Xcel takes aim at Boulder’s solar

Anne B. Butterfield, July 27, 2009 (NewEnergyNews)

Xcel Energy is presenting Colorado with the second of two rate increases, in an unprecedented back-to-back timing, which may land us with up to 13 percent more in fixed, base-rate costs. This is to pay off Xcel’s new coal plant in Pueblo called Comanche 3, plus its gas fired turbines at Fort St. Vrain. So says Xcel’s Vice President Karen Hyde.

The rate case also presents a hit against net metering by imposing a charge of about 2 cents per kilowatt hour produced, or $22 per year for the average rooftop solar installation. Net metering was passed into law by our state legislature to direct electric utilities to pay distributed energy producers for their net energy given back to the grid. By far and away this charge will impact Boulder most of all counties of Colorado.

When observing utilities or reading the language of their rate cases, it is useful to keep in mind that the arguments you hear might be precisely backward, as if seen through the wrong end of a looking-glass.

One such backwardism is found in Scott Brockett’s testimony in which Xcel’s stockholders are absorbing a 5 cent per kilowatt-hour revenue loss from Colorado’s net metering. But his real concern is the future customers who will pay off those losses “for fixed costs over fewer sales” implying that Comanche 3 will fall to those who don’t invest in solar -- and that there is no daylight between Xcel’s ask and our PUC’s grant. That’s funny; between 2006 and 2008 Colorado ‘s contribution to Xcel’s earnings increased from 41 percent to 52 percent, in spite of the fact Colorado has 18 percent fewer rate payers than Xcel’s next largest contributor, Minnesota.

But what really grabs your eyeballs is Brockett’s assertion that net metering under current rates is “particularly unfair because customers have subsidized the installation of renewable generation through the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment.”

Oh, my. Exhibit A in looking-glass logic. Let’s see if we can relish all of its irony. The Xcel energy planner sees it as unfair for ratepayers to subsidize renewable energy at 2 percent of their bills while it’s wonderful to subsidize the excess coal capacity of Comanche 3 at 13 percent! Never mind that we the people actually voted in the renewable energy standard, or that for each of those rooftop installations we actually put in thousands of our own dollars, or that through our rooftop solar we produce some of the utility’s most valuable peak-use energy of the year, or that it pushes back some of our local coal plant’s dirty emissions which have graced our town with a failing grade for ozone in the view of the American Lung Association.

Cough, cough.

This “minimum bill” for net metered customers is touted as being for transmission and distribution costs. Never mind that distributed resources such as solar defer costs of operation, maintenance, and capital improvements by reducing load growth, according to almost a dozen studies, especially two by National Renewable Energy Laboratories and Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

On PV’s benefits, Boulder’s County Commissioner Will Toor adds, “At the very least, these benefits should be quantified and included before any net metering rate adjustments are considered. A net metering penalty would be a big step in the wrong direction. I hope that Xcel chooses to withdraw this proposal.”

As one might expect in Alice’s Wonderland, there are moments of beauty and hope in Xcel’s new rate case, which can be found in its new rate structure called inverted block rates. This can be powerful at sending customers price signals that meaningfully enhance conservation. Bravo!

Also on the upside is one purpose for this case: offering changes in bill format. And lookie here, there’s information that we rate payers need: fuel mix ratios and public health impacts of fossil fuel based power. Food products tell us their ingredients, cigarette packages state their hazards, and coal based power can harm the way we breathe. Labeling is normal, and providers of electricity can step up with this accountability to public health.

I can be reached at annebbuttterfield@yahoo.com. “PSCo Electric Rate Case Proposed May 1” can be read at Xcel’s website. There is a public hearing for this case at the PUC on August 5 from 4-6 pm. Comments can be emailed to pucconsumer.complaints@dora.state.co.us