Xcel – say it ain’t April Fools
April 2nd, 2010
From our friends in Colorado with this note:
A full copy of the spoof letter and press release are available at: www.xcelresponsiblebynature.com
(Website taken down on April 1, 2010 after complaint from Xcel…)
April 1, 2010
Denver, CO – On April Fools’ Day – as part of the international ‘Fossil Fools Day’ – Colorado activists pulled an elaborate prank on Xcel Energy, the largest utility company in the state. With a farce website (www.xcelresponsiblebynature.com), a satirical press release, and a letter to Colorado ratepayers, activists helped Xcel Energy become a renewable energy leader. The announcement said that Xcel Energy would switch to 100% renewable electricity in Colorado by phasing out all coal plants and abandoning plans to convert existing coal plants to natural gas.
In the spoof initiative, Xcel Energy agreed to pay for the transition to renewable energy out of its own deep pockets. The letter assured Colorado ratepayers: “While, over the past several years, we have raised rates for our customers numerous times, our new approach will put the burden on Xcel’s executives rather than our loyal and hardworking customers. And, rest assured, we can afford it. With an annual profit of nearly $700 million and CEO pay in the millions each year, our ‘responsible by nature’ executives are volunteering to take pay cuts to ensure the success of our plan.”
The press release was sent to a wide variety of media outlets, including business and financial journals around the country. In addition, the press release was sent to politicians and public agencies throughout Colorado, as well as to to various fossil fools, including coal and gas companies and lobby groups such as Americans for Clean Coal Electricity, to remind them which way the wind is blowing.
Beyond that, activists throughout the state distributed thousands of copies of a “letter from Xcel” to ratepayers and renewable energy companies, who were encouraged to email Xcel Energy’s Board of Directors to thank them for their “bold renewable energy proposal.”
The press release was sent out by “Simon Grunwasch.” Grunwasch is German for “greenwash,” indicating that Xcel Energy is masking its environmentally destructive reliance on fossil fuels behind a public image that emphasizes renewable energy. Currently, 90% of the company’s electricity in Colorado is generated by fossil fuels and only 10% from renewable sources. However, this is not for a lack of wind, solar and geothermal capacity. Xcel has received 15,000MW of bids for renewable energy projects – more than double its peak demand – but has only accepted a small fraction.
Though the company has recently announced its support of legislation that would retire or modify three Front Range coal plants by 2017, it is simultaneously opening the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant in Pueblo – the largest coal plant in the state. The lifetime emissions from operating Comanche 3 will overwhelm any savings from retiring Front Range coal plants a few years early. Worse still, these coal plants could be replaced with natural gas, which still emits roughly 60% as much CO2 as coal, in addition to methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas.
“While this spoof announcement is unfortunately nothing more than an April Fools’ Day joke, it is an honest representation of what Xcel Energy needs to do,” said ‘Simon Grunwasch.’ “Xcel Energy needs to stop raising rates on Coloradans to pay for new coal plants, expensive natural gas and perks for their executives. Instead, they need to invest their vast resources in renewable energy for Colorado.”
More information about Fossil Fools Day is available at: Fossilfoolsdayofaction.org
Wish it were true? Contact Xcel Energy’s Board of Directors at: boardofdirectors@xcelenergy.com
Xcel’s 10-K and a die-in!
February 26th, 2010
***********************************************
I just got a tip on what looks like a great book:
The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World
***********************************************
XCEL’s 2009 10-K just came out, and demand is down, down from 2008, but unfortunately not all that much… maybe next year!
And that, folks, is Xcel’s peak demand, from 2000 through 2009.
