Coalition of Ratepayers

Becker, Winter to Give Xcel a Blank Check

by

Representative K.C. Becker and Senator Faith Winter have introduced legislation that would give Xcel Energy a green light and blank check to prematurely close existing power plants, replace them with expensive, intermittent resources, and then force captive electric ratepayers to pick up the tab with interest for the massive fuel switching scheme and workforce transition plans.

HB19-1313 “Electric Utility Plans to Further Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emission” is a blank check for Xcel – and only Xcel – because it applies solely to utilities that serve 500,000 or more ratepayers. Other utilities can “opt-in” to financially ravaging their customers. According to the bill summary:

A utility implementing a clean energy plan may recover its costs of implementation through rates, as approved by the PUC [Public Utilities Commission], and own any generating resources and infrastructure necessary to effectuate the plan.

We’ve seen this before, and it won’t end well for ratepayers as evidenced by our intervention in the Colorado Energy Plan (CEP), which we fought at the PUC. The monopoly utility is more than willing to build and build and build so it can fuel switch to utility-scale wind, solar, and batteries (which don’t really exist yet) at the expense of Colorado ratepayers.

Instead of saving ratepayers money, the Coalition proved that the CEP will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Further, we found Xcel’s modeling errors, which PUC staff did not.

Xcel can already file such plans with the PUC and has released a vision to reduce its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2030 and be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. Hence, legislative direction is superfluous, and this bill should only be viewed as another avenue the Democrats are willing to travel in their attempt to reorder society through legislation.

Make no mistake; this bill will impact all Colorado residents – especially the state’s lower-income communities and those with static incomes, who in many cases are the elderly. In fact, AARP is against HB19-1313 because the organization understands an unnecessary increase in energy rates only harms its members and takes away their ability to spend money on necessary, more important matters.

If HB19-1313 passes, customers who cannot choose their electricity provider will pay for worker re-training programs and compliance costs, which will include building new generation capacity, storage capacity, and any new transmission and distribution lines.

This won’t be cheap. Utility bills will go up. Captive Xcel Energy customers are searching for a friend at the state capitol because it isn’t Speaker Becker or Senator Winter. We can’t afford to let the legislature give the monopoly a blank check.

The Coalition’s Testimony in Support of SB19-053: California Motor Vehicle Emission Standards

by

Last Thursday, the Coalition testified in support of Senate Bill 53. The following text is the transcript of the Coalition’s testimony.

Good afternoon, Senator Fields and fellow committee members. My name is Britton Naas, and I’m here representing the Coalition of Ratepayers in support of Senator Cooke’s bill. 

The Coalition of Ratepayers is a Colorado non-profit concerned with issues that impact small businesses and residential ratepayers. 

First, we acknowledge and agree with those who have already testified in support of the bill. However, we are here to address the issue from a different consumer’s perspective – that of Colorado’s electric ratepayers. We believe that if this bill isn’t passed, Colorado’s low-income electric customers will have to pay the price. 

While former Governor Hickenlooper issued his Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) standard last summer, he chose not to include a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. However, he did address ZEVs and many stakeholders suspected one would be coming if Jared Polis was elected. Within two weeks of being sworn into office, Governor Polis issued an executive order that initiated the rule making process for a ZEV mandate. What was the Gov. Polis’s reasoning? Apparently, a bunch of people who testified in favor of Governor Hickenlooper’s executive order on LEVs also voiced their support for a zero-emission vehicle mandate. 

Currently, electric vehicles make up only 1 percent of Colorado’s total vehicle registrations. Mandating a massive increase in the number of ZEVs on the road will require low income Coloradans to pay for the cars and the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate the ZEVs. 

But a build out of charging stations won’t be enough, since high demand charges accompany direct-current fast-charging stations, the type of station that can completely re-charge a battery in 30 minutes. According a Reuters article, a high demand charge coupled with the price of the actual energy can cost someone $70 to $110 per charging session at a direct-current fast-charging station.

If the initial, upfront cost of an electric vehicle doesn’t turn away prospective buyers, this most certainly will.   

There is of course, a costly solution: equip each station with enough storage capacity. The batteries can be charged at a steady pace during the low demand periods of the day, and then the energy stored can be used to charge EVs. This will decrease or avoid the demand charge, but it will also increase the construction cost of each charging station, which ultimately raises the amount paid by each ratepayer. 

There has not been enough vetting of how much all of this, Regulation 20 and the ZEV mandate, will cost auto dealers, buyers and electricity ratepayers. Before we mandate anything, we should have a cost and we don’t. We just know it will be expensive. 

We applaud Senator Cooke for bringing this bill forward and hope the committee will take a favorable approach to it.

Thank you. 

The Coalition of Ratepayers Supports the Right of Self-Determination

by

The Coalition of Ratepayers submitted the following letter to the Public Utilities Commission in support of the Delta-Montrose Electric Association’s decision to withdraw from the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. The link to the PDF version of the letter can be found at the bottom of the page.  

Commissioners,

The Coalition of Ratepayers submits this letter of support for Delta-Montrose Electric Association (DMEA) in its attempt to withdraw from Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Further, the Coalition urges the Public Utilities Commission to set a withdrawal rate that is fair to both Tri-State and DMEA.  

The Coalition urges the Commission to consider this request in light of Tri-State’s actions, which reject individual autonomy and self-determination, are prohibited by public utility law, and are discriminatory as well as a predatory. 

