?  Buy Energy Star  rated products.   I also have a tester called a Kill-a-Watt from P3, to see which of the gadgets I already have are energy hogs.  Some nonprofits have these available for loan, and if you live in Denver, I’ll loan you mine.  The Center for Resource Conservation in Boulder has a nice little calculator you can use with it, too.

If you find you already have products that use a lot of power on standby (and you probably will,) consider plugging them into a power strip, and turning them off that way.  That’s not always an option, though.  I found that my VCR/DVD combo uses 30 watts all the time, and it would lose it’s programming if I turned it off with a power strip.   I’m thinking about replacement.

I also think this is a great argument for laptops over desktop computers… laptops are designed to conserve power, because they have to make the battery last… most desktops are not.  If you want a big screen and a keyboard, you can always use a docking station. 

Comments off

National (and Colorado) Tour of Solar Homes, October 6

Note: This post was originally for the 2006 Tour. The 2007 Tour of Solar Homes will be on October 6, 2007. See the original post after the break.

———————Info about 2007 Tour of Solar homes————————

Colorado Solar Tour link
Colorado Tour of Solar Home Flyer
For Southwest Colorado, there’s some info on the SWCRES website.
For Fort Collins area tour, see NCRES Website
For other states, go to the National Solar Tour link

———————Info about 2006 Tour————————
Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (1)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers