@CSUutilities hydroelectric plant at Pueblo Reservoir will supply Fort Carson

The new north outlet works at Pueblo Dam — Photo/MWH Global

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Conrad Swanson):

A hydroelectric plant is planned for construction downstream from the Pueblo Dam to generate renewable energy for Fort Carson. Developers are just waiting for the signal to start building.

The plant would significantly increase the amount of renewable energy Fort Carson consumes, fitting with the post’s “Net Zero” goals of becoming more environmentally friendly.

The Colorado Springs Utilities board will consider adding a military sales tariff during its meeting Wednesday. The tariff would cover costs for Utilities to act as an intermediary, selling the power to Fort Carson after buying it from the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which would build and operate the plant, said Utilities spokeswoman Amy Trinidad.

Adding the tariff is the “last step” before the district can begin construction, said spokesman Chris Woodka.

“We’ve been ready to pull the trigger on this since January,” he said.

Currently, 8 percent of Fort Carson’s electricity is generated on-site through renewable sources such as solar panels, post spokeswoman Dani Johnson said. She could not say whether the post buys any renewable energy from off-site sources.

But Trinidad said Fort Carson does buy some renewable energy from Utilities. She could not say how much, citing customer privacy. The proposed hydroelectric deal would make up 7 percent of the post’s annual electricity purchase from Utilities, she said.

If the tariff is added, the proposal then will go before the City Council, consisting of the same members as the Utilities board, next month. If the council approves the move, construction on the plant can begin, Woodka said.

The plant would cost about $19 million, most of which comes from a loan the district took out, he said. In the years to come, energy sales are expected to cover the costs and eventually generate funds.

The plant’s construction will not have a financial impact on Utilities ratepayers, Trinidad said.

The plant is expected to generate up to 7.5 megawatts of electricity, Woodka said. Fort Carson will buy half of that, and Fountain Utilities will buy the other half.

The plant could be operational by May 2018, a peak time for generating hydroelectricity because of the high volume of water flowing from the Pueblo Dam, Woodka said.

Utilities then would buy the electricity, which will be transmitted onto its grid, and then sell it to Fort Carson without marking up the price, Trinidad said.

In the past, Fort Carson bought renewable wind energy through Utilities under short-term contracts, which have since expired, said Steve Carr, Utilities’ key account manager for Fort Carson. The pending hydroelectricity contract would last until the end of 2027.

Steamboat Springs: @COWaterCongress Summer Conference, August 22-24

The Yampa River Core Trail runs right through downtown Steamboat. Photo credit City of Steamboat Springs.

Click here to go to the website for all the inside skinny.

Aspen Moves Toward 100 Percent Renewable Energy #ActOnClimate #KeepItInTheGround

Aspen

From NPR (Grace Hood):

More than 30 cities, including Atlanta and San Diego, have declared 100 percent renewable energy goals in the coming decades.

But is that really possible?

The story of Aspen’s path to 100 percent renewable electricity shows it’s complicated.

In 2006, the Colorado city’s utility was one of the first in the country to declare a 100 percent renewable energy goal as part of its climate action plan to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Aspen is built around the ski industry. Mayor Steve Skadron says that behind the glitz of downtown stores like Prada and Gucci is an environmental mission.

“Put aside crazy climate zealots telling everybody to sell their cars and eat tofu,” he says. “It makes economic sense for us to support these values because our economy’s based on the natural environment.”

The town had a good start with two hydroelectric plants it built in the 1980s. To get closer to 100 percent renewable energy, the city wanted to revive another hydroplant.

As part of that proposal, it spent millions on things like a custom turbine and generator, a move that Aspen voters approved. But some residents and groups ultimately worried the plan would reduce stream flows, and that would harm the environment. In 2012, Aspen voters reversed course and rejected the plan.

Instead, Aspen signed contracts to bring in hydropower, wind and biogas from other regions and states.

In 2015, the city utility became the third in the nation to be powered completely by renewable energy, Skadron says…

[A Coyote Gulch reader warns that it is just the utility not the entire city that is 100%.]

All that renewable power keeps the lights on downtown. But Aspen still uses natural gas to heat homes. And when you go to ski resorts or outlying homes, the power comes from a different utility that uses some fossil fuels…

Today, only a few cities besides Aspen have achieved 100 percent renewable electricity or energy: Georgetown, Texas; Burlington, Vt.; Greensburg, Kan.; and Rockport, Mo. Kodiak Island, Alaska, is 99 percent renewable energy but uses small amounts of diesel as a backup fuel source.

Van Horn says the Sierra Club pushes cities to create their own renewable energy. But even when they buy it from faraway places, like Aspen does, it has a wider impact…

The Sierra Club hopes all this will add up to lower carbon emissions for cities, and the country.

In Aspen, that’s still a challenge. A decade ago the city set out to bring down all its emissions 30 percent by 2020. Despite Aspen Utilities’ success, the city is not there by a long shot. Skadron says his next goal is the transportation sector. He’s talking with companies about using Aspen to experiment with lowering carbon emissions from cars…

After transportation, there are still emissions from the local airport and the natural gas used to heat homes. The city is working on a new climate action plan that it plans to issue this fall.

HydroVision conference recap

Here’s a guest column from Bob Gallo writing in the Denver Business Journal. Here’s an excerpt:

While the groundwork to unlock hydropower’s full potential has been laid, there is much more left to be done. The manufacturers, developers, engineers, consultants, utility managers, and others who came to Denver last week certainly agreed.

Congress also agrees that hydropower should be an important part of the country’s energy future. Last year, the Energy Policy Modernization Act (EPMA) nearly made it across the finish line before running out of time as Congress adjourned for the year. EPMA enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and contained many hydropower provisions long sought by the industry, including designating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for licensing hydropower projects. These changes would reduce unnecessary delays and uncertainty.

