Energista - Electricity - Comments

whoops

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:23:48 -0500

forgot to log-in - that comment is mine.

farmers

nobody — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:20:01 -0500

Rane & I had a class debate on this issue - part of the problem is also the water provided for irrigation by the dams. Many of the areas in the NW do not receive enough rain to support agricultural endeavors, thus they rely on irrigation. It is a complicated issue, so I agree with you, Joe, that it makes sense to take it on a case-by-case basis. I wonder whether it is an issue that will have a successful compromise, though, since the participants seem sharply divided and have been for years.

PUC response will be interesting

mhenergyguy — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:52:27 -0500

Thanks for providing the update. I found the Strib article and point 9 of the recommendations particularly instructive.

9. The Final PPA should not be approved, primarily because of its unreasonable cost to Xcel Energy and its ratepayers, the likelihood that its cost will increase, not decrease over time, and because of the other deficienciesidentified in the Findings. While Excelsior Energy and its witnesses have claimed that the PPA cost will become more reasonable in the future, particularly in light of the Project’s environmental benefits, there is not sufficient evidence of that value to overcome the very significant cost difference that exists today.

This would seem to make it difficult for the PUC to decide in favor of the project, but the project's backers have built a lot of political support. I haven't checked to see how the project has fared among the current set of commissioners, but this would be an interesting piece of information. And, there will likely be at least one new commissioner by summer. So, the real political play may be at the Governor's office.

Seems to me the whole thing

nobody — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:43:57 -0500

Seems to me the whole thing is an excellent demonstration of the importance of a competent communications department.

Windsource rate jump

christopher — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:35:06 -0500

The Star Tribune explained the WindSource rate jump in an article on March 20.

Evidently, the WindSource rate actually declined but they changed the way it appears on the bill.

The effort to "unbundle" power bills was prompted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which asked Xcel to "deconstruct" the costs the last time the utility sought a rate increase. The idea was to show customers the forces that drive the price of electricity, from the standard expenses of meeting demand to the cost of buying and generating electricity in periods of peak demand.

They offer an example with numbers:

Previously, the separate cost to Windsource customers was listed as 2 cents higher than the residential base rate of 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour. That 2-cent premium was reduced by half a penny thanks to the fuel cost credit -- money Xcel saves by not buying electricity generated by more expensive alternatives, such as natural gas. The net cost of Windsource: 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

In February, however, the Windsource rate was listed as 3.53 cents higher than the residential base rate. But the fuel credit was 2.5 cents. So the actual net cost of Windsource was 1.03 cents, about half a penny lower than before.

Increase usage

vbstenswick — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:08:07 -0600

One idea I had to get people to use these is to have the government give people a $3 coupon good only towards flourescent lights with their tax forms each year.

VBStenswick

CFL Excuses

shadoweyes — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:32:01 -0600

I liked Solar Kismet's commentary on why people don't use CFLs.

Ah Ha!!!

darrell — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:42:33 -0600

Now THAT'S what I would call an Energista!

Thru Ways & Means to the Floor

Mike Bull — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:17:50 -0600

The RES bill passed out of Ways & Means, and will be taken up on the House Floor Monday evening. If no amendments are adopted, the bill would then go directly to the Governor for his signature.

A list testimony...

nobody — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:43:00 -0600

...from Fred Singer?!

testimony

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:38:31 -0600

you totally forgot to describe the oh-so-wonderful and on-topic (heavy sarcasm here) testimony from the last guy up about the need for transmission and the need to reduce carbon... that was definitely the highlight of the testimony! gotta love a strong chair who lets everybody know what is relevant and on topic for each hearing...

House v Senate

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:07:10 -0600

I agree with Mitchell's statement about Peterson - he pointed out at the beginning of the hearing that the bill on the table was HF 4, NOT SF 4. There is some agreement that eventually the House will end up with a similar bill to the Senate, so it makes sense that the testifiers were going along the lines of the Senate's bill.

Re: 25 by 20

christopher — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:17:21 -0600

Correct - Peterson is calling for 25% by 2020 - which is what Anderson's bill was calling for before they developed the big compromise the language.

I think people testifying in front of the House really have their eyes on the Senate bill, which is really pissing off Peterson...

25 by 20

Joe — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:04:33 -0600

Great summary, christopher. I also wanted to point out that it appears Peterson's bill is calling for 25% by 2020. The Senate bill is 25% by 2025.

Green Pricing again

shadoweyes — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:45:22 -0600

I realize, this thread is dead, but WCCO had an article about NoDak green pricing which had an interesting figure in it:

Xcel already offers the Windsource program in Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico. It has more than 19,000 customers in Minnesota, and the number of participants grew 77 percent last year, the utility said.

Considering I think Xcel had 23,000 in Windsource total previously, this many Minnesotans is impressive.