Skip to comments.Regulators expand their authority, play politics with carbon at ratepayer expense [ Colorado]
Posted on 06/20/2017 6:48:25 AM PDT by george76
In a decision that evokes former President Obamas environmental agenda, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on March 23, 2017, expanded its authority in a way thats likely to drive up electricity rates.
Every four years, Xcel Energy undergoes a resource planning process that outlines their ability to meet ratepayers electricity demand. They present portfolios containing cost analyses regarding the utilitys generation, and the Commission selects the lowest cost resources available to provide the company with enough capacity and energy to in turn be able to provide customers with reliable electricity.
However, in the 2016 Energy Resource Plan, the Public Utilities Commission expanded their own power by reinterpreting the second clause of statute § 40-2-123(1)(b). A statute based on a 2010 house bill, HB08-1164, that gave the Public Utilities Commission authority to consider economic damages caused by climate change when determining what resources power Colorado. In agreement with Western Resource Advocates (WRA), an environmental organization that champions wind and solar energy, the Commission concluded they are allowed to consider future societal costs caused by carbon emissions in this ERP.
pricing greenhouse gases eliminates market signals by artificially inflating the prices of coal and gas generation. Suddenly, cheap, reliable sources become expensive, and the commissioners select portfolios filled predominantly with wind and solar generation.
So much for choosing the lowest cost resource.
And with only 22 percent of Xcels energy generation in Colorado being carbon free, future resource planning will be affected. Xcel will have to build more wind and solar generation, which raises utility bills. A prime example is the Rush Creek Wind Farm that is costing ratepayers $1.1 billion.
The federal government steps toward rational energy and environment policy while Colorado steps away from it.
(Excerpt) Read more at i2i.org ...
Flatulating cattle in Nebraska or cars crowding the highways of India could affect the modeling .. plus the social cost of carbon accounting for sea-level changes.
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Gun grabber Bloomberg funded Sierra Club members are working hard to kill good paying coal, gas, and oil jobs, too.
Then, higher food and energy prices for the masses.
States can do as they want. See where businesses leave
[[that gave the Public Utilities Commission authority to consider economic damages caused by climate change when determining what resources power Colorado.]]
Hmm- climate change should be LOWERING prices because the sun will be more intense for solar, and storms and wind will increase according to the alarmists making wind farms more efficient
See how they get to lie and lie and lie once they have their foot in the door with climate change? Climate change will benefit them, BUT they say it will cost more- and noone gets to question them
I sent this article to my state rep.
That we have managed to convince a population that carbon is scary and dangerous is evidence of how successful the schools are in shaping minds.
Thank you for posting this. Until now, I wasn't aware of this important "revocation". It's huge, since even a $10/ton "carbon charge" has the effect of more than doubling the real cost of coal. That's because it's $10/ton of the CO2 produced, which weighs 3.5 times as much as the original carbon/coal.
How does a ton of CO2 weigh 3.5 times more than a ton of coal?
The container you need to hold all that CO2 is pretty damn heavy.
It’s the size of Al Gore.
The bill passed in 2010, when the Dims had both houses of the Assembly.
When a ton of carbon (atomic mass 12) burns, it joins with 2.67 tons of oxygen (atomic mass 16) to form 3.67 tons of CO2 (approximately).
True, but a ton of carbon weighs exactly as much as a ton of carbon dioxide.
But I believe when they price tons of "carbon", they are actually pricing tons of CO2, of which there are 3.67 times as many.
Hence, when they apply a $10 tax to "carbon", they are actually applying a $37 tax to a ton of coal because a ton of coal produces 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.