Xcel sticks us with green tab

I’m angry. Outraged! Coloradans were sold a bill of goods in 2004. Their primary supplier of electricity – Xcel Energy – has apparently been co-opted by a movement that will cost Colorado families untold millions of dollars and cheat the state out of who knows how many good jobs. And the gutless Xcel? It burnishes its image cost-free: the regulators have to give it whatever rate increases it needs for happily playing along with nonsensical policies. Want solar? Wind? Biomass? Carbon caps? Fine, suckers, we’ll be happy to just add those to your electricity bills!

Vincent Carroll’s recent column, “Nuclear’s new allure,” prompted me to write about an energy cost inquiry I made last year that should have taken 15 minutes, maximum. It remains incomplete and has nearly turned into an investigation.

Since early 2007, Xcel has bragged about a solar array in Denver’s Coors Field. Xcel’s ads report the system produces enough electricity to offset that used to operate the Rockies’ scoreboard. Yeah, just the scoreboard. Not the stadium lights and all the rest. About 14,000 kilowatt hours (KWH) per year.

Fourteen thousand KWH is produced in 13 seconds by the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix.

My cost inquiry? I wanted only to find out how much the Coors Field solar system cost – the price someone paid to be sweet, lovable and green. Should be pretty simple, no?

My inquiry went first to Xcel, which said I’d have to contact the Rockies. The Rockies said I’d have to contact the stadium authority. The stadium authority acted as if it didn’t even know what I was calling about. One statement among my files, obtained from a source at Xcel and embedded below, indicates the Rockies purchased the system, which “will inspire hundreds of thousands of fans per year.” Another, also embedded below, indicates that rebates from Xcel helped defray the Rockies’ cost. Yet another says it’s a Rockies-Xcel partnership. Who cares? All I want to know is how much it cost, which remains – to me, at least – a well-guarded secret.

On September 5, The Denver Post carried an column, ”Expect compromise on energy,” by former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler (oops, she now carries the title “ambassador” according to the bio on her website). In her piece, Madame Ambassador lauds Xcel for its recent turnaround to embrace 2004’s Amendment 37. She also cites the high and rising amount of energy used around the world and asks, “Where will all this energy come from?” Her answer, “Only solar power has the promise to supply massive amounts of energy …” with a caveat about making it more efficient.

Despite her ignorant omission of nuclear, I thought Schoettler could at least get my Coors Field solar cost question answered quickly, so I wrote to her. Shortly I had an e-mail from Joe Fuentes at Xcel, who said he didn’t have the information but had “some calls out.” He also wondered why I had asked, and I sent a responsive reply.

That was nearly a month ago. A follow-up inquiry this morning brought this from Fuentes: “I think this is a deal where you need check [sic] with the contractor. We didn't pay to play.” Isn’t this the step on the merry-go-round where I got on?

Amendment 37 so prized by Schoettler requires Xcel and other Colorado electricity suppliers to meet certain milestones in employing renewable energy resources to produce the electric power they sell. “Eligible renewable energy resources,” according to Amendment 37, “are solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectricity with a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less. … A fuel cell using hydrogen derived from these eligible resources is also an eligible electric generation technology. Fossil and nuclear fuels and their derivatives are not eligible resources.” (Emphasis added.)

I don’t know anyone who opposes solar, wind and the others in concept. However, cost being of no small importance to most consumers, why won’t Xcel see that we get an answer to my question?

(Sorry, slight correction needed on the above "no one." Though radio, TV and robocalls are full of T. Boone Pickens promoting wind power, an article in the July 21, 2008 Newsweek issue concludes with this Pickens admission: "There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly.")

By the way, enough nuclear fuel has already been mined and refined to generate all our electricity for hundreds of years using breeder reactors. Perhaps Ambassador Schoettler can tell us why nuclear was specifically banned from the Amendment 37 renewables mix.

On second thought, one really needn’t ask; Amendment 37 was sold to Coloradans by a political movement that pretty much began 40 or more years ago with opposition to nuclear power. Generally the same ilk that now also opposes development of Colorado’s enormous shale oil resources which, of course, are also excluded.

