Thread by @shayshinecastle

NRV teeing this up: We've received a lot of communication about this — the update from Xcel. First presentation here (there's 2). www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Update_fr…

"Their success is critical to us as we think to reach our goals," NRV says.

It will take a long time to parse through Xcel's whole plan, which it filed with the PUC recently, NRC says. Some of it we'll like; some of it we won't.

"Tonight is not a public hearing, nor is it an endorsement of Xcel's filing," NRV says. It's to give council and staff "a better understanding" of the company's plans and goals.

"We're at the starting gate of this conversation and what it's going to look like," Alice Jackson, Xcel's president, says. "Happy to continue engaging on this topic."

The state regulators' process of adopting/accepting Xcel's plan will take ~2 yrs, Jackson says.

Xcel plans to retire 6 coal plants by 2028, and convert another one to natural gas. Its last coal plant, Comanche 3, will be operational until 2040.

Its goals for Colorado are:
80% Lower Carbon Emissions by 2030 and carbon free electricity by 2050

Jackson starting off by giving the ol' corporate spiel: How many ppl they employ (4,300), how much $$ they generate in the economy ($1.3B), how much property tax they pay ($196M), yada yada

"We expect to hit a 60% carbon reduction by 2026," Jackson says. "It's a continual operation of transitioning the system and eliminating that carbon from our generational assets."

55% of kWh delivered to customers will be from renewables, Jackson says, but Idk by when. Missed that (or she didn't say).

I think by 2030. They're currently at 70% fossil fuels for the electricity supply.

There are a few key pieces in transitioning to clean energy, Jackson says: The infrastructure for the power supply (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) the transmission infrastructure, and also the existing infrastructure for fossil fuels that needs to be dealt with.

We also have to think about the communities that have traditionally relied on these fossil fuel energy jobs, Jackson says. "What do they want?" To continue to be an energy hub, just with new clean energy jobs? Or not?

Sharing pieces of the infrastructure plan, including
560 miles of transmission line that will transmit 6,000MW of renewable energy
3 new substations, and expansion of 4 existing ones

For a total $1.7 billion investment

All this is in the energy resource plan, btw, still subject to state regulator OK. Just wanted to clarify that.

Here's what's in the plan RE: renewables:
Wind 2,300MW
Utility-Scale Solar*: 1,600MW
Storage: 400MW
Dispatchable Resources: 1,300MW
Total: 5,600MW

*There is also 1,300MW solar onsite or in solar gardens not included in this plan

MW = megawatts
ucsusa.org/resources/how-….

Jackson touching on the last planned coal plant retirement (Comanche 3) which was moved up 30 years from 2070 to 2040. That is still too far out, many folks in Boulder have said.

Jackson acknowledging that it induces the most "ire" from the public — but, she says, it depends where you live. It's either ire at the early retirement (folks who depend on those jobs) or still far-away retirements (Boulder folks)

Basically, Jackson says, we can't retire it any faster without having to increase our use of natural gas substantially.

RE: mix of supply (renewables vs. fossil fuels): There are also reliability concerns with relying too much on certain sources, Jackson says. "We really have to balance."

By 2030, Jackson says:
85% reduction in carbon emission from 2005 levels

80% of energy delivered from renewable resources

Bill impacts of less than 2.0% annually

"Affordability has to be central to the conversation," Jackson says.

"This will deliver on what it is we committed to and more," Jackson says. "They meet and beat Paris Climate Agreement guidelines" and the state's Greenhouse Gas Roadmap.

Boulder's own goals, of course, are more aggressive.

Xcel will start bidding for suppliers (to provide power in accordance with this plan) in mid-2022; construction of new transmission and supply sources will be 2023-2027

"We're making a very significant transition during this period," Xcel says.

Ikd that I adequately explained what a resource plan was. Basically, Xcel promised to meet certain carbon reduction/renewables goals. This plan is them showing how/if they'll follow up on those promises.

They have to file resource plans with the state every so often, showing what the supply and transmission will look like, what they're doing with infrastructure, etc.

