United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar last week announced several initiatives aimed at protecting and promoting a vast range of historic and geographic sites located in the San Luis Valley, specifically including Trinchera Ranch in the area deserving protection. Governor John Hickenlooper and United States Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet were also on hand to support the initiatives.

A recently released report on the San Luis Valley and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which was commissioned by the Secretary, makes three recommendations:

• Request Congressional authorization to study and evaluate means to protect historic sites;
• Conduct an updated resource study of Vermejo Park Ranch;
• Create a corridor of conservation easements consisting of public and private lands.

The corridor of conservation, as outlined in the report, would include private properties along the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in New Mexico and Colorado, including the 172,000-acre Trinchera Ranch. The corridor would protect an iconic landscape and important wildlife habitat, but keep property in private ownership. Trinchera Ranch was lauded by the Secretary for its outstanding commitment to conservation and improvement of wildlife habitat over several decades.

The initiatives were announced as part of President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative.

To read the news articles from the event, as well as the Secretary’s report, please visit the links below.

The Denver Post: Salazar, Colorado leaders push to preserve much of San Luis Valley
Alamosa Valley Courier: San Luis Valley heritage study underway
Pueblo Chieftain: Salazar proposes to preserve history of San Luis Valley’s past
Report: San Luis Valley and Central Sangre de Cristo Mountains Reconnaissance Survey

Through a series of complex financial mechanisms, PSCo ratepayers are now paying considerably more than the 2% limit they were promised for renewable resources, according to a filing Trinchera Ranch made to the Public Utilities Commission on December 2.

Due to a lack of transparency in the system, ratepayers may believe that the costs for renewable resources are funded entirely by the 2% Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment (RESA) rider that shows up on their bills.  Instead, the rider does not include costs for nearly half of the renewable resources on Public Service’s system and is based on dramatically underestimated forecasts of the costs of the renewable resources that are covered by the rider.

“Despite the clear intent of both the voters and the Legislature with respect to this so-called maximum retail rate impact cap, both the spirit of this funding limit and likely the letter of the law have been ignored,” charged Trinchera in its filing before the PUC.

You can read the filing in its entirety here.

Today, the Denver Post complimented Xcel’s recent decision to back away from a proposed transmission line over La Veta Pass. The Editorial also notes that they would like to see Tri-State look at alternatives, specifically a “scaled-back project…in the existing corridor” to address reliability issues in the San Luis Valley.

We welcome the Denver Post’s recognition of the current playing field and will continue our fight toward a win-win solution. We know, as does Tri-State, that the Valley can have improved electrical reliability, increased renewable energy projects and protect a spectacular part of Colorado through other cheaper, better alternatives.

Below is the Denver Post editorial:

Editorial: Tri-State and Trinchera should seek compromise

With Xcel dropping plans for a solar transmission line through the historic ranch, we hope the smaller utility finds a new plan.

By The Denver Post

Xcel Energy’s decision to walk away from a $180 million power line project is good news for the historic Trinchera Ranch and owner Louis Bacon, but the danger to the scenic treasure is not over.

That’s because another utility, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, is still interested in the idea.

That’s an unfortunate and, in our view, unnecessary development.

Continue reading the editorial here.

Here are a few examples from the report that Xcel uses to justify their decision:

• Continued Statewide Decline in Energy Demand: “The need for 2018 has dropped from a projected need of over 2000 MW in 2007…to now only 292 MW today.”

• Expensive Large-Scale Solar vs. Cheap Natural Gas: “the incremental costs of this form of solar facility (over natural gas alternatives) call into question whether this technology would be considered now to be a ‘cost-effective’ resource.”

• Expiring Tax Credits: Xcel is “pessimistic about the extension of the 30% Investment Tax Credit for solar beyond 2016 (after which time it is scheduled to be reduced to 10%).”

• Xcel satisfied 30% RES through 2028: Xcel describes other relevant factors in its 2011 Electric Resource Plan, including that Xcel can “expect to be in compliance with…the RES through 2028.”

We will continue to share updates and new information as we receive it and just what that information means for the Valley. In the meantime, we remain committed to fighting for a win-win solution for the people of the Valley that helps to improve energy reliability, bolsters renewable energy and conserves and protects this spectacular region of Colorado.

“The plan Xcel released yesterday is a significant development. We are analyzing it and need to identify what it means for the proposed transmission project.  Most importantly, we want to understand what it means for the San Luis Valley.

Trinchera Ranch remains committed to fighting for a win-win solution for the people of the Valley that helps to improve energy reliability, bolsters renewable energy and conserves and protects this spectacular region of Colorado,” said Cody Wertz, Trinchera spokesman.