Now, if someone will only tell me how to label the X axis… I cannot figure it out. “1” is 2000, “2” is 2001, etc…
And about that die-in, hot off the “press” from Ted Nace:
Local Citizens ‘Die-in’ at Xcel HQ in Coal Protest
Group calls on Xcel to Keep Comanche 3 Closed and Produce 100% Renewable Electricity by 2020
February 26, 2010
Denver, CO – At 11:45am on Friday, February 26th, local citizens demonstrated at the Denver headquarters of Xcel Energy – located at the corner of 17th St. and Lawrence St. – in protest of the utility’s impending plan to bring a new coal-fired power plant online in Pueblo, CO. The lunch hour protest called on Xcel executives to move Colorado in the right direction by keeping the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant closed. Protestors demonstrated in a ‘die-in’ in front of the building’s main entrance to highlight the grim consequences that coal has on our lives and those of future generations. Simultaneously, two activists clad in hazmat suits dropped a banner off an adjoining bridge on Lawrence St. Police arrived on scene but no arrests were made.
The 750-megawatt Comanche Unit 3 would be the largest coal-fired power plant in the state, surpassing even the mammoth Cherokee coal plant in North Denver. “At a time when the costs of coal are becoming increasingly clear and the benefits of clean energy are ever more apparent, building the largest coal-fired power plant in the state is taking us 180 degrees in the wrong direction,” said Amy Guinan, an activist with Power Past Coal.
According to Xcel’s own data, the Comanche 3 plant would emit over 20 million pounds of CO2 a day, 2 pounds of mercury a week and thousands of tons of particulates and haze forming pollutants every year. The plant would also consume over 4 million gallons of water a day.
“Xcel has already wasted nearly $1 billion on this planet-destroying boondoggle. Operating it could cost ratepayers billions more. For the sake of Colorado’s children, and future generations, it is time for Xcel to pull the plug on this ill-conceived coal plant and redirect their investments towards making Colorado 100% renewable,” said Tom Weis, President of Wind Power Solutions.
Xcel has had ongoing problems bringing the plant online. While Xcel originally hoped to bring the plant into operation last fall, a variety of technical problems – currently involving a boiler pump – continue to push back its scheduled opening.“There are a lot more than just technical problems with this new coal-fired power plant. There are serious social, economic and environmental problems. Rather than talking about a delayed opening, we should be talking about a permanent closure. Instead of building a new coal-fired plant, Xcel should be investing heavily in Colorado’s abundant solar and wind resources,” said Brian Bernhardt, an activist with Power Past Coal.
Today’s protest is part of an ongoing series of actions to move Colorado beyond coal. Sparked by the failure of elected and appointed officials to take meaningful action to move rapidly to renewable energy, the Power Past Coal campaign is building a grassroots protest effort. With the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approving the permit-to-pollute for both the Valmont and Cherokee stations despite overwhelming public opposition, citizens are prepared to ramp up the pressure on Xcel executives, as well as Colorado politicians and regulatory agencies.
“Our leaders are failing to lead and Xcel is failing to take their responsibility seriously. Xcel should expect more protests and actions unless they start closing down coal plants and moving Colorado to 100% renewable electricity,” Kate Clark, a Power Past Coal activist.
Xcel has been challenged on multiple fronts this week. On Tuesday evening, Pueblo residents – where the new coal-fired power plant is built – raised serious concerns about high-pitched noises from the plant which are affecting people as far as nine miles away. Meanwhile, WildEarth Guardians petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect clean air and the climate and overturn an air pollution permit allowing Xcel Energy to illegally pollute while operating the Pawnee coal-fired power plant.
Xcel’s 3rd Quarter – decline continues
October 29th, 2009
The decline continues, of course, of course…
Xcel’s 3rd Quarter investor conference call was this morning. I really enjoy these calls, because I get to hear them forced to tell bad news. And the bad news for me this morning was that it wasn’t as bad as I’d hoped it would be.
You can listen to the call on Xcel’s site:
You can also get a transcript of the call at Seeking Alpha:
Today I actually listened to it, and Krie, who sits next to me most of the day, got all fired up, and jumped off the couch and started in on her “squeaky bark,” not the bit #100 lb. German Shepherd “something’s going on down on the street” roar, or her frantic “I see a cat and I want LUNCH!” lunge, buther “squeaky bark,” sounding like a Pomeranian, too cute, and each time David Sparby said something, she start squeaky barking, like she does when she hears puppies on a Doggyspace video… hilarious. But I wonder what she was saying… or what she was hearing!