DMEA members understand what is at stake and take responsibility for the outcome that may result from breaking with Tri-State. For better or worse, DMEA and the communities it serves want the ability, nay the responsibility, to choose their generation portfolio. Member owned and operated, rural electric cooperatives are unique in that the individuals served ultimately make the business decisions. Tri-State’s refusal undermines and attacks not only DMEA’s personal and economic freedom, but the personal and economic freedom of all the rural-electric cooperatives it serves. 

Tri-State claims to support freedom of association with a “core principle” of “voluntary and open membership,” but in action, rejects it. Tri-State says, “everything we do is member-driven and member-focused.” If Tri-State actually held these beliefs, it would have voluntarily approved a fair exit charge and not have stated in its legal filings that members have “no affirmative right to withdraw.”

The Coalition believes public utilities law prohibits Tri-State’s actions and that it is being discriminatory and predatory. In 2016, Tri-State allowed one of its New Mexico cooperatives, which had the same power contract as DMEA, to withdraw after paying a “fair” exit charge. Three years later, Tri-State asserts it can prevent any withdrawal and is unilaterally setting abusive charges. 

The Coalition stands by DMEA and its members’ right to self-determination in electric generation and hopes the Commission will set an exit charge that is fair to both parties. 

Moreover, the Coalition of Ratepayers supports the city of Boulder’s efforts at municipalization.

According to the city’s website, it decided to consider and explore the option of creating a local electric utility because of its “carbon-intensive” power supply. Although the Coalition of Ratepayers will refrain from commenting on Boulder’s reasoning, it does support the city’s desire for autonomy and self-determination — much like how it supports Delta-Montrose’s decision to withdraw from Tri-State.

Whether it’s member or voter-approved, the Coalition of Ratepayers will support the efforts of those who want the freedom to choose their energy mix.

Coalition of Ratepayers LetterDownload

Ratepayers need a voice; elect PUC commissioners

by

The following article was written by Amy Cooke in response to the Public Utilities Commission’s ruling regarding the Coalition of Ratepayers’ request for attorney and expert witness fees.

While disappointed, the Coalition of Ratepayers isn’t surprised that the commissioners at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission denied us any and all financial relief even though the Coalition clearly met all criteria and was the only entity in the Colorado Energy Plan proceeding that seriously challenged Xcel’s “too good to be true” promise of new renewable energy at no cost to ratepayers.  

The Coalition is incredibly proud of the work we did and the information we brought forward on behalf of ratepayers. Had it not been for the Coalition, Xcel Energy electricity ratepayers would have been sold the false promise of new energy resources at no additional cost to ratepayers or even below-cost – a claim that Xcel ultimately could not prove and was unable to persuade the Commission was true.  Not only did the Coalition bring to light the numerous hidden costs of the Colorado Energy Plan, it also found an additional $87 million in errors that neither PUC staff nor the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) found in their analysis of the CEP. 

Regulatory proceedings are expensive, exclusive, and opaque. The PUC seems to want to keep it that way. The decision to deny ratepayers relief in their efforts to challenge the Xcel’s misleading claims will have a chilling effect going forward, all to the benefit of monopoly utilities.  In light of our experience as outsiders defending ratepayers in the regulatory process, it’s clear that these proceedings are more like Kabuki Theater with predetermined outcomes at ratepayers’ expense. Ratepayers have no voice and no choice. 

No unelected commission of three should have the kind of power the PUC has without some kind of voter say. In order to restore integrity in the process and allow ratepayers a voice, we believe it is in the best interest of Coloradans that they elect their commissioners. Further, since the OCC is no longer interested in representing ratepayers, it should be stripped of that authority or consider an elected ombudsman who acts on behalf of ratepayers. 

Going forward, it will be the Coalition’s goal to reform Colorado’s PUC making it more assessible and welcoming to all ratepayers, regardless of their ability to pay the high cost of entry, and to reshape the OCC so that ratepayers rather than monopolies are its focus.

The Coalition of Ratepayers Case Study

by

The Coalition of Ratepayers is a Colorado non-profit composed of small businesses and individuals. It has been an active party in two electric utility regulatory proceedings: the Rush Creek Wind Farm and the Colorado Energy Plan (CEP). 

The Coalition first intervened against the Rush Creek Wind Farm, and although the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved it, the Coalition’s involvement in that case as a PUC recognized party helped set it up to participate in the Colorado Energy Plan (CEP) proceeding, which was larger and more impactful.  

The following study discusses the Coalition and its work in the regulatory sphere, pertaining mainly to the Colorado Energy Plan but also touching on its participation in the Rush Creek Wind Farm case. It also suggests ways to reform the Public Utilities Commission and discloses an avenue the Coalition is exploring that will make intervening more feasible.

As is stated in the report, “Participating in public utility proceedings is not for the faint of heart.” There are many hurdles any party has to contend with, and for new participants, those hurdles seem much higher. As a relatively new party, this was true for the Coalition of Ratepayers, and at the beginning of the CEP, most parties derided and thought very little of it. However, by the end, the Coalition had become Xcel’s chief opponent. Its legal team was exceptional, and its expert witness was fantastic, revealing $87 million worth of errors in Xcel’s modeling and accounting. By the Commissioner’s own statements, the Coalition of Ratepayers had provided much to the proceeding.

The Public Utilities Commission ultimately approved the CEP, but the Coalition was able to disprove Xcel’s claims that it was a money saving plan.

Therefore, while it may be difficult to participate in regulatory proceedings and combat the ever-encroaching bureaucracy, it is essential. We hope our case study can be a resource to groups that go against Colorado’s or any state’s regulatory regime. 

Coalition of Ratepayers Case StudyDownload