Archive for the ‘Colorado/U. S. Energy Policy’ Category

The Great Global Warming Fizzle article posted at the Wall Street Journal on November 29, 2011

We agree that “Global Warming” has many of the aspects of “religion”.  As the author, Bret Stephens, says

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen. As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Faith in Green Energy is not proving to be very profitable.
This article describes the company A123 System, a poster child for “successful” clean tech.  The company manufactures lithium ion batteries and energy storage systems. You might want to check the stock price for this company (NasdaqGS: AONE) – not a great story!  For more information read the article posted at Forbes on November 29, 2011 – Watching The Wheels Come Off The Green Machine

The body count continues to rise as the Green Jobs Revolution sputters its way to the end of a disastrous 2011.

This article, Inconvenient Truths about “Renewable” Energy posted May 21, 2011 at the Wall Street Journal questions the premise that “renewable” energy sources will replace fossil fuels. For many reasons highlighted in the article, betting on “renewable” energy is a bad idea.
Better to have some common sense instead of catchy phrases like “green/clean” and “carbon footprint”.

When will Common Sense be restored in America?
We provide a link here to Lori Borgman’s article The Death of Common Sense

We like John’s analysis of windpower at windpowerfacts.info
Wind Power Facts: Tooklit of Information, by John Droz, Jr an physicist and environmental activist:

A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source!
In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits.

Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:
a) its technical performance,
b) the economics of the power produced, and
c) its FULL environmental impact.

All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.

Some recent articles about windfarms focus on the threat to wildlife.

Posted June 6, 2011 at LosAngeles Times website
Wind power turbines in Altamont Pass threaten protected birds
Scores of golden eagles have been killed after striking the thousands of wind turbines in the Bay Area, raising questions about California’s move toward alternative power.

Posted August 19, 2011 at Reason.com, Get Ready for the Green Civil War

as the enviro agenda gets implemented, the enviro wars are going to become more—not less—intense, except that instead of fighting the rest of us, they’ll be fighting each other.

Posted October 14, 2011 at The Global Warming Policy Foundation, UK News site. Matt Ridley: Making Wind Farms Obsolete
“Here’s an article I wrote for this week’s Spectator about UK energy policy. Wind must give way to gas before it ruins us all, and our landscapes.” “To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidized renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it.”

Posted November 25, 2011 at Engineering News online
Wind power truly in the realm of mysticism

Let me state categorically that, as a physicist, I am in favour of wind power that is genuinely economically viable. The problem is that large-scale wind power fed into a national grid is just not viable – either economically or practically – from an engineering stand point.

Posted December 10, 2011 at The Wall Street Journal
Wildlife Slows Wind Power: New U.S. Rules to Protect Bats and Birds Create Uncertainty in Growing Industry

A few years ago all you heard was America is too dependent on foreign oil. Environmental groups were promoting “renewable energy”. In the meantime good old USA innovation has found another answer … extract oil and natural gas from shale using new technology and new drilling techniques.
This quote is from EnergyFromShale.org where you will find lots of information about what is happening:

America has abundant natural resources and recent innovations combined with horizontal drilling in shale formations has unlocked vast new supplies of natural gas, allowing the nation to get to the energy it needs today, and transforming our energy future.

A press release on December 6 by the House Natural Resources Committee highlights the importance of Shale Natural Gas to America.

Chairman Hastings says…

The recent discoveries of the United States’ vast shale natural gas reserves are proof that the answer to America’s economic, employment and energy security woes are not found in government but with our unparalleled ingenuity and determination. Shale natural gas offers enormous potential for America to become a world leader in natural gas production.

Click here to read an article posted on Nov 3, 2011 in the New York Times by David Brooks about the “Shale Gas Revolution“.

This topic is big news for us here in Colorado, a recent article talks about plans by Anadarko Petroleum Corp to develop oil resources in Weld County. The article from Loveland Connection dated Nov 21, 2011 says new oil drilling could have deep impact for Larimer County. Economist predicts venture will bring jobs into Northern Colorado.

Much of the urgency to correct “Regional Haze” is driven by Environmental groups who are using the courts to ensure the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acts in support of their goals.

An example is the recent Consent Decree (June 2011) that holds the EPA to specific dates to rule on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. This legal action was initiated by WildEarth Guardians, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Here is an article (Settlement Agreement paves way to power past Coal in the American West) posted at WildEarth Guardians site about the settlement, click here.

We took a look at the websites for WildEarth, NPCA and EDF. One gets the impression that these people are committed to promote their agenda regardless of the impact to our economy or the validity of their assumptions. What is troubling is that much of this activity by special interests and unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges is well funded and they are imposing their will on America. Here in Colorado we saw our elected representatives approve a plan to address “Regional Haze” that is needlessly costly. As we stated in our June 4th post, there should be a better way. How do we get “the people” to assume their responsibility to participate.