While we review and analyze the filing’s hundreds of pages, we wanted to share a few articles from yesterday’s filing, they are included below.

Denver Post, “Xcel may kill controversial San Luis Valley power-line project”

Denver Business Journal, “Xcel to back away from San Luis Valley power line”

Pueblo Chieftain, “Xcel likely to drop SLV solar, transmission line proposal”

The appeal, which can be read here, articulates a clear outline of the legal missteps and the erroneous decision made by the PUC and how the trumped-up “need” for this project slowly faded from existence.

Below are a few of the errors made by the Commissioners, as outlined in the appeal:

• Xcel and Tri-State did not adequately study alternatives. As the appeal states on page 28, “The law requires [Xcel] to study feasible alternatives to their Project and that such study be performed prior to their filing for a CPCN.” Trinchera presented several alternatives, but the Commissioners never forced Xcel and Tri-State to adequately review or present alternatives, which is a glaring violation of the law.

• The Commissioners ignored evidence showing Xcel’s retreat from solar development. Xcel publicly touted its plans to export at least 1100 MW of solar energy out of the Valley. However, not even one hour after the PUC gave the utilities a thumbs-up to build the line, Xcel released a new plan that develops no new solar in the Valley after 2013. The Commissioners’ decision, as explained on page 38, is not supported by the evidence and should be reversed.

• Unlawful discussions regularly occurred between Commissioners, Tri-State and Xcel. On page 35, the appeal lists several state laws that apply to the Commissioners, yet the facts show the Commissioners regularly met with Xcel, Tri-State and others, including discussions of issues that related to the case. This is not only unethical, it is illegal. One Commissioner recused himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety; the other two should have followed suit.

Again, we urge you to read the entire appeal to see just how many more errors the Commissioners made in their complicit approval of this project. What you’ll read is disappointing and Coloradans deserve better decision-making from the PUC – it’s just one more reason we are in this fight.

We have always and will continue to push for better, cheaper alternatives that improve reliability, increase solar development and preserve the integrity of the San Luis Valley, including the Sangre de Cristo Mountain corridor. Our appeal in District Court allows the residents of the San Luis Valley more time to learn the truth about the alternatives, the utilities’ hidden motivations to build this transmission line and their eroding justifications before the public comment-driven federal environmental impact statement process begins.

That potentially lengthy process could start up soon but the public could receive as little as 14 days’ notice. We will keep a vigilant eye on announcements and ask the residents to do the same because public involvement and comment in that process is vital.

Stay tuned for opportunities to get involved and make your voice heard. This fight is just getting started.

A Public Utilities Commission expert is alleging that Xcel Energy is overspending the ratepayers’ money in a complex renewable energy financing scheme that has profited the company tens of millions of dollars. In recent legal testimony, PUC engineer William Dalton states Xcel is acquiring renewable energy resources long before they are needed and then aggressively selling them while pocketing the proceeds – all at the expense of the ratepayer.

“The Company has numerous incentives available that have been proven to be lucrative to the company while disproportionately harming ratepayers,” said Dalton in testimony on Xcel’s 2012 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan, which lays out the company’s strategy for acquiring renewable energy resources. Keep in mind that Xcel is positioned to meet its 30% renewable energy requirement eight years ahead of schedule and will not require any additional renewable resources until as late as 2029.

Dalton explains how Xcel is loaning itself money to fund unneeded and overpriced renewable energy resources. The company is then “aggressively selling excess Renewable Energy Credits paid by ratepayers and earning significant margins, margins in the tens of millions annually.” On top of that, Xcel is then allowed to charge ratepayers the above-market interest rate of 7.74% on the funds loaned to itself.

Yet the ratepayers don’t see a dime of these profits. Dalton explains: “Ratepayers’ share of margins are not being returned to them. Instead, they have been used to pay back the Company for its overspending, or worse still, used by the Company to acquire even more resources that will generate additional Renewable Energy Credits for the Company to sell at a profit.”

Even though Xcel has fulfilled all of its current renewable energy requirements, it continues to purchase renewable energy resources long before they are needed to meet the renewable energy standard. According to Dalton, this strategy “does not allow the Company to take advantage of anticipated future reductions in the cost of renewable resources, thus it ends up acquiring too many resources at too high a cost.” If Xcel was truly interested in being green, instead of maximizing profits, it would follow Dalton’s advice.

So who is responsible for these additional costs? Says Dalton, “…ratepayers are responsible for annual payments for the excess resources acquired, whether the Renewable Energy Credits are sold or used for compliance, while the Company profits to the maximum possible extent.”

Xcel is not permitted to charge ratepayers more than 2% annually for renewable resources, but Dalton claims that Xcel has manipulated pricing assumptions to mask the actual costs. “The Company’s acquisitions are resulting in ratepayer costs above the statutory two percent limit,” said Dalton.

