Renewables Are Cheaper?

So while the weirdos at the Independence Institute and the rest of the Republican Party insult our intelligence with bizarre and unsubstantiated claims of higher prices from renewable energy,

Seeing this one threw me back for a moment. I haven't ran across renewable supporters before that would actually claim renewables are less expensive. Nor have I seen someone straight up claim that claims of higher prices from renewables are unsubstantiated.

Alright, maybe I had missed something. I went to do Rocky Mountain News and did a quick search on "wind power cost coal colorado". The first article I open from my search has this :

The utility says fully subscribed customers of WindSource will have to pay higher premiums - about $13 more per month compared with regular customers - because they aren't benefiting from declining natural gas prices enjoyed by regular customers.

So is Xcel simply charging more for wind power because they're greedy? If so, why is the PUC allowing them to claim that wind power is more expensive? More so, why is the PUC allow Excel to charge more for wind power?

The PUC allows Xcel Energy to charge it's customers about 25% more for wind power over regular power because wind power, a renewable, is still more expensive than generating it from other sources.

I found that with just a couple minutes of research. Why would someone claim that groups like the Independence Institute aren't even spending 5 minutes to back up their claims? To be blunt, because they don't understand the world they're talking about. Why else would someone make a claim, that there is no proof that renewable energy methods cost more than traditional means, which anyone with a couple minutes and access to Google can easily see to be false?

A Wrong Doesn't Make A Right

Those opposing the Front Range Toll Road (aka Praire Falcon Parkway Express) have been pushing Colorado House Bill HB08-1343. One of the glaring problems with the bill is it severely restricts citizens ability to start a new railroad. Unfortunately, those opposed to the toll road give in to NIMBYism and support such irrational restrictions. I can't blame them for their opposition to eminent domain. Nevertheless, trying to keep their freedom by taking freedom away from others is not the solution. We simply continue down the path where people use government to get their own self-serving pet projects done. In response those restrictions I wrote the below letter to my Colorado representatives.

I am writing to you in regards to House Bill HB08-1343. I am not a fan of the use of eminent domain. I have empathy for those land owners faced with the Front Range Toll Road (also known as the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express). Nevertheless HB08-1343 will create problems. The main one is in concern to starting a railroad. It is not acceptable that the bill doesn't make it impossible to start a new railroad. The fact is it does make it much more difficult. Can you imagine a bill that had the affect of forcing all new restraunts to partner with an existing one? HB08-1343 will result in that sort of situation for railroads.

What will happen to new tourist railroads? What will happen if someone wants to start a new railroad to serve a line that UP or BNSF are looking to abandon? I'm sure as a legislator you are familiar with the bills that result in unintended consequences. At this point HB08-1343 looks as though it will be one of those bills. Please oppose this bill until it doesn't place such onus' on the railroads in an attempt to help those not in favor of the Front Range Toll Road.

Only A Lawyer And A Judge

Remember the couple in Boulder that used an obscure Colorado law to take land from their neighbor without needing their neighbor's approval nor needing to compensate them? It turns out that the couple had been a lawyer and a judge. And judging from the letter they put out, they still don't get the point of the uproar is not over the legality of what they did but the morality of it. We know it's not right to forcefully take something from our neighbors and all the more so without compensating them. But McLean and Stevens don't seem to understand it. Then again, what do you expect from a lawyer and a judge other that being enamored with the letter of the law rather than the morality of it.

From CBS 4 Denver

McLean and Stevens said in the letter that they never trespassed on the Kirlins' property, they did not make the claim of adverse possession to protect a scenic view, and they did not use any connections within the court system to help their case, the Camera reported.

McLean is a former judge, and Stevens is an attorney.

"The trial was fair," the letter states. "We retired from the legal world long before the trial. We had never met the trial judge, who was appointed by Gov. Owens in the last year or two. ... The Kirlins lost and are, understandably, upset about losing, but they still have legal avenues to pursue that do not involve creating a media frenzy."

"We still hope that we can reconcile our differences with the Kirlins and restore peace in our neighborhood and community," McLean and Stevens wrote in their letter.

Susie Kirlin said she disagreed with nearly all the points made in the letter.