Testimony HB11-1291 William Yeatman and Amy Oliver

Colorado has a new State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Plan, it is needlessly costly.
Who failed the consumer? Is the process flawed? When changes need to be made to a highly technical and complicated plan, is it reasonable for a 5 member committee to decide the fate of the changes in a few hours? We suspect most consumers are not even aware of this process, so there appears to be no penalty for bad decisions.

We got involved in the discussions about this plan because there were recommendations that would be costly to consumers. Here is what we learned:

Some backgound:
Under federal law, each state is required to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) to meet specific requirements of the national Clean Air Act.  In Colorado, the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) is the Department of Public Health and Environment is responsible for preparing and revising the SIP.  The Colorado SIP underwent a major revision in 2010 and the resulting report was submitted to the General Assembly on Jan 14, 2011. For more information about the State Implementation Plan, click here.

The plan adds requirements to power providers which will result in increases to rates paid by consumers for electricity.  This is a 1900 page report not to mention the many pages of hearing documents describing the plan.

Members of the General Assembly had until February 15 to request that the Legislative Council Committee of the General Assembly hold a public hearing to review the report.  If a hearing is requested, the changes to the SIP cannot be submitted until after the hearing is completed.  If no member requests a hearing, the SIP can be submitted to the EPA. A hearing was requested.
March 25, 2011 Hearing
A hearing by the Legislative Council Committee was held on March 25,  2011.  The only consumer to give testimony at the hearing was Carol Kirkstadt a resident of Loveland, CO.  She requested that the recommendations for both the Craig 1&2 Plants and the Rawhide plant be removed.  She stated that

It is irrational to spend over $28 million dollars a year for 20 years in the hopes of achieving an imperceptible improvement in visibility (measured at the Mt Zirkel wilderness area).

Here is an article by Colorado Consumer Coalition, “Potentially costly clean-air rules: Was public left out of the process?”
Article by William Yeatman at Competitive Enterprise Institute regarding the Regional Haze Plan and the need for the legislature to get involved.
April 19 Hearing HB11-1291
HB11-1291would approve the SIP as written.  At the hearing held April 19 by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs,  Ms. Kirkstadt again requested that the recommendations for Craig Units 1&2 and Rawhide be removed.  She revised her recommendation to also include the Hayden 1&2 plants. You can watch the testimony here. Also here is a video of testimony by Amy Oliver and William Yeatman.  William makes a plea to take time to evaluate needed changes, no need to rush this legislation thru.

Here is an article byAmy Oliver (Independence Institute) summarizing the hearing.

This article by the Consumer Coalition includes testimony by Paul Ireland, “(Colorado Public Utilities Commission) PUC’s OK on high-cost air-quality plan was predetermined”. Mr. Ireland recommended HB11-1291 be rejected in favor of SB11-236. SB11-236 would save money and be more prudent for Colorado. Here is part of Mr. Ireland’s testimony:

As consultant to the PUC, I had unique access to all confidential and highly confidential information from Xcel and am convinced that Xcel’s preferred plan, called “case 5B,” is the best choice for ratepayers and the utility. This plan keeps Cherokee 4 on coal and adds an SCR for NOx control. It is the better choice than that contained in the PUC’s final ruling. Scenario 5B – which retires some coal plants, and upgrades others – is clearly the least expensive case for Colorado ratepayers. Even Xcel recommended this plan but was overruled by the Commission chairman, who ignored facts, costs and steamrolled his own staff to reach a nonsensical and expensive decision.

April 25 Hearing on two bills recommending changes to the SIP – both died in committee.
On April 25 two bills recommending changes to the SIP plan were heard by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs both were “postponed indefinitely”
1)  SB 11- 237 – Introduced by Senator Kevin Lundberg.
The bill would disapprove the portions of the Regional Haze Emissions Plan relating to the requirement for emission controls for the Hayden Electric Generating Units. The bill states that the requirements for the Hayden Plants are more stringent than or otherwise not required by the federal “Clean Air Act” and are not justified by the cost of the controls in comparison with the benefits to public health and the environment.

2) SB11 – 236 Introduced by Senator Lois Tochtrop. The bill would revise the SIP to use (Colorado Public Service Company) PSCo’s emission reduction plan scenario 5B, a less costly alternative.

Legislators miss opportunity to protect consumers – HB11-1291 signed into law.
On April 11th, the House voted 58-7 to pass HB11-1291. (We wonder how many member of the House that voted for this bill, knew what they were voting for? How many had time to read the SIP Plan?).  At the hearing on April 19th the Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs referred the bill.  The Senate passed the bill 25 – 10 on April 27, 2011.

Here is a summary by Consumer Coalition dated May 12, 2011, “Consumers will pay for fast-tracked air legislation – now law”

Get informed and attend the hearing on March 25th. Here are some questions that come to mind:
What is the justification for switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation?
How “clean” does our air need to be?  Are there any benefits regarding public health?
Will HB1365 really “cut air pollution and create jobs” as Governor Ritter claimed? And at what cost?

