[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Tri-State calls for renewable mandate veto  

Credit:  By Joe Hanel, Herald staff writer | The Durango Herald | May 16, 2013 | durangoherald.com ~~

The company that supplies coal-powered electricity to rural Colorado is waging a media campaign to try to convince Gov. John Hickenlooper to veto a renewable-energy bill.

It’s the biggest political advertising blitz since last fall’s election, and it included a full-page ad and half-page ad Sunday in The Durango Herald.

However, Hickenlooper has sent strong signals that he intends to sign the measure, Senate Bill 252.

The bill tells Tri-State Generation and Transmission to get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, the company has a 10 percent standard by 2020.

Tri-State supplies most of the power to La Plata Electric Association and other rural co-ops.

In one of the most controversial claims in the ads in the Herald, Tri-State says complying with the bill will cost billions of dollars.

“Senate Bill 252 would impose billions in increased electricity costs on rural Colorado consumers and individuals,” the ad says.

A number of groups, including Club 20 and the Colorado Mining Association, co-signed the ad, which took the form of a letter to Hickenlooper.

The claim is based on Tri-State’s estimates of what it would take to build renewable-energy plants or buy green power from other companies, build transmission lines and build backup power plants for times when windmills and solar panels aren’t producing. The costs total about $2 billion, said Tri-State spokesman Jim Van Someren.

Supporters of SB 252 call that bunk. Xcel Energy, which serves many Colorado urban customers, has a 30 percent renewable standard by 2020, which it is expected to meet easily without billion-dollar price increases. Backers of SB 252 argued during debate in the Legislature that the biggest new cost to Xcel customers has been for a coal power plant in Pueblo, not wind and solar power.

Tri-State, a coal-heavy utility, is seeing its rates rise faster than those at Xcel, which has embraced renewable power, said Pete Maysmith, director of Conservation Colorado.

“It’s not surprising that the coal industry is funding a campaign filled with deception and misinformation,” Maysmith said.

Furthermore, backers point out that the bill limits renewable-energy cost increases for customers to 2 percent.

But Van Someren said no one can explain how the 2 percent limit will work.

“That’s something where there are still more questions than answers,” he said.

Though the Legislature adjourned for the year May 8, lobbying and arguing over the bill never ceased.

Tri-State’s CEO, along with the head of the Colorado Rural Electric Association, met with Hickenlooper for about 40 minutes Tuesday.

“It was a very constructive conversation, from what I’m told,” Van Someren said.

The full-page ad in Sunday’s paper was paid directly by Tri-State. A half-page ad also calls for a veto. It was placed by the Rural Economic Action Alliance. Across the state, the REAA is running ads on radio, television, newspapers and billboards.

Tri-State, the Colorado Rural Electric Association and REA groups from neighboring states are part of the Rural Economic Action Alliance, and signs point to Tri-State’s heavy involvement in the group.

The alliance was founded in February as a nonprofit corporation that does not have to disclose its donors. A Tri-State employee registered the website, according to Network Solutions, a company that keeps track of website domains. Also, the address for the Rural Economic Action Alliance on ad contracts with a Denver television station matches Tri-State’s corporate headquarters.

Hickenlooper told reporters last Thursday he still was studying the bill, and he has not decided whether he will sign it. But if he vetoes the bill, it would be a 180-degree reversal. Hickenlooper was involved in drafting the bill, and his staff lobbied for it. Officials with the Public Utilities Commission and Colorado Energy Office – both of which report to Hickenlooper – testified for the bill.

And in comments to reporters, Hickenlooper focused on the need to combat climate change. Climate scientists believe a warming planet will mean less snow – and less water – for Colorado, he said.

“Who does that diminished water affect more? Rural Colorado.” Hickenlooper said.

It’s prudent to have insurance against climate change, he said.

“That’s what the entire renewable-energy program is trying to do, is to make sure that we have some insurance and that we are using less and less carbon as we transform into a new energy economy,” he said.

Source:  By Joe Hanel, Herald staff writer | The Durango Herald | May 16, 2013 | durangoherald.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.