======================================= Below are the three mutually contradictory Coors Field accounts as communicated to the author in an e-mail from Joe Fuentes of Xcel.

(Version 1) This 10 kW PV system is the first commercial scale grid-tie PV system in any major league stadium. Utilizing SunPower all black 215 watt modules, this system is designed to produce more energy per year than the scoreboard consumes. This system was specified by Xcel Energy and purchased by the Colorado Rockies. An IPS custom all black racking system seamlessly integrates the modules into the stadium structure. This solar system will inspire hundreds of thousands of fans per year.

http://solarips.com/colorado.php?topic=featured_projects

=============================

(Version 2) DENVER -- The Colorado Rockies announced today that beginning on Opening Day, Monday, April 2, 2007, 46 solar panels have been installed to provide power at Coors Field. The solar installation, the first in Coors Field history, is a result of a partnership with the Rockies and Xcel Energy.

The 9.89 kilowatt solar array, installed by Independent Power Systems, will produce over 14,000 kilowatt hours of energy, enough to offset the consumption of the Rockpile LED board over one year. In the walkway just under the system, a flat-panel monitoring system will show fans the real time consumption of the Rockpile LED board as well as the real time energy production from the solar array.

Fans will also be able to learn more about solar energy throughout the season at an educational display inside the ballpark. Xcel Energy and the Colorado Rockies will also provide energy and money saving tips to fans during the game.

http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/col/y2007/m03/d29/c1868204.jsp

================================ (Version 3) http://investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=238809

Solar Power Raises the Score for the Colorado Rockies Coors Field Celebrates First Utility-Scale Solar Power Electric System in a Major League Ballpark

DENVER, April 20, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- This weekend, the Colorado Rockies will take on the San Diego Padres at home under a solar-powered scoreboard. The new 9.9 kilowatt solar electric system, which was installed by Independent Power Systems as a result of a partnership between the Rockies and Xcel Energy, is being celebrated on Earth Day, April 22. Comprised of 46 solar panels from SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWR), it is the first commercial- scale solar electric power system to be installed in a Major League Baseball ballpark.

The new system covers an area of 616 square feet and will produce more than 14,000 kilowatt hours of energy, enough to offset energy consumption by the Rockies' 'Rockpile' LED scoreboard for over a year. A flat-panel monitoring system shows fans at the ballpark real time system performance and scoreboard energy use, and the same data is available on-line at http://www.solarips.com/coors.

"This solar project delivers on the Colorado promise of the 'New Energy Economy' that I have been speaking about all over the state," said Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. "I congratulate the Rockies for their leadership and call upon Major League Baseball, the NFL, and stadium owners throughout the nation to follow the example we've set by deploying solar at Coors Field."

Independent Power Systems, a SunPower Premier Dealer, designed and installed the system in two weeks, just in time for the Rockies' season opener. "We designed the system to ensure that no glare from the solar panels will reach players on the field," said Independent Power Systems President Tony Boniface. "SunPower solar panels were the perfect choice for this project because they offer the highest efficiency on the market."

"Solar power is an essential component of our global energy mix, and companies such as Independent Power Systems and Xcel Energy are doing their part to ensure that it is an easy, affordable option for home and commercial use," said Tom Werner, chief executive officer of SunPower. "The Rockies have distinguished their organization as a leader, by bringing clean, renewable energy to a great American sport."

"We were pleased to partner with the Rockies on this project," said Pieter Leenhouts, director of strategic marketing at Xcel Energy. "This Earth Day, Rockies fans can celebrate their team's commitment to helping take America to a new level of energy independence."

Solar rebates from Xcel Energy helped offset the cost of the system for the Rockies. Similar rebates are available to both commercial and residential customers of Xcel Energy.

