Xcel Energy and the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association would like to clear up some of the controversy concerning our proposed Southern Colorado Transmission Improvements Project, as well as offer a couple of additional points for consideration as the Colorado Public Utilities Commission this week further looks at the issue.
First, we believe our project is equally about the development of reliable electricity service to an area of Colorado whose farmers, ranchers, businesses and industry depend on it. This issue — the reliability of electricity service in southern Colorado — seems to get lost in the debate. We find it confusing that regulators may place unusual conditions on Xcel Energy for approval of this project based on its renewable development aspects, without apparently considering improved reliability in the San Luis Valley.
For both companies and our customers, reliability is a key benefit of the project. Even our opponents acknowledge that the provision of electricity to Alamosa, Walsenburg and other parts of southern Colorado is not ideal. Our project would provide the region with a “loop system,” an industry standard that would provide bulk power from two directions, thus offering a back-up to these communities in the event of outages.
Second, Xcel Energy is not the only player in the development of renewable energy in the state, and of solar resources in the San Luis Valley in particular. In fact, this project can support Tri-State and other utilities’ renewable energy needs, as well as the export of renewable resources to utilities across the region.
The Colorado legislature passed a bill in 2007 specifically to get transmission in place to fossil fuel- and renewable-rich regions of Colorado. If transmission lines aren’t built in advance to these regions, then there will be no development.
As an analogy, let’s say there is no road to connect the San Luis Valley with the Front Range. Those who may want to locate businesses there would not do so because they would not be able to get their goods to market. The question becomes whether the road is needed. Opponents of our project argue it is not because there are no people or businesses there to use the road, while our argument is that people will not locate in the valley until there is a road.
New solar businesses have great interest in locating solar facilities in the valley; Xcel Energy and Tri-State have seen this significant interest through bids and interconnection requests. But these interests cannot build their solar facilities because there is no “road” to bring that solar power to market.
Third, Xcel Energy and Tri-State are committed to further investment in renewable energy resources for Colorado at a reasonable cost to consumers. Xcel Energy’s recent decision to delay its solar resource development was driven not by declining commitment to renewable energy, but by the continued uncertainty over whether this transmission line would be approved by regulators, and by Xcel Energy’s intention to acquire solar (and wind) for our customers at the lowest possible cost.
Colorado has one of the most aggressive renewable energy standards of any state. While both Xcel Energy and Tri-State are well ahead of schedule in developing wind and solar power to meet the state’s renewable energy mandate (30 percent for Xcel and 10 percent for Tri-State’s cooperatives), both companies will continue to explore adding renewable energy to their systems by 2020.
The argument can easily be made that these transmission lines should have been built a decade ago, and to delay the project further only slows the development of the state’s robust renewable resources and the long overdue improvement of reliability in southern Colorado.
David Eves is president and CEO of Public Service Co. of Colorado, an Xcel Energy company. Joel Bladow is a senior vice president for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association.