"This is a dramatic change" from where we've been in the past, Jackson says, "but this is not the end game" Carbon-free by 2050 is.

"I'd love to see us get there sooner," Jackson says, but "it's a two-way street." Customers need to "vary their consumption" as well.

Weaver: "I plan to get in the weeds a little bit."

You've been warned.

"This is a huge step forward" from past years, Weaver says. "We're talking about doing much better than we have been before. Now I'm going to push a little harder on details."

He's got the actual plan up in front of him and is reading from tables. Settle in for a lecture.

He's asking about other scenarios, the ones that *weren't* included in the plan. Can we see those?

Jackson: There are a number of attachments. We narrowed down to these scenarios bc these were the most effective ones; the rejected ones were "immaterially different."

Boulder's also a party to this filing, so they can find documents through the discovery process.

I'm not even going to pretend to be following what Weaver is asking now.

"The deciding factor so much now isn't going to be cost, it's going to be the availability" of renewable resources at dif times of the year, Jackson says, as well as the cost, availability and durability of batteries for storage.

Weaver insinuated something about Xcel's modeling and what it decides is cost effective, which is when Jackson replied with that.

Weaver: "The reason I'm kind of pushing on this, your 88% (carbon reduction) scenario is really good" (they're going with an 84% reduction scenario right now).

Push harder on getting more storage in exchange for more reduction, Weaver says.

"I think we should push really hard bc this is our only bite at the apple for the next several years," Weaver says. "Boulder loves this start and wants to see as quick as we can to get off coal."

Jackson: This is why I love coming here and talking to you all. We pushed the team on this: Why isn't there more storage?

"We put in the lowest cost curves available in the U.S. and it didn't change the numbers substantially. There's another problem we're trying to solve for."

Young: "I was happy to hear you'd be working for a just transmission ... and asking the communities (with coal plants) what they want. How much of what they ask for is within your power/purview to address?"

Jackson talking about Hayden. coloradosun.com/2021/01/04/hay… We asked them: Do you want a short-term solution? Long-term? Energy based?

They are very concerned about the tax base and re-powering the location. It's about job quality and connection, so ppl can stay where they live.

We're currently looking at a battery storage facility (to save jobs), Jackson says, as well as a fish hatchery (important to the community but not necessarily the best for the tax base).

Another possibility is to turn beetle-kill pine into energy, which is interesting... Xcel may pay to remove those (which there's never enough $$ for), Jackson says, but "it's not cheap." fpl.fs.fed.us/labnotes/?p=27…

"We are working really hard to figure out how we can do this," Jackson says. "It's a 40-year investment and commitment."

Young: We're considering a systems approach to climate action. How are you planning to work on systems change?
Jackson: "We're the backbone." We're the piece that so many other pieces depend on. We've made a great start.

Friend: I'm personally not able to ask all the questions Weaver did. Wants to know if staff has any questions/concerns, since council lacks the expertise.

Jonathan Koehn, the director of climate initiatives: Our team has some of the same questions Weaver did. I think there are certainly some elements we're supporting, and some things we'd like to dig deeper on.

"The clean energy plan is not a single thing to support or not," Koehn says. It has a lot of proposals.

"A really critical piece" for our community is "the gap" between Xcel's goals and Boulder's, Koehn says.

No more qs from council, so we're moving on to part 2 of this same discussion: Xcel and Boulder's partnership. Presentation here: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Update_on…

This is kinda a hard one to tweet, bc it's all about planning and working groups and teams and scoping. Really dense, boring stuff.

But there's a list of projects and progress reports on slide 4. Check it out.

There will be a lot more discussion on the projects once they're out of the "visioning" phase, Carolyn Elam says.

Elam also talking about the recently seated Community Advisory Panel, to represent the "customer side of the equation."

I wrote a little about that in the climate story, but not much. There wasn't much to say.

All homeowners, as far as I can tell. Not as many of the political folks as I'd expected. Lots of biz and climate ppl.

You can learn more about the parntnership and the panel at a community event... sometime in the summer. LOL no date or venue to announce so... I guess watch for it?

Tha's all for this Xcel update.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!