About Independent Power Systems

Independent Power Systems is a solar electric engineering and installation company in the Rocky Mountains. Based in Boulder, CO, the company has been installing renewable energy systems for 11 years in residential, commercial, and remote environments. To view projects please visit http://www.solarips.com

About SunPower

SunPower Corp. (Nasdaq: SPWR) designs, manufactures and markets high- performance solar electric technology worldwide. SunPower's high-efficiency solar cells and panels generate up to 50 percent more power per unit area than conventional solar technologies and have a uniquely attractive, all-black appearance. For more information on SunPower please visit the SunPower website at http://www.sunpowercorp.com. SunPower is a majority-owned subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (NYSE: CY).

SunPower is a registered trademark of SunPower Corp. PowerLight is a registered trademark of PowerLight Corp. Cypress is a registered trademark of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

SOURCE SunPower Corporation

Barton Churchill of Independent Power Systems, +1-303-443-0115, bchurchill@solarips.com; or Ingrid Ekstrom of SunPower Corporation, +1-510-868-1368, ingrid.ekstrom@sunpowercorp.com http://www.sunpowercorp.com Copyright (C) 2007 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

BHO vs. McCain on health care & energy

Health care and its rising costs, and declining availability, have become issues, and on this score McCain’s proposals are superior to Obama’s. Between government domination of the market through Medicare, Medical and other publicly funded programs, and tax-free employer-based plans, Americans have less and less say over the cost of their health care. Instead of budgeting for routine visits to the doctor, just as we do with food, clothing, gasoline and other household costs, and purchasing health insurance, as we do for our homes and our vehicles, for catastrophic expenses, we refer all our medical costs to the government or to private insurers. Is it any wonder that costs have skyrocketed? That both public and private plans have sought to cut costs? When asked Tuesday night if medical care was a responsibility, a right or an entitlement, McCain chose the first and Obama chose the second. These differences are telling. Knowing the advantage of being in a preferred group, as a recipient of government care or tax-free employer care, has over being in business for yourself or being unemployed, McCain proposes that every citizen, and not just employers, be given a $5000 a year refundable credit so that they can get the best deal they can. Not only that, they would be free to buy health insurance anywhere, not just in their own state, as the situation is now. Obama, on the other hand, wants to make a problematic situation even worse by instituting a government benefit for all who desire it. This would crowd out the private market for health insurance, just as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have done for housing loans, making the profitability of private plans highly dubious. Obama tries to play down this inevitable consequence by insisting that people would still be free to purchase private plans. Ask Canadians if they have that freedom under socialized medicine. And he adds that those who keep their employer-based plans will be taxed more. What he doesn’t tell you is that employers will be able to pay their employees more in lieu of health-care coverage, but employees will pay more taxes only because they are unjustly penalized for making more money!

Although McCain has been sidetracked by "environmental" concerns in regards to oil drilling and alleged global warming, he has long endorsed the full range of affordable and practical alternatives to dependence on foreign oil. More recently, he has endorsed drilling off our coastlines so long as affected states concur. He knows that the most eligible alternative for power is nuclear energy, which even environmental "greens" admit is safe and clean. He wants to stop the flow of oil money to despotic regimes that aid and abet terrorist groups abroad who threaten us and our allies, and everybody else. He supports research and development but not wholesale subsidies to as-yet unproven technology. But Obama is famous for advocating pitifully small conservation measures such as keeping up air pressure in our tires and driving at slower speeds. He makes rhetorical gestures toward oil and nuclear development, but does not commit himself to it.

This is as good a place as any to take on the bugaboo of the greedy oil companies, which even McCain feels compelled to harp on. In the first place, they buy most of their oil from overseas, spend gigantic sums for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, attempt to make a profit for their shareholders and supply gasoline at the lowest possible price. Media reports of "huge" profits never mention the much greater costs incurred, nor the necessity to obtain the means for securing more oil in the future. It makes literally no sense to believe that oil companies deliberately jack up prices and thereby infuriate their customers. They are dependent largely on their foreign suppliers, inasmuch as Congress has forbidden offshore drilling for 30 years. There is no more public, recurring and palpable cost than the per gallon price of gasoline. We had it good for so many years we thought it could go on forever. Now the only sensible thing to do is drill for more, the sooner the better.