The bottom line, says Dalton, is that “ratepayers are harmed by paying for too much, too soon and at too high a price.” We agree. It is simply unethical to overcharge the average citizen, to claim undeserved profits, and at the same time to shortchange the people of Colorado who want green energy done right.

Dalton is recommending that the PUC “realign Renewable Energy Standard objectives to benefit ratepayers more and the Company’s shareholders less.” Dalton is right again. Ratepayers shouldn’t have to shoulder the exorbitant costs of Xcel’s renewable energy scheme while seeing none of the financial benefits.

It’s time for the PUC to hold Xcel accountable. Write the PUC Commissioners today and demand that they take a common sense approach to renewable energy by supporting ratepayers in Colorado, not Xcel’s corporate interests in Minnesota.

Please see the letter below and share with your friends.
Power of Land Use
Letter to the Editor
October 4th, 2011, Valley Courier, Page 4

The San Luis Valley Transmission Line project has been at the center of controversy, and rightfully so, but I am not sure for the correct reasons. I have to state up front, that I am the first to admit my addiction to electricity and the convenience that it provides. I am also a supporter of business, well thought-out growth and of alternative energy sources. To those ends I also work advocating for agriculture and rural landowners and recognize the need to keep the San Luis Valley’s only base industry supplied with electricity to run center pivots and storages. So what is my issue? The problem is that we are being told by Xcel Energy Inc. and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association that we (San Luis Valley residents) need this, we want this and more importantly we have to have this.

Having been in the Valley almost 23 years I am not so sure. I have come to understand that we do not sit idly by and let outsiders make our land use decisions. This is what I feel is happening. The outsiders are Colorado’s two largest power companies — Xcel and Tri-State. When they come and talk to groups about the power line it is because we need reliability here in the San Luis Valley, but looking at the website it specifically states that the “goal is to strengthen the states’ power grid, serve increasing demand for electricity and offer transmission access for new, renewable power sources” it further states, “Tri-State and Xcel Energy are building needed transmission infrastructure to serve the state’s long terms needs and support the goals of a New Energy Economy” as stated by Joel Bladow, Tri-State’s senior Vice president of transmission. Why?

Have we experienced major outages that I missed? Even with a transmission line that insures power how does that feed to the individual, when there is no commitment in the plan to upgrade feeder lines that currently have troubles carrying big loads during irrigation season. These companies’ maintenance budgets are already stretched thin. I realize that these could be construed as minor nuances in language, but the reality is that transmission lines move power and the fact that they are being coupled with substations is in direct line with power routing. The power isn’t just for the San Luis Valley as Xcel has clearly identified in its sales pitch, but in a Denver post article in February of 2011 Xcel stated, “The proposed transmission line – from the San Luis Valley over La Veta Pass to the front range is intended to carry newly developed solar and wind energy.” Again we meet the front range needs.

This controversy is about land owner rights, all land owners. The one that has been in the paper is the fight between Trinchera Ranch owner, Louis Bacon, and the utilities, but it also involves land owners in La Veta and many here in the San Luis Valley depending on the route; it is just that Mr. Bacon happens to be the most influential and has the money to fight them. The point is not the size of your wallet, because it is all relative, if my $150,000 house were going to be in the path of the line I would be just as compromised or if I owned a circle of potatoes in the path it would be the same. If you look at Tri-State’s website here is verbatim what they say, “Tri-State’s objective is to work closely with the landowners to negotiate easement terms. When negotiations are not unsuccessful, as an electric utility Tri-State may have to exercise eminent domain authority. Fortunately, these are rare cases.”

We need to ask if the transmission line will stop at Mosca and ensure that it does not move south to shore up New Mexico’s rolling blackouts and move power from Tri-States 30-megawatt solar plant in Cimarron or that is does not move west to link up with Arizona Public Service and move to supply the west coast interests, cutting across valuable farm ground. This was approved by the public utilities commission in 1984 and for the same reasons that were used for today’s upgrade. Why it was never acted upon I’m not sure, but my hunch is that it opened the door for the line to move south.

The thing we cannot afford is for a double circuit 230 kV line, with a right of way up to 200 feet, to cut through prime potato and hay ground in 3 to 5 years, because of something blindly brought into the valley and then can’t be fought. Simply, because it was supported by the draw of 85 part time out of area jobs (power line installation), Solar Facility Jobs (installation increase – then minimal maintenance) and the need for redundancy (the tropical storm on west coast and the 2 day outage CA, AZ and Mexico 9/4 outage happen regardless of strategy).