Anyway, here’s the real poop:
or at the SEC site:
It’s down, down, down, but … well, I want to see it down even more!!
Note the massive decrease in electric revenues, but that’s offset by an equal drop in fuel and purchased power, so the bottom line looks better. What I care about is sales, though, not the bottom line, and it’s good news to see Electric Revenues drop by 955 in 2009 thus far, or a tadbit under 15%. Works for me!!!
Looks to me like it’s down 3%! Need, schmeed, there isn’t any…
Capitalism happens — let the market decide!!
500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind
October 20th, 2009
XCEL DOESN’T NEED OR WANT MORE ELECTRICITY, XCEL DOESN’T WANT A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LS POWER, SUNRISE ENERGY, OR WHOEVER…
That was the most important thing to come out of last night’s meeting. Mikey Bull was clear, stating in a most Norwegian way that “despite what Carol thinks, our load is growing,” and that they “won’t have a need… until 2016 or 2017.” I hope that people LISTENED CAREFULLY and were thinking critically.
Shellene Johnson, CRVC, walked Bob Cupit through the siting review and permitting options:
Bob was thrilled, I’m sure, he thought I’d put her up to it, but hey, I’m innocent — this is info that needs to be public, so that people understand all the options. Shellene had questions, particularly where this was an issue that had come up way back when we worked on the County Essential Services ordinance, and wanted to beef up the county’s ordinance to give them some options if a project went through local review. Local review is NOT a new issue for Chisago County, and if you recall, the SE Metro line went through the local review process.
Alan Muller was his usual delightful self, leading Blake Wheatley through a list of questions that demonstrated the “vaporware” nature of this project — he couldn’t or wouldn’t give us any information at all about the project. He knew NOTINK!
What would be the output of this plant? Answer:
780 MW summer rating. Over 800 winter rating. [Gas turbines
make more power when the air is colder and more dense.]How many generating units would there
be?
Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.Who would be the manufacturer of the combustion
turbines? Answer:
Don’t know/haven’t decided.Who would be the manufacturer of the steam
turbines? Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.How many smokestacks would the plant have?
Answer: Don’t know/haven’t
decided.How gallons or barrels of oil would be stored on the
site:
Answer: Don’t know/haven’t decided.How much oil would be burned in a
year?
Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.In your air permit application, how many pounds per year of regulated air
pollutants would you be asking permission to put up your
smokestacks? Answer: Don’t know/haven’t
decided.And so on …..
…he knew nothing at all about this, and that’s because there’s nothing to know. There’s no project plan, no Power Purchase Agreement, no state permit applications, nada… This isn’t a project, it’s a farce… Tom Micheletti could take lessons from Blake Wheatley. Here’s the site plan, from the Oct 15 2009 Revised Draft Development Agreement:
WOW, that says a lot…
Take the time to read these:
Oct 15 2009 Revised Draft Development Agreement
I promised to post a few things so people can learn about prior proposals to get an idea what this one means, so let’s do that. Bear with me, this is interesting stuff!
This MISO Interconnection study says that for 660MW of generation at the Chisago sub, lots of transmission would need to be added. Here’s what one of the two similar options looks like (it’s better in print than here, looks hard to read):
Next is an answer to “what exactly are they proposing” with a couple of prior applications for gas plants as examples of what to expect, what to look for:
Faribault Energy Park – Application
These two applications are important to see what gas plants are all about. For example, the Faribault Energy Park is a 250MW plant, and here are some fun facts from the application:
A 250MW plant is 68 dB(A) 400 feet from the plant… what will a plant three+ times that be?
