You could have pumped the brakes on a $60K rabbit. Xcel customers: don't worry about having extra money. A tale of two bills: our state paying about $24.5 million to Denver for homelessness.

Jan 14, 2025

Perhaps you could have helped Salida pump the brakes on their $60K rabbit.

The article linked first below details how the town of Salida, CO's Public Arts Commission dropped $60K on the sculpture you see heading this post.

I've written before about getting on public commissions as a way to make a tangible and immediate difference in their local community (see the second link below), and art commissions like the one that approved the rabbit are another great example.

It's not to my taste, but maybe it is to yours (thus the headline here about pumping the brakes being somewhat tongue in cheek). The main takeaway here is that different communities should decide on what they like and how to spend their money in addition to the fact that you should be in on that decision.

If it is helpful, I included a link to the Independence Institute's Citizen Involvement Project page. They do a variety of trainings/seminars you can attend to help you (one of which starts this evening actually--not sure if it's full but you can always check by going through the link).

Then you could have your chance to weigh in on $60k rabbits.

https://www.themountainmail.com/news/article_48b90526-cc6f-11ef-b604-137bb9f64ecf.html

https://rockymountainvoice.com/2024/11/gaines-you-can-make-a-difference-by-volunteering-for-a-local-board-or-committee/

https://i2i.org/local-gov/#LGT

I sat down recently with Rachel Gabel (FencePost fame) for her ProAg podcast to discuss showing up and speaking up at CPW meetings. The next one is on Mar 5 -- 6. If it's helpful or inspiring, listen below.

Don't worry Xcel customers, the utility will keep you from the horror of having extra money.

Quoting from the Colorado Sun article linked at bottom (discussing yet another request by Xcel to raise its electric rates):

"The investments in 35 new substations, 108 upgraded or new substation equipment, and more than 300 distribution feeders, between 2025 and 2029, would raise the average residential bill $8.71 by 2029 to $105.37 and the average small commercial bill by $10.24 to $131."

Xcel pins the need for this new construction and higher prices on increasing demand for electricity from electrification of heating and transportation, as well as the need to update/upgrade electrical gear because things like rooftop solar have necessitated beefier distribution equipment.**

There are more details as to what specifically the money will go to in the Sun story below which I will leave you to read.

I get the idea of planning ahead, but you (and Xcel) will pardon some skepticism on my part. The sheer number of times that Xcel has come back to the well asking for money is part of the reason but not all.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Xcel is a multi-state operation. The second link below is a paper by the conservative-leaning think tank Center of the American Experiment (CAE) covering Xcel's operations in Minnesota (the location of the CAE).

Quoting at length from the beginning of the paper with links intact:

"Xcel Energy recently requested approval to increase electricity rates from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This rate increase, if approved by the PUC, would increase residential customer bills by $15 to $21 per month by 2024. As the company noted in its rate case filing, hiking up electricity rates would allow Xcel to continue 'expanding our [Xcel’s] renewable energy portfolio and further transforming our generation fleet as we lead the clean energy transition…' Unfortunately, this has become a decades-long trend. Xcel has been using the high cost of wind and solar energy as a justification for rate increases as early as 2007 when the first statewide renewable energy mandate passed with the Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) into law. This mandate required 30 percent of Xcel’s electricity sales to come from renewable energy sources by 2020."

I want to also toss in a graph from the paper which bolsters the above. It's attached as screenshot 1.

This is a bar graph which shows the percentage of renewable energy in the US as a percent of total. The yellow line is the US average residential electric rate. The blue is Xcel.

Golly, the words in the quote above, from a 2021 report in another of Xcel's states sure sound familiar to Xcel's today. That graph clearly shows that Xcel's rates are climbing higher than the national average too. The dotted parts of the lines are forecasts beyond the time of the paper, but the trend could clearly be seen even back to the date of the paper.

Colorado is not Minnesota obviously, but I would ask you this: if they do it there, is it a stretch to imagine that they'd do it here? You think Xcel would have a compunction about using the push to do renewables as a rationale for higher prices in Colorado, having already started the process in Minnesota?

Exactly.

I'll leave you with one more thought. We taxpayers (and Xcel ratepayers) have heavily subsidized a great deal of the electrification of Colorado. We pay the well-to-do to drive around in EV's. We pay them to electrify their homes. We pay for them to install solar. We pay for new powerlines to take renewable power from the Plains into the metro area.

How much of the upgrades that Xcel ALSO wants you to pay for are needed because of the government subsidizing the kinds of behavior that necessitate the additions/changes?