What my most fervent hope is, that as the PUC has cleared the case to move ahead for an Environmental Impact Study, is that we all, every San Luis Valley land owner, get together to discuss the issues surrounding this controversial topic and get all the alternatives on the table and decide together what is best for the Valley.

Judy Lopez

Alamosa

Today, the Denver Post’s Editorial Board criticized the PUC for its approval of the proposed giant transmission line over La Veta Pass and supported Trinchera Ranch’s opposition. The Post cites a lack of ratepayer protection and says the decision has “given a green light to scarring this jewel of natural beauty.”

The editorial goes on to state that The Post is baffled at the decision by the Commissioners for refusing to review or even acknowledge alternatives, and disappointed that the Commissioners removed any sort of consumer protection.

We agree with the Denver Post’s editorial and appreciate their understanding of this issue. Mr. Bacon has always intended to protect Trinchera Ranch. Over eighty-one thousand acres of the ranch are already under a conservation easement. This huge transmission line would forever change the dynamics and inherent beauty of the Valley.

There are many alternatives that do not require a new line to be constructed, yet will accomplish all of the utilities’ goals and save ratepayers tens of millions of dollars. We will continue to fight for better, cheaper alternatives that not only improve reliability and increase solar export capacity, but also preserve a pristine portion of the San Luis Valley for years to come.

Below is the Denver Post editorial:

Editorial: Not the end of the line in Trinchera power struggle

We wish the ranch’s owner well as he continues to oppose a destructive transmission line approved last week by the PUC.

By The Denver Post

We’re not surprised that the Public Utilities Commission last week upheld its previous approval of a 136-mile power line that would cross the Trinchera Ranch in southern Colorado. Still, we remain baffled and disappointed by how the commission has given a green light to scarring this jewel of natural beauty.

No, we’re not naive about the tradeoffs that inevitably involve any construction or industrial development. It goes without saying that electrical power is essential to the prosperity of this state, and that the San Luis Valley boasts superb locations to generate solar power.

Yet it is equally true that Xcel Energy confirmed last year in testimony before the PUC that it was on course to meet the state’s 30 percent renewable-energy standard without the controversial transmission line that would carry solar and wind energy from the valley over La Veta Pass to the Front Range. And yet the PUC approved the project early this year without even the sort of minimal safeguards recommended by an administrative law judge.

Judge Mana Jennings-Fader had recommended approval of the project on condition that it connect 700 megawatts of generation within 10 years of its completion. If it didn’t, Xcel customers would have been reimbursed for half of the project’s cost they’d paid in higher rates.

The project is also being developed by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, which is not subject to the same regulatory approval process.

The PUC staff also supported the reimbursement condition for Xcel. The idea was to ensure that the company had some skin in the game should renewable energy fail to develop into the bonanza for southern Colorado that utility officials expect.

When the PUC gave preliminary approval to the $180 million line in February, however, the two commissioners who voted — the third had recused himself — declined to adopt that consumer-protection condition. And commissioners refused to reconsider their decision last week.

Trinchera Ranch owner Louis Bacon, who has led the fight against the project, has promised to file suit to stop the transmission line now that he has exhausted his options before the PUC.

“Fortunately, (Friday’s) decision is not the final hurdle for the utilities,” said Bacon spokesman Cody Wertz.” They still need to justify this project to the public in a federal environmental impact statement assessment process. They then need approval from the county commissioners of each of the four counties through which the line would slash.”

We wish Bacon well. The PUC should have examined more closely alternatives to the route across Trinchera Ranch. And if the commission had no intention of doing that, at the very least it should have built some degree of consumer protection into any final approval.

Despite sound and expert-backed evidence proving that there is no need for this project, Xcel’s abandonment of future solar development in the San Luis Valley, Tri-State’s bitter refusal to release documents regarding future electrical need, and cheaper, less-intrusive alternatives – today’s PUC decision grants the utilities the easiest of several approvals they need.

“Today’s approval also now allows Xcel to begin charging ratepayers for the utility’s costs, with a sizeable interest expense built in, associated with constructing this unnecessary and overbuilt line. The charges to ratepayers will not stop until Xcel pockets between a quarter and half billion dollars.

Fortunately, today’s decision is not the final hurdle for the utilities. They still need to justify this project to the public in a federal environmental impact statement assessment process. They then need approval from the county commissioners of each of the four counties through which the line would slash. Not coincidentally, the utilities currently are engaged in an attempt to strip county commissioners of their oversight in such matters.

We know there are better and cheaper alternatives and so does the public. We can improve energy reliability, increase solar development, save ratepayers money, bolster economic development and conserve a crown jewel of the San Luis Valley and southern Colorado. All of this is worth fighting for, and we, along with hundreds of other Coloradans, will continue the fight, undeterred and stronger,” said Trinchera spokesman Cody Wertz.