Say it ain't so, Sarah

I cringed when I heard Sarah Palin suggest that human activity might be to blame for so-called global warming in her ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson last week. The Republican VP nominee's claim instantly conjured up images of French President Nicolas Sarkozy breaking many of the pledges he boldly made during the presidential election campaign here in France in early 2007. As I watched Sarah Palin’s cut-and-thrust with the MSM (via the Internet here in France), I seriously wondered for one moment whether her remark was not yet another example of a politician saying one thing and doing another, once in office or on his or her way there.

Forgive my sensitivity. After all, we, American-inspired French conservatives, who have been gullible enough to believe that France might ever become anything other than a stronghold of socialism, have had our fair share of rude awakenings since the days of Turgot, Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say, and Frederic Bastiat.

Consider the latest wakeup call. As candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy straight-facedly promised to reform France along clear-cut free-market principles. Granted, since then, he has cut some taxes in an effort to boost investment and stimulate growth and made moves to dispel the notion that the work ethic is a dirty word.

However, where are the cuts in welfare spending that should have gone hand in hand with the tax changes? Instead, the entitlement mentality is still the cultural norm, and President Sarkozy has been busy implementing his very own brand of Robin Hood economics, robbing hard-working, hard-saving, law-abiding citizens not only to pay for his Al Gore-certified green revolution but also to bribe loafers and welfare queens to get back to work:

** He has approved green taxes on anything from cars, home appliances, and flat-screen TVs to computers, number crunchers for school children and even plastic cutlery used in barbecues and other outdoor meals;

** He has “asked” Total, France’s biggest oil company, to make a $312-million contribution to the French Treasury to help those who can’t afford it pay for nest winter’s heating bills following last summer’s rise in oil prices;

** Worst of all, he has just slapped a new 1.1% new tax on capital gains and other investment to fund a back-to-work program, all in the name of solidarity, a code word for socialistic wealth transfers here in France.

The list goes on. Bottom line? While Sarkozy's approval ratings have been edging up, France’s GDP growth in this year’s second quarter plummeted to –0.3%. Another batch of taxes and France will technically be in a recession by next quarter.

So please, Mrs. Palin, however morale-boosting your selection as John McCain’s running mate might justifiably be, forget about man-made global what-do-you-call-it and let us hear you talk consistently about free enterprise, traditional values and strong national defense.

Let us see you walk the wholeheartedly conservative walk all the way to victory on Nov. 4 -- and from there to the Oval Office in 2012.

Drill down to candidates' principles

(Denver Post, Sept. 7) Quick, who was Henry Cabbage Cod? Oops, I mean Henry Cabot Lodge. Who were Bill Miller and Sarge Shriver? Ed Muskie and Lloyd Bentsen? All were losing vice-presidential candidates of the past half-century, the first two Republicans, the others Democrats. Go to the head of the class if you knew that. Most people wouldn’t know or care. Outside the Beltway, there’s general agreement that the vice-presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm, uh, spit, as Jack Garner, VP under FDR, memorably put it. This year we have Sarah Palin the terrific versus Joe Biden the soporific. Their debate will be a doozy. But after November, one will become a historical footnote and the other will become auxiliary equipment, unlikely to either replace the 44th President or impact his administration much. That’s the American way. The 2008 election, like all of them since 1788, is about the men who would be President and the principles by which they would govern, period. While Palin-watching, Ayers-bashing, and other sideshows will continue to enliven the campaign, voters mustn’t be distracted from the big policy issues if we are to decide wisely. Two of the biggest are energy and health care.

Both are vital. To make them more affordable, should government get more involved, or work on getting out of the way? I’d say the latter, as a believer in individual liberty and free markets, based on our country’s unequaled success with voluntary approaches to abundance and innovation. McCain, though imperfect, is closer to this standard than Obama. That’s my reason, more than party or personality, for favoring him.