Frankstown and Louivers Fight Abandonment Request

Douglas County has asked that a few towns be declared abandoned by the state of Colorado. 2 of them, Franktown and Louviers are fighting the request. It seems it hinges on one issue which, naturally, the article fails to take any time to address. Have Franktown and Louviers been carrying out these functions lately?

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7259504

Coffman said the only measure of abandonment in state statutes is whether the town held an election during the past five years and whether officials performed government functions, such as passing a budget.

Colorado Earmarks

Want to see how Colorado compares to other states when it comes to federal earmarks? If so, take a look here.

Enforced Harmony

Why is it that these association's are allowed to do this? An upside down flag is construed as being not ok? What if she flew a Tibet flag and her neighbor was a Chinese national and was offended? Vice verse? How well written is the association's "patriotic and political expression policy"? It would be one thing if this was written up as how things can look. That is, flags must be properly flown, the mailbox should be within 2 feet of the driveway and the same color as the house etc. But this is a policy that isn't about appearances but going into the much more subjective area of expression. Why is a homeowners association allowed to try to force what it calls "harmony in community"? Why is a homeowners association doing this?

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6352763

The Cambridge Park Homeowners Association, which represents owners of 107 patio homes, doesn't agree with Hammer's perspective.

On Wednesday night, the association's board met to hear her response to its notice of noncompliance. The board took no action, and board members refused to comment.

The board was minus one member: Hammer's husband, Doug, a board member who did not participate in the meeting but supports her.

The association board notified Beth Hammer in an April 24 letter that the flag display is against federal flag code and is in violation of the association's "patriotic and political expression policy."

The letter gave her a week to right the flag or face fines that appear to range from $25 to $500.

"Living in a community association offers many advantages to the homeowner, but at the same time, imposes some restrictions," said the letter signed by association manager Melissa Keithly.

"These restrictions are not meant as an inconvenience or an invasion of your freedom, but rather as a means of maintaining harmony in your community," the letter continued.

Private Operators Reduce Costs By Over 10%

If having private companies do this saves this much money, why don't we do it more often?

FasTracks is now priced at nearly $6.2 billion, largely because of the rising cost of construction materials and additions to the project. RTD anticipates collecting $5.5 billion from the FasTracks sales tax, grants, loans and other sources. Managers say the best way to reduce the $670 million gap is to seek out private firms to take over some or all of the work on at least four of the rail corridors.

Colorado Oil Shale

But what if we used nuclear, solar and wind to power the process? What then would be the environmental costs?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&refer=us&sid=aoZ7q9LhDrVs

Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined.

That's not science fiction. Trapped in limestone up to 200 feet (61 meters) thick in the two Rocky Mountain states is enough so-called shale oil to rival OPEC and supply the U.S. for a century.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the two biggest U.S. energy companies, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are spending $100 million a year testing new methods to separate the oil from the stone for as little as $30 a barrel. A growing number of industry executives and analysts say new technology and persistently high prices make the idea feasible.

More On The New Cost of Fastracks

More news has come on on how RTD plans to deal with it's growing cost of building Fastracks. The costs have grown from the original $4.7 billion presented to voters when they passed bonding to $6.5 billion. The approach appears to break down as follows :

a) Project Cuts - They're planning on keeping all corridors and the length on those as planned. However, they're looking to make all sorts of cuts to how those lines are built. They're looking at making stations smaller so they can only handle 3-car trains. They're taking out previously planned pedestrian bridges. Drainage plans will only be capable of handling 5 year storms. They're making service cut backs such as running trains every 15 minutes in places they had originally proposed running them every 5 minutes.

b) More Money - RTD is looking to now ask the Federal government for $1.42 billion in funding (@50% more than originally planned). Privatization is on the cards with private investors able to operate the heavy rail commuter lines. They're also looking at issuing more bonds.

What does this mean? Some of the cutbacks are likely to result in higher maintenance costs. Service will also be less convenient whether it will be small issues such pedestrian access reduced or it just taking a lot more time to commute with trains running less frequently. And if ridership grows? Money will have to be put into rebuilding stations to handle longer trains.

Issuing new bonds will mean it will take longer to retire the bonds. Last year RTD issued $600 million in bonds instead of $200 million to address lower than fore casted sales tax revenues. They're looking to add even more to those bonding issues. With the large number of transit projects asking the federal government for money, it's not clear how much of the larger federal contribution Fastracks will be able to obtain.