Xcel meets mandated GHG cuts and you foot the bill. And while you're at it, go ahead and add a heat pump (you go the $$ right?) Lastly, the Sun's delightfully slanted coverage of heat pumps.
How will Xcel meet mandated cuts to greenhouse gases on the natural gas side? By you paying more of course!
Our state's laws require certain cuts in greenhouse gas emissions with certain dates.
This has led to a whole host of regulations, rules, and changes to the way things work now and will work in the future: coal-fired plants are being shuttered, bodies like the Air Quality Control Board are considering rules about what and where and how you drive or mow your lawn, and there is a lot of talk about building out renewable energy sources and electrifying homes.
Whether or not you agree with these laws or the changes they entail, you would be wise to keep an eye on and be conversant in what they require. To that end, I wanted to present you with what Xcel Energy's plans are with regard to natural gas. I'm not going to give you every detail, but in the spirit of nodding familiarity, I can give you a start and resources to go deeper if you'd like.
Let's start with screenshot 1. It's from the first link below. This is Xcel's goals in their own words. Not mentioned here is the fact that this is driven by laws in Colorado, but nonetheless, this is what they're saying they want.
Seen this way (it is promotional material after all), the goals seem almost glibly feasible. I hope you can appreciate the kind of acrobatics it will take if they're to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by 25% in 7 years, however. After all, if you've called Xcel and/or had an issue with them, you'll know how quickly things move over there. I think that some healthy skepticism is in order.
Nonetheless, let's continue. Xcel hired a consultant firm to help them see different scenarios under which they could achieve their goals and what the (in broad strokes) consequences would look like. That is the second link below and the source of the screencaps that follow.
Screenshot 2 spells out the steps Xcel is going to take to get their GHG down. As you can see it is a mix of (as is the case with their electrical generation) reducing demand coupled with providing new supply streams that either do not make GHG's (pumping hydrogen into the gas lines) or supply lines that get GHG's via some method that overall creates no new GHG's (so capturing methane from trash or sources that would vent to atmosphere).
In addition, they plan to reduce leaks in their supply system (to prevent the release of methane, itself a GHG), and purchase offsets or buy in to companies that are sequestering GHG's. There's nothing new under the sun: witness the return of buying an indulgence. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
The consulting firm considered three different "mixes" of the strategies to achieve this reduction in their modeling and analysis. Those are shown in screenshot 3.
From there, knowing the context, I'll leave it to you to paw through the different breakdowns the consultants figured for yourself.
There are some things that stand out enough to warrant special mention, however. Screenshot 4 has some of that, but it's kind of busy, so let me orient you. I labeled it 4 at the top. Along the left are the points a - c along the left in blue. The graphs are for the short term (2030--the top series of graphs) and longer term goals (2050--the lower series). I divided them into the two extremum scenarios with the labels "You" for the high direct (since this requires more from the customers) and "Alt Fuels" for the low direct (since this requires less from you but requires more alternative fuel sources).
Points
(a) As you can see in the plain text and also in the graphs the more alternative fuels they use, the less they will lean on you to conserve and electrify. This manifests in the graphs too where the "You" graphs (at both 2030 and 2050) show lots of blue which is electrification while the "Alt Fuels" graphs show less blue but more hydrogen and renewable natural gas.
Said another way, by hook or by crook, this is happening. Whether you electrify or whether they have to get exotic with fuels, it's happening. It has to: it's the law here in Colorado--at least for the present.
(b) Regardless of scenario, you are going to be counted on, and heavily, to make this vision a reality. Because, as b says and as you can see by the bands of blue in the graphs, customer demand reduction (through electrification and also building improvements such as better insulation, etc.) is going to have to be the largest emission reduction for the scenarios listed. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm almost inclined to also think that there is no path to achieving these goals WITHOUT demand reduction.
(c) And counted on because of the reasons listed in c. Alternative fuels (at least right now and in the foreseeable future) have an uncertain supply. Uncertain supply likely also means "high price".
Let's put this all together. As hinted at by the title, guess what? You're going to have to pay more.
Xcel will not absorb the costs of our current policy and therefore you will. You'll pay to electrify or for higher construction costs. Or, you'll pay for exotic fuels in your current appliances and infrastructure.
One might reasonably expect costs to electrify/make homes more efficient to go down with time. One might also reasonably expect same from alternative fuel sources that use existing equipment.
But by putting a timeline on things, we are not letting the natural processes that might normally occur to bring about these changes to occur. If we let that happen though, we couldn't solve the immediate and existential climate crisis.
Oh, wait, there's one more screenshot to share. Take a look at screenshot 5. We'll likely (depending on scenario and how things go, i.e. how much we end up electrifying this state) need power from neighboring states to make our dream a reality.
States that may still be using coal and other horrifying ways to make electricity.
So, we'll raise prices on ourselves, likely need power from other states, and all this to achieve a mere drop in the bucket in GHG emissions.