Though that effort ultimately fell short, hydropower remains the one energy source that can narrow the massive chasm between the two political parties on energy. Just six months into the current legislative session, no less than 33 bills focused on hydropower have been introduced. Nearly every week, committees in the House and Senate are holding hearings or markups on hydro legislation. Republicans and Democrats alike are seeing the value in hydropower and exploring more ways to get this valuable energy source online.

This is particularly true for the Colorado delegation. Earlier this year, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, introduced legislation that would encourage pumped storage hydropower at U.S. Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Pumped storage is the only proven large-scale energy storage technology and should be utilized to a much greater extent than it is currently.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, recently sponsored a bill that would reauthorize a Department of Energy Waterpower program that provides funding to retrofit dams and river conduits with electricity. There are over 80,000 dams in the country, and only 3 percent produce power. These non-powered dams hold great promise for additional generation.

Rep. DeGette has continued her leadership on hydropower, co-sponsoring new legislation earlier this month that would reduce the timeframe for approval of conduit hydro projects on Bureau facilities. The Colorado Small Hydro Association estimates that these types of canals and conduits could power an additional 65,000 Colorado homes…

The hydropower licensing process is one major roadblock to increasing our current installed hydropower capacity from 100 gigawatts to 150 gigawatts by 2050 – a goal set forth in the Department of Energy’s 2016 Hydropower Vision report. By utilizing some of those tens of thousands of untapped dams in the U.S., boosting pumped storage, and efficiency upgrades at existing facilities, hydropower can be a big part of our energy future. According to an earlier report, Colorado alone could produce 3.8 gigawatts of additional hydropower.

There’s an important side benefit to hydropower: infrastructure investment and job creation.

Fed. appeals court snarls Trump’s directive to rollback environmental regulations — @HighCountryNews

Natural gas flares near a community in Colorado. Federal rules aim to lower risks of natural gas development. Photo credit the Environmental Defense Fund.

From The High Country News (Elizabeth Shogren):

A federal appeals court today dealt a setback to the Trump administration’s broad effort to rollback environmental regulations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s 90-day delay on an Obama administration rule that requires the oil and gas industry to find and clean up leaks that send methane into the air.

The decision reinstates the methane rule but will not end its peril. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt last month proposed delaying the rule for two years while his agency goes through the process of permanently rewriting the rule.

Under the EPA’s Methane rule, the industry had until June 3 to detect leaks on new and modified wells and then 30 days to fix them. Then industry has to detect and repair leaks four times a year.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to go through a full rule-making process to rescind a rule. That means they have to draft a proposed rule and take public comment before writing a final one. That takes many months. With this and other rules, the Trump administration has tried to temporarily delay them while going through the longer process of erasing them.

“(The) EPA was basically trying to do an end-run around that,” says David Doniger, a lawyer for Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked on the case. “The agency wanted to do anything in its power to keep industry from having to comply.”

In response to questions about how the court’s ruling will impact industry’s requirements under this rule and the agency’s strategy to rollback this and other rules, the EPA press office offered only a brief statement: “We are reviewing the opinion and examining our options.”

@EPA’s methane rule back on — DC Circuit Court

Natural gas flares near a community in Colorado. Federal rules aim to lower risks of natural gas development. Photo credit the Environmental Defense Fund.

From The Hill (Timothy Cama):

The Trump administration cannot delay an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule limiting methane pollution from oil and natural gas drilling, a federal court ruled Monday.

In an early court loss for President Trump’s aggressive agenda of environmental deregulation, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the EPA didn’t meet the requirements for a two-year stay of the Obama administration’s methane rule.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s decision to delay enforcement of the provision was based on arguments that when the Obama administration wrote the rule, it violated procedures by not allowing stakeholders to comment on some parts of what became the final regulation. The agency used that reasoning to formally reconsider the rule and to pause enforcement.

But the court said the argument doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

“The administrative record thus makes clear that industry groups had ample opportunity to comment on all four issues on which EPA granted reconsideration, and indeed, that in several instances the agency incorporated those comments directly into the final rule,” two of the judges on the three-judge panel wrote.

“Because it was thus not ‘impracticable’ for industry groups to have raised such objections during the notice and comment period [the Clean Air Act] did not require reconsideration and did not authorize the stay.”

Environmental groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund had sued the EPA after its delay, asking for quick emergency action from the court on the matter.

Colorado joins lawsuit to maintain @EPA methane regulations — @GovofCO

Natural gas flares near a community in Colorado. Federal rules aim to lower risks of natural gas development. Photo credit the Environmental Defense Fund.

Here’s the release from Governor Hickenlooper’s office:

The State of Colorado today joined 13 other states and the District of Columbia in seeking implementation of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules to reduce methane emissions and other harmful air pollutants produced from oil and gas facilities. The State asked the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to join plaintiffs and other intervenors in a recently filed lawsuit challenging the decision of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to stay the effect of these rules. Colorado is participating in this lawsuit to help assure comprehensive federal regulation of methane emissions, as authorized by the EPA in 2016.

Colorado has a vested interest in the federal government regulating methane emissions from the oil and gas industry across all 50 states. Colorado led the way in 2014 by becoming the first state in the country to regulate methane leaks. These regulations were developed in concert with the oil and gas industry. As a result, this type of regulation is a win-win: it improves the environment and helps reduce leakage and lost revenue in the production and transportation of oil and gas. The EPA used Colorado’s regulations as a template for the federal approach to this issue. Without these rules, Colorado’s methane levels will increase due to pollution from neighboring states, which is why federal regulation is so important.

In today’s action, Colorado urged the Court to require the EPA to implement these important regulations.

View the motion here.