**It ought to be noted that this is due to a mix of consumer demand and policy. Some consumers would electrify regardless, but Xcel is also required by state law to reduce its carbon footprint.

https://coloradosun.com/2024/12/18/electric-grid-xcel-energy-ev-heat-pump-solar-wind-natural-gas/

https://www.americanexperiment.org/five-graphs-that-show-how-the-high-cost-wind-and-solar-are-driving-up-xcel-energy-costs-for-minnesotans/

One of the latest PowerGab episodes does a rundown on the article I used above (the one by Jaffe in the Sun).

Worth a watch.

A tale of two bills: our state paying about $24.5 million to Denver for homelessness.

A CORA request came back recently (part of digging into a reader question) that illustrates the importance of paying attention to what your legislature is doing--in particular, paying attention to those seemingly-unimportant, unsexy bills.

The reader had asked how much money Denver has spent on homelessness. I'm not even going to pretend that I can find or relate a full accounting to you. Not only are there different streams of money, how you do the counting matters.

I've seen headlines that put the number at $155 million spent by Denver. Okay. Personal experience making repeated requests to Denver officials for information on the topic have gone unanswered. Let's go with that number, though I wonder whether the lack of responsiveness is more a function of me being small fry or Denver's reticence to give a number (thus casting some doubt on the $155 mil figure).

In addition to asking Denver, I sent out some CORA feelers and one netted something interesting. A CORA request to the State of Colorado's Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) returned three different disbursements from the state to Denver in the calendar year 2024. They are linked first through third below.

In total they represent $24,516,351 and change in state money which went to Denver.

There is more to the story, however, a lesson in paying attention. Screenshot 1 is taken from the headers of links 1 and 2.

Note the highlighted portion. Both of these payouts were in response to 2022 laws which are linked 4th and 5th below (in the order of left to right from the screenshot). I'll leave it to you to read up more on the bills, but the synopsis is that they are both ways of funneling state money to help give homeless people a place to live.

One of the bills, HB22-1378, specifically references what you'll see in the screenshot: "navigation campuses". The lion's share of the $24.5 million went to Denver's navigation campus, which as you can see in the 6th link is basically a hotel purchased by the city to house homeless people.**

Screenshots 2 and 3 come from these two bills' fiscal notes and show the cost to state taxpayers, both in terms of the money coming out of our coffers and also in terms of government employees. Quite a hefty bill.

The third disbursement--smallest of all since it doesn't even top $100k is, if you look at screenshot 4, for a program called Denver HOST. In case you wanted to study up on them, you'll find their site linked 7th below. A quick survey of the site gives you a sense of what this program is for: rent and housing assistance.

One last tie in to make here. Revisit screenshot 2 and look at the footnote at the bottom. What you will note is that at least some of the money spent on these programs is coming by way of Federal ARPA funds. Those were the Federal dollars from back when the Feds were firehosing money across the country.

You remember, it was the money that "saved" America and didn't raise inflation one bit.

When you read about our state's current budget problems, bills like those linked here are part of the reason why. Not only do they force us to grow our government and spend money, money we'll have to come up with later if the economy contracts, they are a perfect example of how the Democrats used the wads of cash received from the Feds to go on a spending spree. A spree that, like that with state money, leaves us wondering how we're going to pay for things now in the cold light of morning.

The Democrats, the only party running the entirety of the state, were spending like this, spending on projects like these the whole time without thought of the basics of government. Without attention to things like roads (see earlier posts for the context there), or making sure we had adequate staffing in our courts (keep your eyes peeled for this later in the week).

When they bemoan TABOR, hold these bills up in their faces.

**There is one of these Navigation Centers in Aurora too, presumably funded out of the same pot of state money and same bill, but I have not made sure of this so don't quote me on it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1waejB8AjdOtO_Uffeuv7G1aW61kvZgNW/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HV7WdvaDfUX0hTAPNkhT-6-qY4kvjpFK/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jLItU4N5HQCTtuNyq1-sCOK4kE76g3oN/view?usp=sharing

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1378

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1304

https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/23/denver1000-rapid-rehousing-homelessness/

https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Department-of-Housing-Stability/About-Housing-Stability/Housing-Stability

Pixel Chi

21h

I think its way past time to put the brakes on Xcel and their merry rate increases for needed "electrified" paper clips. The rate increases can't be stopped but their financial effect on customers can be mitigated. This can be accomplished by republicans going to the electorate with an Xcel rate and bill rebate law payable by the State of Colorado legislature yearly to all Xcel customers based on the size and monthly energy needs to power, light and heat their homes at a comfortable level. This rebate will absolutely not be based on family income or family size. It's obvious we are heading for bankruptcy by relying on this progressive governor's handpicked commission rubber stamping every monetary whim Xcel demands to save us from the terror of future climate change. In other words, we need a TABOR law dealing with Xcel excessive spending and rate increases forced on its captive customers. Are there any republicans out there listening and more importantly any republicans out there at all?

Expand full comment