To illustrate why getting out of the way is better and what it would look like, I call to the witness stand Joseph L. Bast of the Heartland Institute. The nonpartisan Bast – I doubt he’s ever voted Republican OR Democrat – wrote a series of issue guides called “Ten Principles.” As the rhetoric gets thick this fall, these booklets can help cut the fog.

Here are Joe Bast’s ten principles for energy policy: First, he warns, energy independence is an illusion; we’ll always have to import. Gasoline prices are market-driven. Global warming is not a crisis. Air pollution is not a major public health problem. Mercury from coal-fired power plants isn’t either.

That’s five, and by now you’re either liking these or steamed up. But be aware his argument for each (online at Heartland.org) is meticulously documented. The other energy principles are these: Biofuels should not be subsidized. CAFÉ mileage standards for vehicles sacrifice lives for oil. Electric deregulation is still necessary. Liquefied natural gas is part of the solution. Nuclear energy is too.

Emotion and hope favor the windmillers, data and reality favor the drillers. McCain-Palin want to drill, as does Bob Schaffer in his Senate race with Mark Udall. May their tribe increase. Republicans in Colorado and nationally also want to avoid Canada-style socialized medicine, and here too the liberty-minded Bast gives good reasons why.

His ten principles for health policy build on the cornerstone that health care isn’t a right but a service – and as such, best delivered by the market. To minimize government interference, we should repeal many existing regulations, reduce reliance on third-party payers, and help only those who need help. Single payer is not the answer.

Rounding out the Rx list on health care, Dr. Bast urges: Encourage entrepreneurship. Expand health savings accounts. Expand access to prescription drugs. Reduce malpractice litigation expenses. And finally, encourage long-term care insurance.

While you may prefer a different yardstick for health policy or energy, the ones from Heartland Institute work for me. Comparing platforms on these and many other issues, the GOP decisively trumps the Dems. Obama’s big-government future repels me. I’ll take McCain, warts and all.

Warning: 'Green Can Be Mean'

Editor: Are the Dems ready to fracture down the middle if attacked on the fault line between labor and environmentalists? New contributor Bob McBride thinks so. His message to union members suffering in the paycheck and cost of living from enviros' policies boils down to a cheeky bumper sticker: "Green Can Be Mean." Maybe McBride is onto something. See what you think. Bob McBride writes:

It has been correctly determined that the Democrat Party is a coalition…some say of nitwits and misfits, but an effective coalition nevertheless. For years this coalition approach worked well, the various segments could support each other’s single- focus interest because there was no conflict by and between them. “You vote for my constituent’s interests and I’ll vote for yours” was the way to play along, get along and stay along.

The two primary groups that give substance and strength to the Democrat coalition are organized labor and organized environmentalists. Labor unions not only have and offer money, the mother’s milk of politics, but also provide direct votes and actions influencing other voter activity. The teachers' union for example, is in an excellent position to influence parents' voting activity, by making available yard signs and other literature for school children to take home to their parents. There is no stated penalty for not supporting the teachers’ union election objectives, but there are anecdotal instances of suggestion.

The environmental segment has been incredibly successful in globally positioning itself above mere mortal standards and has cloaked itself in a holier-than-thou attitude toward clean air and clean water. The fact that their current interests and intrusions go far beyond these basics, and negatively impact many areas of economic importance and individual rights, is never given the attention it deserves. The media, either through ideological sympathy or fear of reprisal, never negatively present environmental causes when it is deserved.

What could be worse for a business or an individual than to be branded, constantly and contemptuously, as anti-environment with the emphasis on clean air, water and children? One could spend a lifetime and a fortune trying to disprove the slur.

Both organized labor and environmental organizations are critical to Democrat election victories, for the both are suppliers of funds and feet on the ground. If the Republicans develop a strategy to break the back- scratching relationship between the two, and cause a defection of either from the Democrat party, the result will be electoral victories for decades. The opportunity to do so exists.

Let’s dispense with the myth that organized labor is still run by a bunch of people on or from the factory floor, as in its inception. Organized labor is big business and it’s run as a business by MBA’s. Running a business requires tough decisions and Labor has made such a decision in its strategy for growth.