I ask you, does this make sense?
https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/our-commitment/gas-plan
https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/E3-Natural-Gas-Plan-Analysis.pdf
You're okay with purchasing electric heaters but still keeping your natural gas appliances so you can run the electrics unless it's really cold right?
I want to stay on the topic of what it will actually take for Xcel to achieve its (to use the words of the folks who studied this for Xcel--see the first link below) "ambitious" net-zero goals which have been spurred by policy from Democrats.
You can read this post on its own, but more context is in the previous post. I'd highly recommend reading both for a full understanding.
I wanted to put the below in its own post to draw attention to it. It struck me as particularly thick-headed.
Take a look at screenshots 1 and 2 attached. They are from the report linked first below. A report that Xcel commissioned to study the likely impacts and scenarios under which they could achieve a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2030 and go fully net zero emissions by 2050.
I go into detail on what this entails in the previous post, but I call your attention here to the parts that I highlighted in the red and blue boxes in both.
The picture you get from putting these together is that in order for Xcel to achieve its goal, your efforts will be needed greatly. Regardless of approach (again, more context in previous post), you're going to have to manage your demand.
This will come about by spending more on consuming less fuel through more efficient gas appliances, better insulation, and possibly more on exotic fuels to replace natural gas.
You'll also almost certainly be asked to electrify, at least partially.
What they mean is that since our grid is likely not going to have enough supply in winter to heat our homes if we all go all-in on electric heat, we will likely need (for the foreseeable future) supplemental, gas-fired appliances to heat our homes.
Let me rephrase in simpler terms.
In order to meet the GHG reduction, you'll have to buy an electric heater for your home. Don't throw away that gas-fired furnace though, you'll need it for the nights when demand is high!
Wait. It gets better.
You see it isn't just a grid capacity issue. Take a look at the second link below. It details a study** done in partnership with NREL whereby you can see that, even putting grid issues aside, heat pumps (the most highly championed of the home heating electrical replacement schemes) are really efficient up around 40 degrees and really struggle when it gets cold. Oh, and they don't perform at altitude where our air is thinner.
Cold? Altitude? In Colorado?
The point being, that you now have two reasons why you'll need to electrify but still hold on to your current furnace: our grid and unsuitable replacements.
You didn't have any plans for your money besides that did you?
One last thing. Return to screenshot 2. Look specifically at the bits boxed in blue. Everyone with a functioning brain knows this will be expensive, but it's so important that we have to do it. What does that mean? That means incentives and subsidies. That means besides paying to do your own house, some way or another more will be asked of you to help make it possible for others.
You'll pay to update the grid and cram more renewables out on the Plains til the cows can't hardly step without tripping over a panel or turbine.
You'll pay more fees/taxes to help those with less means to update.
**In researching this post, I did have a copy of the study to share, but interestingly (suspiciously) enough, the link died the day I went to write this up and cannot for the life of me be found. I don't like to just quote out of newspaper stories, but I assure you that the claims made in the interview are accurate. To help bolster this claim I included an Xcel press release telling you pretty much what the study claimed too--albeit with some cheery PR tidbits in there too so you don't get too gloomy about heat pumps. It's the third link.
https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/E3-Natural-Gas-Plan-Analysis.pdf
https://denvergazette.com/news/business/heat-pumps-perform-below-par-at-high-altitude-cold-weather-xcel-nrel-research/article_776f0ddc-2740-11ee-88d9-2f1035a177e5.html
https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/about/newsroom/press-release/xcel-energy-and-nrel-partner-to-study-new-electrification-technologies-MCJFWRABVSMZFVPINTROPQYG5UDE
The Colorado Sun's heat pump coverage in pictures.
Sorry to keep flogging away at the same story, but The Sun recently did an article of their own on this Xcel gas plan/heat pump business.
I wanted to put up what they had so you could do a comparative study with other coverage of the same issue.
Take a look at the pictures I attached. I'm sure that even a cursory glance will help you ... get the picture.
Note the subtitle.
Note how far you have to go to see that the study mentioned was indeed paid for by Xcel but done by NREL (not exactly a fossil fuel schill).
Now note the reason why we're to perhaps not believe the results in the last screenshot. Xcel (in cahoots with NREL????) wants you to keep spending on natural gas!
I don't dispute that Xcel has a dog in the fight. But so does Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) and the environmentalists given copious space to air their thoughts.
Fair coverage does not look like this.
One last thing, just for comparison's sake, I linked the Sun's search results for the tags "NREL" and "National Renewable Energy Laboratory" below. Look at the titles of the articles, note the coverage.
Quite a bit different when NREL does things the Sun and environmentalists support.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/01/xcel-greenhouse-gas-emissions-heat-pumps/
https://coloradosun.com/tag/nrel/
https://coloradosun.com/tag/national-renewable-energy-lab/