Buccaneer
10-01-2004, 09:28 AM
Here in Colorado, there is a controversal amendment coming up for the voters in mandating a certain percentage of alternative sources for utilities - specifically wind farms. Here was our Council's official stance (btw, CSU is a public utility serving the Pikes Peak area and accountable to the City Council. I have been working for CSU for over 15 years).
[/b]City Council Passes Resolution in Opposition to Amendment 37 [/b]
Sep 28, 2004
The Colorado Springs City Council unanimously passed a resolution on Sept. 28 opposing Amendment 37. If passed by voters in November, Amendment 37 would establish a mandatory renewable energy portfolio standard applicable to certain utilities within the State of Colorado, including Colorado Springs Utilities.
Generally, the position of opposition is based on the following concerns (see resolution for more information):
Colorado Springs Utilities is developing an electric integrated resource plan to determine the optimal mix of renewable resource and other generation and demand side management alternatives over the next 20 years [ ed - I'm helping with this. ]. In the face of this local planning effort, Amendment 37 creates a mandate that does not correspond with the local needs of this community, imposes unwarranted costs upon Colorado Springs Utilities’ customers and removes local control over resource management decisions.
The cost associated with Amendment 37 mandates far exceeds the cost that would be incurred through the pursuit of Colorado Springs Utilities’ electric integrated resource plan. Moreover, the electric integrated resource plan produces air quality improvements comparable to those resulting from the more costly Amendment 37 mandates.
The cap of 50 cents per month for residential customer bills contained within Amendment 37 may only recover some of the costs of the resource portfolio mandates, and this will likely lead to burdensome costs being imposed upon commercial and industrial customer classes.
Amendment 37 disregards the home rule powers of the City of Colorado Springs to make its own resource decisions, and imposes Public Utilities Commission regulatory jurisdiction upon Colorado Springs Utilities.
CSU has been a leader in obtaining power from alternate sources but passing those costs on to those who choose to purchase power from them - and can afford it (usually rich homeowners and businesses). Ironically, further efforts have been stalled by environmentalists in the State - they do not want more reservoirs that can generate hydropower and they do not want more wind farms that can generate wind power. The reasons for opposing wind farms are the blight on the landscape and the blades killing thousands of migratory birds. So taking those issues into consideration (and waiting for newer technologies), how should it be mandated?
Now we have a proposed mandate from the State and the correct action - as our Council demonstrated - is to publically oppose such mandate and let us determine the timing and feasibility of developing alternative powers. In other words, we are a Home Rule city and any decisions affecting the local population should be decided locally - not from the State and not from the Feds. That is libertarianism in action.
(I presume that our friends up in Boulder and Denver would think differently. It's too bad that we would have more local govt wanting to governed by a more central authority instead of taking on the responsibilities themselves. We need more govt like the Springs and less of those willing to continue towards socialism.)
[/b]City Council Passes Resolution in Opposition to Amendment 37 [/b]
Sep 28, 2004
The Colorado Springs City Council unanimously passed a resolution on Sept. 28 opposing Amendment 37. If passed by voters in November, Amendment 37 would establish a mandatory renewable energy portfolio standard applicable to certain utilities within the State of Colorado, including Colorado Springs Utilities.
Generally, the position of opposition is based on the following concerns (see resolution for more information):
Colorado Springs Utilities is developing an electric integrated resource plan to determine the optimal mix of renewable resource and other generation and demand side management alternatives over the next 20 years [ ed - I'm helping with this. ]. In the face of this local planning effort, Amendment 37 creates a mandate that does not correspond with the local needs of this community, imposes unwarranted costs upon Colorado Springs Utilities’ customers and removes local control over resource management decisions.
The cost associated with Amendment 37 mandates far exceeds the cost that would be incurred through the pursuit of Colorado Springs Utilities’ electric integrated resource plan. Moreover, the electric integrated resource plan produces air quality improvements comparable to those resulting from the more costly Amendment 37 mandates.
The cap of 50 cents per month for residential customer bills contained within Amendment 37 may only recover some of the costs of the resource portfolio mandates, and this will likely lead to burdensome costs being imposed upon commercial and industrial customer classes.
Amendment 37 disregards the home rule powers of the City of Colorado Springs to make its own resource decisions, and imposes Public Utilities Commission regulatory jurisdiction upon Colorado Springs Utilities.
CSU has been a leader in obtaining power from alternate sources but passing those costs on to those who choose to purchase power from them - and can afford it (usually rich homeowners and businesses). Ironically, further efforts have been stalled by environmentalists in the State - they do not want more reservoirs that can generate hydropower and they do not want more wind farms that can generate wind power. The reasons for opposing wind farms are the blight on the landscape and the blades killing thousands of migratory birds. So taking those issues into consideration (and waiting for newer technologies), how should it be mandated?
Now we have a proposed mandate from the State and the correct action - as our Council demonstrated - is to publically oppose such mandate and let us determine the timing and feasibility of developing alternative powers. In other words, we are a Home Rule city and any decisions affecting the local population should be decided locally - not from the State and not from the Feds. That is libertarianism in action.
(I presume that our friends up in Boulder and Denver would think differently. It's too bad that we would have more local govt wanting to governed by a more central authority instead of taking on the responsibilities themselves. We need more govt like the Springs and less of those willing to continue towards socialism.)