These articles by William Yeatman from Competitive Enterprise Institute offers other issues of concern: Senate Republicans ask for review of CDPHE’s Regional Haze Plan, dated Feb 16, 2011 and In 2011, the New Energy Economy will cost Colorodans …, dated March 11, 2011

Here is a link to the Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan prepared by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division of CDPHE and approved by the Air Quality Control Commission.

Colorado has a State Implementation Plan (SIP) created by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) which is developed to assure attainment and maintenance of the Nation Ambient Air Quality Standards and other aspects of the federal Clean Air Act.

State statute requires the Air Quality Control Commission (The members of the AQQC are appointed by the governor) to submit by January 15 each year changes to the State Implementation Plan. This plan would go direct to the EPA unless members of the Colorado General Assembly request a hearing.  Fortunately some of our senators and representatives have requested a hearing. The hearing is scheduled for March 25 at 1:30 pm in room HCR0112. To check the Colorado General Assembly calendar, click here. Here is one of the reasons stated by our representatives for the hearing: “concern that the SIP includes requirements that are more stringent than what is currently required under the federal Clean Air Act.

In 2007, Congress passed an energy bill that included new standards for lighting.  The bill required roughly 25% greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from  2012 through 2014.  This requirement effectively banned the sale of most incandescent light bulbs.  But, in their enthusiasm for favoring light bulbs that use less energy they failed to consider other consequences.

Here are some of the unintended consequences:

Loss of Manufacturing Jobs in US: General Electric has closed factories in Kentucky and Ohio and recently announced that it is closing its major incandescent factory in Virginia. Take a look at your new CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent), you will see they are “Made in China“. For an article about this by the Heritage Foundation, click here.

Health Issues: claims that fluorescent light can trigger various ailments, including migraines and epilepsy. Here is an article at the DailyMail (UK) dated January 2009 about this.

Toxic Exposure: Mercury in the new compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs require special cleanup and disposal procedures. See details in this article at the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) web site.

Similar legislation was passed in Europe and Canada. In British Columbia, Canada, stores are banned from restocking incandescent light bulbs in popular 75 and 100-watt sizes beginning in Jan 2011. As a result, according to the Vancouver Sun (article dated January 20, 2011) “Readers are furious at being told that they will not be able to buy the standard bulbs”. An article at TheLocal dated Dec 3, 2010 (German’s News in English), you will find an article stating “Consumer groups call for end to EU light bulb ban”

Representative Joe Barton (TX -6) has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.91 – Better Use Light Bulbs Act which would repeal amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency. We recommend you contact your Representative in Congress and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 91.

On Sept 22, 2010, S.3813 the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 was introduced in the U.S. Senate. Since Congress has not been able to pass cap and trade, the “green/clean” special interests are looking for alternate ways to push their agenda. This bill would cause higher electricity prices and have a negative impact on the United States economy.

This bill introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) would create a federal renewable electricity standard (RES) of 3% in 2012 and increases to 15% by 2021. Among the co-sponsors are both Colorado Senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall.

Read the rest of this entry »

For excellent information about climate change issues, we suggest you view coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-4) – a worldwide gathering of global warming “realists” – held in Chicago, IL, on May 16-18. PJTV will offer viewers videos and analysis from each keynote speaker as well as a number of the conference events.
More than 700 people — including a good many scientists, along with economists, policy analysts, and legislators — gathered together to  discuss the once-settled but increasingly controversial proposition of an anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) crisis. There was general agreement to explore real-world facts and test the assertions of alarmists. The presenters and audience members continually asked whether the data says what the modelers say it does.
Videos of the presentations at the conference can be found at Heartland Institute Web site…get informed.

March 22, 2010 Gov. Bill Ritter today signed HB10-1001. This legislation gives Colorado the highest renewable energy standard in the Rocky Mountain West, requiring that 30 percent of electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

March 31, 2010 Gov. Bill Ritter today thanked lawmakers, a coalition of energy companies, environmentalists and Xcel Energy for their support in passing House Bill 1365, the Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act. This legislation will cut air pollution, create jobs and increase the use of cleaner energy sources.

We support the following commentary by Republican candidate for Governor, Dan Maes:

Evergreen, CO – March 31, 2010 – Republican candidate for governor, Dan Maes, announced today that he opposes HB 10-1365 which expedites conversion of power plants energy sources.  “I have said for 12 months on the campaign trail that we need an “all energy” solution in Colorado that will make us one of the strongest energy producing states in the country. Natural gas should be one of our flagship energy products but government should not play favorites in a free market system”, declares Maes.  ” As governor I want to see a reasonable balance between clean and affordable energy, and job protection in every part of our beautiful state.  Clean coal supports jobs and communities removed from our everyday lives on the front range.  As governor I want to preserve our diverse lifestyle across the state and that means protecting jobs in places like Craig, Paonia, and other rural communities,” Maes concluded.