A union can grow revenue in either, or both, of two ways; raise the dues or increase the membership. Needless to say raising the dues is not looked upon favorably by the union’s customer base, the rank and file. In the past increasing membership in major union- target industries were fairly easy, using restrictive work rules as the instrument. However globalization and world outsourcing has made that much more difficult. Therefore the focus now is on the growth opportunities by organizing employees in new and different industries, and as we have seen, particularly with government workers. As a result Big Labor is spending millions in support of Democrats with the objective of getting legislation that makes organizing much easier and simpler, with little interest in the existing union member’s needs, as we shall see.

The chosen instrument at the moment is the Employee Free Choice Act which is not only a noxious euphemism but action contrary to the core principles of the labor movement… private elections and secret ballots with federal board oversight. The unions want to change the historic rules so that organizers need only 50% of employees to get it done, with individual workers forced to declare in the open. This is known as card check. The opportunity for coercion and intimidation is obvious. This change is so onerous to any right-thinking person that even George McGovern, a noted union supporter and staunch Democrat, railed against this subversive objective in an article for the Wall Street Journal.

The real point is Big Labor has abandoned the long-time union members and the industries in which they work. Where is Big Labor’s wrath at the environmental zealots and their political handmaids that have caused so much hardship and misery with the workers in the heavily unionized airline, automotive, and trucking industries? Why isn’t big labor exercising their leverage with the Democrats to get them to stop inhibiting oil drilling? Where are their efforts to stop the idiotic use of food as fuel, thereby driving the cost of living up for all workers?

Labor has chosen to ignore the past and chase the promise of the future. To labor leadership it is more important to keep the coalition in place, to ensure a Democrat victory and then pressure the winners for favorable organizing legislation, than it is to speak up on their member’s behalf and demand the Democrat Congress pass legislation for tapping our country’s energy assets. As mentioned above, in major industries hundreds of thousand of union members are out of work due to the price of oil and their unions are doing nothing about it.

Union thinking seems to be that the current unionized industries are probably not going to grow, so disregard them and use their organized members as the cash cow to fund the pursuit of greener pastures by the union leadership. So much for how sincerely the unions and the Democrats care about the worker. And that presents the opportunity for the Republicans. Here are the steps I would recommend.

The objective is to cause a fracture in the coalition within the Democrat party with a focus on the conflicting goals and objectives between labor and the radical environmental obstructionists. For the first time this conflict is real and very important .It must be made dramatically important to union rank and file.

First develop an advertising campaign that highlights the fact that union member dues- funds are being spent by the big shots at labor to buy prestige and votes from Democrat lawmakers and the presidential candidate, as well as to party at the recent convention. This ad should talk in real terms about union expenditures on behalf of Democrats and the fact that it is the Democrats that are holding up legislation on domestic and offshore drilling. It should also present the real number of people out of jobs by industry that is the result of the price of oil and its refined products. These ads should feature real people in real hurt. Pristine tundras don’t put reasonably priced food on the table or create paycheck jobs. It is the environmental extremists and their stranglehold on the Democrat party that is causing this misery and strife

In battleground states and particularly hard hit areas use as much local focus and facts as possible. The bumper sticker is “Green can be mean”. Ask the question of the union member: why should your dues be used to keep the party in power that has caused your job loss? Is that what a union that looks out for its membership does, or is the union leadership far more interested in feathering a future nest and cozying up to powerful politicians?

Too late now for this next little gambit --but what fun it would have been to look at the number of United and Frontier airline employees either out of work or soon to be out of work in Denver, and try and mount a picket line of union members at the DNC the final week of August, calling attention to their plight at the hands of Democrats. That could have been a show stopper.

We missed that one, but all sorts of other opportunities to dramatize the contradiction and drive the wedge will come along. The larger point is simply this: We need an incessant drumbeat that pits “enviros” against organized union workers. This should cause the permanent fracture of the coalition. It will be interesting to see which side the party hacks cling to. Will the Democrats choose labor or enviros? Create the atmosphere that they can’t have both.

.