The PUC throws Xcel customers a (tiny) bone. Why chase a scoop at the (potential) cost of accuracy? A NO on the hunting ban for big cats is good, but the fight isn't over. CPW's tone deaf calendar.
The PUC throws Xcel customers a (tiny) bone.
According to the Sun article below, the PUC began its work executing the directives of a 2023 Colorado law to (quoting the article):
"...carve lobbying fees, trade association dues and investor relations costs from Xcel Energy rate requests."
The first paragraph then goes on to quantify, noting that the PUC carved a mighty $775,000 out of Xcel's recent price increase. Sizeable chunk.
That is, until you scroll down in the article. Quoting again:
"Xcel Energy was seeking a $172 million increase in gas rates. The PUC granted the company a $130 million increase, with a $15 million adjustment for depreciation expenses, raising the average monthly household bill 7.7% or $4.57 and small commercial bills by $17.49."
To help put this in perspective, the PUC made Xcel trim off 0.5% of their $172M ask.
Don't get me wrong, I'm always up for having a less-steep increase (I will not say decrease here because, as you can see in the quote above, this is still an increase), but let's have some perspective on this.
Perspective that the law, the PUC, the Democrats who held their dog and pony show hearing on high energy prices back in 2023 (see the second link below), are not really doing anything to lower prices.
What they are doing (see my newsletter about the "Fenberg Rider" linked third below) is adding more and more fees onto your bill and forcing us into a situation where we'll be paying a lot for renewables and then paying a lot to import power from other states when the renewables are insufficient to meet demand.
Let's all quietly await a Sun article on that.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/11/05/xcel-bills-executive-salaries-investor-relations-colorado/
https://www.cpr.org/2023/02/16/xcel-energy-bills-colorado-lawmakers-investigation/
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/the-fenberg-rider-you-dont-mind-paying?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Scoop: (informal) a piece of news published by a newspaper or broadcast by a television or radio station in advance of its rivals
.I've often wondered why, when they preach so enthusiastically about mis- and disinformation, the press chases after being first out with the news when it carries the very real potential to get things wrong or to not present a complete picture.
I did ask a reporter once. Since I didn't ask permission, I will share what this person said but not their identity or news outlet.
The response is below (taken from an email).
"Sure, good question. Obviously I never want to be first at the cost of being right. Nor do I want to be first at the cost of being fair, contextual, useful, trust-building, all the other metrics that I strive for."
"But I do want to optimize my work so that I can be 'as first as possible' while hitting those other marks. Generally, being first-and-right means that the story will be read more widely. That's in part because of 'the algorithms' of Google et al, which tend to reward stories that are published earlier, although they also attempt to measure quality. On the human side, it's also beneficial to demonstrate that we have the resources to break news, rather than just following other outlets' leads. Either way, it reminds people that we are worth looking at, because we are paying attention to things -- and that in turn might prompt them to tip us off to more stories, or share their reaction, or share a good idea, like you did here [asking about the value of a scoop was a part of a larger email conversation between us]."
"So, overall, stories that are first/early but also well-done can inspire a kind of positive feedback loop. But the trick with this, and with 'audience development' in general, is to not let the tail wag the dog. Getting stories read and getting responses is fuel for the mission, but you still need a mission. Being first/being popular is not a sustainable overarching goal, because then it would just lead you to immoral or amoral behavior. Also, of course, it is fun to be first, if you can do it responsibly."
I thought this was an interesting peek behind the curtain at the news business and appreciated the honesty. In particular, I appreciate the acknowledgement that audience metrics and clicks do play a part in the news.
I think perhaps this reporter does a bit too much fancy footwork on trying to make paying attention to popularity a positive for everyone (as opposed to purely being a benefit to the news organization), but I don't think that this entirely negates their point. There can be some audience benefit to a news organization wanting attention from the public.
Still my concern remains. Even though this individual is someone I feel has integrity, the incentive structure here makes me wonder about others in the business (regardless of the ideological orientation). Just how much care do they put into not letting the tail wag the dog?
A NO on the hunting ban for big cats is good, but the fight isn't over.
The Sun article linked first below gives some context around the recent failure of the ballot measure to stop big cat hunting. As you can infer from the map that I took a screenshot of and attached, there is an obvious difference in the way urban voters voted on this measure: more people in urban areas voted for the reintroduction of wolves than did for banning big cat hunting.
Cause for celebration to be sure.
Until, that is, you arrive at the bottom of the article. I'll quote it here for you (link left intact):
"Three Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners — Jessica Beaulieu, Jack Murphy and Rich Reading, all appointed by Gov. Jared Polis — voiced support for Prop. 127, indicating a contingency on the board that is inclined toward an overhaul of lion hunting rules. 'The agency operates at its peril by stonewalling on obvious reforms to protect wild cats,' Miller [Sam Miller director of the Cat’s Aren’t Trophies campaign] said in a statement. 'The vote was anything but a mandate on baiting, trapping and hounding — it was a vote of deference to the agency to take action itself.'"
Beaulieu, Murphy, and Reading, are the unelected activists who wrote in support of the ban on big cat hunting. I linked to my earlier newsletter on the topic second below if you want some additional context.
Go re-read Mr. Miller's quote. Put that with the fact that there are fans of banning big cat hunting on the CPW board (along with likely lots of support from the Gov's office, First Gentleman, and others in that orbit), and the picture that emerges is one of a fight that MOVED rather than was won.
Take a minute to celebrate a win, but don't walk off the field. If this issue is a concern, keep your eye on CPW commissioner meetings and the agendas. Advocate. Get others to do the same.
As an aid, I put a link to the CPW commissioner's page third below. Keep it in your favorites.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/11/12/prop-127-mountain-lion-urban-rural-divid/
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/violations-of-the-colorado-open-meetings?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://cpw.state.co.us/committees/colorado-parks-and-wildlife-commission
Related:
From Marianne Goodland's (CO Politics reporter) twitter feed.
CPW trying to make friends among landowners and ranchers. Sending them a calendar whose first entry is a picture of wolves.
These things write themselves.
https://twitter.com/MGoodland/status/1856417485211226291