Here’s what that plant looks like – REMEMBER 750MW IS THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF A 250MW PLANT AND 855MW IS NEARLY FOUR TIMES AS LARGE:
Here’s a closer side view:
Here’s an emissions chart, and remember, the LS Power proposal is 3+ times this, so expect over three times the emissions:
And here’s a fun fact, from the 2004 Blue Lake application, showing their projected “need” back in 2004 that’s WAY overestimated:
From Xcel’s 2008 10-k, p. 10:
Capacity and Demand
Uninterrupted system peak demand for the NSP System’s electric utility for each of the last three years and the forecast for 2009, assuming normal weather, is listed below.System Peak Demand (in MW)
2006 2007 2008 2009 Forecast
9,859 9,427 8,697 9,662The peak demand for the NSP System typically occurs in the summer. The 2008 system peak demand for the NSP System occurred on July 29, 2008.
And now we know that instead of inexplicably going up in 2009, it’s going down. DOWN, further down. But note that in their 2008 10-k, Xcel admits that system peak was 8.697, lower than 2004. That pushes out any need until when? And the longer this drop continues, the further out and less probably any increased need is! And remember, Blue Lake was added to address the 11,000MW need claimed in the application. To get beyond that, how long will it take? With conservation, probably forever, we’ll never need more!
So, folks, as you can see, this isn’t rocket science, and they have no plan, no Power Purchase Agreement, it isn’t needed, it isn’t wanted. LS Power, go away.
Suit over Xcel’s new coal plant in CO
July 3rd, 2009
A suit has been filed against Xcel regarding emissions from its Comanche 3 plant, under construction. Here’s the Complaint:
Utility toadies are trying to diss the Complaint, oblivious, or too aware of, the hazards of mercury and the damage it does. In Minnesota, we can’t eat the fish because of the mercury, and the major source is coal plants. Proof of the harmful impacts of mercury is the statement of the Mayor of Hoyt Lakes at a hearing regarding Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, commenting about the expected mercury emissions, “Mercury? We’re used to it here.” Mercury is a neuro-toxin, and causes birth defects, decreased intelligence, etc., and air permits PERMIT mercury emissions, they do nothing to stop them. There’s no excuse for continuing to spew mercury into the air, our lakes, and us. Kudos to those in CO challenging Xcel.
From today’s STrib:
Suit targets mercury pollution from Colorado plant
DENVER – An environmental group is suing Xcel Energy, saying the utility isn’t doing all it can to cut mercury emissions from a new coal-fired unit at a Pueblo power plant.
WildEarth Guardians says in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that Xcel is violating federal environmental laws by failing to obtain the approval required by the federal Clean Air Act.
“Xcel Energy is plowing ahead to fire up its smokestack without first ensuring full protection of public health and welfare.That’s not only dangerous, it’s illegal,” said Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians’ Denver office.
The $1.3 billion unit, the third at the Comanche Generating Station, will produce 750 megawatts of electricity — enough for approximately 750,000 households. Construction is under way.
Xcel and state health officials say the company has a permit that sets limits on the unit’s mercury emissions.
Paul Tourangeau, director of the state Air Pollution Control Division, said plans for the Comanche Station include equipment to significantly reduce mercury pollution and monitor emissions.
Tourangeau said the state extended the deadline to July 29 for Xcel to update information on efforts to reduce mercury emissions. The update is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Minneapolis-based Xcel took part in negotiations in 2007 that resulted in statewide rules on mercury emissions. Xcel, Colorado’s largest electric utility, and other large power providers agreed to cut emissions 80 percent by 2012.
Colorado’s rules were approved as several states were battling the Bush administration over a mercury standard the states felt was too weak. Last year, a federal appeals court overturned the Bush administration’s approach for mercury reduction that allowed plants with excessive smokestack emissions to buy pollution rights from other plants that foul the air less.
The Obama administration is seeking more stringent controls on mercury.
Mercury is a powerful toxin that accumulates in fish and poses a risk of nerve and brain damage, especially to pregnant women and children.
About 40 percent of the manmade mercury pollution in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants.
Nichols said Xcel’s current permit for the new Pueblo unit will cut mercury emissions by about 65 percent. But experience with other coal-fired plants shows that technology is available to reduce the pollution by up to 95 percent, he added.
“They could be doing a lot better,” Nichols said. “The permit they have now doesn’t cut it.”
*******************************
Here’s another problem from Xcel’s Comanche plants:
