Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Docket No16A-0396E
COMES NOW the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #111 (“Local
111” or “the Local”) and comments upon the 2016 Electric Resource Plan 120-Day Report (June
Colorado PUC E-Filings System
6, 2018)(“the 120-Day Report) and the “Economic Impacts of the Preferred Colorado Energy
I. INTRODUCTION
“COLORADO ENERGY PLAN” in its proposed resource plan last August after completion of the
Phase I proceedings that had set the parameters for bidding and evaluation of a proposed
competitive acquisition process to “fill the future capacity and energy needs of the system over
an 8-year Resource Acquisition Period . . .”1 Local 111 was one of the parties that objected. Its
objections were dismissed in Decision No. C17-0796-I, but Local 111 believes that the 120-Day
Report more than vindicates its earlier position – the “Preferred Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio”
1
Attachment AKJ-1, Hearing Exhibit 101, Page 7 of 76.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
Page |1
(“CEPP”) for which PSCo now advocates hollows out the concept of “best value employment
(Decision No. C17-0796-I, ¶46), the Commission read out of the statute half of its applicability.
It ignored the legislative direction to consider best value employment metrics in Commission
decisions “[w]hen evaluating electric resource acquisitions . . .,” separate and distinct from
generation facilities . . .,” as well as undervaluing the direction to consider “employment and the
With additional protections for high-value employment and the communities which will
lose (and gain) jobs, Local 111 believes that resource acquisition proposals that may be made in
the future that are similar to the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio or the Alternative
Preferred CEPP may someday provide a valuable tool for moving forward with PSCo’s energy
WHEN LOCAL 111’S COUNSEL AND SEVERAL OF LOCAL 111’S STAFF SIGNED “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” NDAS, WE EXPECTED that would require that our comments also be “highly
confidential” so that we could address truly “confidential” bidding data. No such luck. The
generic that there is nothing confidential for the Local either to disclose or conceal. Nor is there
any real information that would allow the Commission to evaluate the impact of the bidders’
129). The legislature didn’t demand that “best value employment metrics” determine the
successful bidder, but it did demand that, at the least, employment metrics (with their impact on
resource acquisition plan, separate from a (later) assessment in the CPCN process. That isn’t
Thus, there are eight projects in the Preferred CEPP that would not be owned by PSCo
and that would, in part, take the place of the existing Comanche Units 1 and 2, facilities that
currently have a known and determinable positive impact on the long-term viability of the
Pueblo community2. Of those eight projects, two (from a single IPP) identify a “compensation
range” – just for project development and construction work – that is identified only as “$20 and
up/hour3” and says nothing about training opportunities, use of Colorado labor, long-term career
opportunities, or pay or benefits once the plants are in operation. And those are among the more
2
There are 80-90 well-paid Local 111 bargaining unit jobs that will be lost from the
Comanche plant under either version of the CEPP. Many of the individuals holding those jobs
will be lost to the Pueblo community. While PSCo offers broad assurances that it will work with
the Local to address these issues, it offers not a single specific proposal.
3
Colorado’s median household income for 2012 - 2016 was $62,520. $20/hour for full
time work would represent an income of $21,600. What does that income do for, or to, the long-
term economic viability of the community?
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
Page |3
informative bids.
Three of the preferred CEPP bids are from a single company that assures us that its
salaries are “competitive in the industry and commensurate with experience,” with “a
scarcely even ordinal descriptors in a situation that demands cardinal numbers – What salaries
and what benefits are “competitive” or “commensurate with experience”? Minimum wage?
$25/hour? $50? Do the “competitive” health benefits more closely resemble an ACA Exchange
bronze plan, or a gold? What is the employer-match structure of its 401(k) plan?) We are also
assured that the small number of projected operations and maintenance employees will “have the
opportunity to establish a career with [the Employer], which offers competitive salaries, full
benefits packages that includes medical, dental and vision insurance, 401K and pension
retirement plans, and paid vacation and holidays,” but without any specific information about
what this employer views as a “competitive” salary and the nature of the actual benefit designs
within those “full benefits packages,” we are confronted with the functional equivalent of an
assurance that the bidder’s check is in the mail. (And of what does “the opportunity” consist? Is
there specific training for specific jobs? How many openings for long-term jobs are in the
communities where plants will be built are anticipated?) The economic impact of the Preferred
CEPP’s proposed dispersed energy generation development rests in great measure on actual
numbers – how much money will flow to employees; how many jobs will be gained (or lost) in
local communities? Generalizations about “opportunities” for “competitive” salaries and “full”
benefits (which it defines as five full-time jobs once construction is complete, representing a
is that its employees are “encouraged to participate in training courses . . .” (What kinds of
training courses? What form of encouragement?) and it offers (an undisclosed amount of) tuition
reimbursement to employees after six months.4 Its long-term career opportunities are available
to “industry professionals as needed”; it doesn’t project employment numbers (either for the
construction phase or operations) and describes its pay practices as “industry standard” (a term
that, like “competitive,” tells the Commission nothing), and its list of available benefits (except
for some specificity as to its ungenerous §401(k) match) is just that – a list, with no information
employees to excel [that] includes competitive base pay, an opportunity to earn annual
medical, dental, vision, life, and disability benefits.” (This bid also offers some specifics about
its fringe benefit plans, although even it does not provide enough for a full analysis of the
economic impact of its bid, particularly because it didn’t include any projection of ultimate full-
4
These aren’t difficult or obscure questions. Collective bargaining agreements routinely
lay out the specifics of training incentives for bargaining unit employees. So do most public
employers, whether dealing with a unionized workforce or not. See e.g. “Tuition Reimbursement
–Colorado.gov,”
https://www.google.com/search?q=colorado+state+government+tuition+reimbursement+progra
ms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
Page |5
time employment.)
Significantly, none of the bids discuss the continuity of jobs offered, a critical component
for evaluating the long-term economic impacts of either the Preferred or Alternative CEPP:
(2008), http://energy-dialogue.org/publications/assessing-the-impact-of-renewable.pdf. 5
At the same time, PSCo’s own assurances provide no more hard information about the
impact of the early retirement of Comanche 1 and 2 on Pueblo, with its loss of approximately 80-
90 Local 111 bargaining unit positions. The point was made last year, but bears repeating: Even
if PSCo avoids laying off individuals, the larger impact on the community is undisputable.
There were 26 full-time bargaining unit employees at the Cameo Station in 2004 and none there
now. Whatever the current employment status of those 26 individuals, Palisade lost those well-
paid jobs.
5
“The paper concludes that the [Clean Development Mechanism] in its current state and
design has typically failed to deliver the promised benefits with regard to development objectives
in rural areas. Successful projects were found to have had good community involvement and such
projects were typically managed by cooperative ventures rather than money making corporations.”
Srikanth Subbarao, Bob Lloyd, “Can the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver?” Energy
Policy,Volume 39, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 1600-1611.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
Page |6
When the Legislature directed the Commission to consider factors that “affect
resource acquisition, it surely did not expect that even a qualitative analysis would not begin with
some actual numbers and, indeed, be entirely bereft of them, and that the Commission would be
forced to rest exclusively on bland and generic assurances of “competitive” wages and generic
descriptions of classes of fringe benefits. The 120-Day Report provides handy evidence of the
mere lip-service paid to the role of best value employment metrics and the impact of
employment metrics on community viability in its illustrative flow chart set out at § 6.2.4 of the
Report as an overview of the Bid Evaluation Process – best value employment metrics don’t
merit a mention, nor are best value employment metrics given so much as a nod in the
AMONG THE POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE PREFERRED CEPP that the 120-Day Report
repeatedly identifies is the dispersion of generation facilities. However, while the report
addresses the economics of connecting that energy to existing transmission facilities, and the
environmental benefits of a move toward increased renewable energy, it never connects the two
issues: What are the environmental impacts of connecting dispersed generation facilities to
(Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).6 There are unidentified environmental
This omission is telling because failing to consider the environmental costs (and not just
benefits) associated with switching to renewable energy obscures the broader, overall impact of
the switch to renewable energy and clouds much of the discussion of the merits of the Preferred
and Alternative CEPP. Although the idea of switching to renewable resources is intuitively
appealing, particularly because of our increased awareness of the costs of air pollution and
climate change, it is also well-established that solar energy, for example, comes with significant
Materials used in some solar systems can create health and safety hazards for
workers and anyone else coming into contact with them. In particular, the
manufacturing of photovoltaic cells often requires hazardous materials such as
arsenic and cadmium. Even relatively inert silicon, a major material used in solar
cells, can be hazardous to workers if it is breathed in as dust.
6
While the CEPP doesn’t advocate for what is generally described as “dispersed
generation,” its design does, in fact, disperse generation to a much greater degree than does the
Preferred ERP.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
Page |8
during decommissioning: fiberglass, glass, coolant, insulations; in PV-based
systems, additional disposal problems would be caused by cadmium and arsenic;
hazard to eyesight from reflectors, hazard from toxicants in coolant fluids; soil
erosion and compaction; wind diversion; [and] potential decrease in evaporation
rate from soil.
Likewise, wind energy carries its own environmental and health costs, which the
Although there are few studies specifically focused on the noise effects of wind
energy facilities on birds, bats, and other wildlife, scientific evidence regarding
the effects of other noise sources (e.g., transportation) is widely documented. The
7
Frank R. Spelman, PhD, Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy, CRC Press at 87-88
(2014) (“Spelman”).
It has been widely reported that wind turbines are creating sounds and vibrations
that can be sensed by people up to 10 miles away. Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, is
reporting that people who live within 2 kilometers of wind turbines are reporting
sickness that can be traced to the presence of these. Low frequency noise and
infrasound (sound that is less than 20 Hz) appear to be the problem. The problem
that Pierpont and others have reported is commonly called wind turbine
syndrome, which is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear’s
vestibular system caused by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise.
Symptoms of wind turbine syndrome include the following:
• Sleep problems
• Headaches
• Dizziness
• Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression
• Problems with concentration and learning
• Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) . . .
And, in a related point, the Report similarly doesn’t take into account the transportation
needs of these dispersed workers, either the ones who will be working in small Colorado
communities or the Local 111 bargaining unit members who will (if the past is prologue) be
offered jobs with long commutes from their current homes if they do not take some form of early
retirement or buy-out. Employees who now live and work in Pueblo may (if they are like the
employees whose jobs were lost in other PSCo plants) start to commute dozens of miles every
C. THE 120-REPORT
DOWNPLAYS BOTH THE ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY OF LONG-
TERM PROJECTIONS AND THE RELATIVELY EARLY STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BOTH
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INCREASED RELIANCE ON WIND AND
SOLAR FARMS AND BATTERY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY.
less reliable it is likely to be.8 (Discount rates which, by their nature, are supposed to predict the
future, vary sufficiently widely to be lumped more closely with magic than with projection, and
the further out the date to which the discount rate is applied, the less accurate it is likely to be. If
the 120-Day report default rate of 6.78% is used to determine costs and benefits for decades in
the future, one can only note that in 1981 the discount rate peaked at roughly 14% and has gone
as low in the decades since as .75%.9) This helps explain why electric resource plans are
8
The testimony of Charles Griffey in the AD/RR docket, PROCEEDING NO. 17A-0797E,
provides a detailed discussion of this issue specifically in the energy resource arena; the
observation applies, indeed, throughout economic planning. See, e.g., Jeff Stibel, “Why We
Can’t Predict Financial Markers,” Harvard Business Review, Jan. 2009. (“The future, like any
complex problem, has far too many variables to be predicted. Quantitative models, historical
models, even psychic models have all been tried — and have all failed.”)
need to be made every 25 years. This is true both of the economics and the environmental
impact of different patterns of resource acquisition – “projections” for 2034 made in 2018 are
better called guesses than projections. As has already been discussed, we know some of the
environmental impacts of large-scale windfarms – they create both mechanical and aerodynamic
noise10 which may not be too great a problem when built in sparsely populated areas, but who is
to say that where a windfarm is built on an open plain today, there will not be a population center
in 20 years? Migrating birds and animals may be killed or have their breeding patterns
disrupted.11 A number of studies have suggested that large windfarms may cause local climate
change.12 Studies of large scale solar farms are even more rare than well-vetted ones of wind
farms, but tend to suggest that solar farms create many of the same kinds of problems at their
own sites – impact on local climate and local wildlife – but also rely on intense energy use and
toxic materials in their construction, and energy drains that may negate (or certainly limit) the
10
Dennis Y.C. Leung∗ , Yuan Yang, “Wind energy development and its environmental
impact: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012), 2031-2039; Lee S,
Kim K, Choi W., “Annoyance caused by amplitude modulation of wind turbine noise,” Noise
Control Engineering Journal 2011;59(1):38–46; Punch J, James R, Pabst D. “Wind-turbine noise:
what audiologists should know,” Audiology Today 2010;8:20–31
11
Minor disruptions in ecosystems have a way of magnifying over time. In 1935, cane
toads were introduced to Australia from Hawaii in an effort to control two native beetle
populations that were harming local sugar crops. With no natural predators, the toads have
multiplied to the edge of ecological disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia#Ecological_effects.
12
Leung and Yang, supra, 1037-1038 and studies cited therein.
Evaluator notes how little PSCo knows about the battery storage projects included in the CEPP:
While the IE found the ranking of Proposals with storage provided significant
value for ratepayers, this departure from expectations demanded extra caution by
the IE and PSCo. The IE reviewed in detail the evaluation assumptions prior to
the acceptance of Proposals. . . . This review highlighted that the evaluation tools
available to PSCo were limited when employed for evaluating battery storage
proposals.
Independent Evaluator Report, p. 14. It is estimated that the Preferred CEPP would be
responsible for 40% of the total battery storage available in the United States (Griffey Surrebuttal
testimony. Proceeding No. 17A-0797E at pp. 25 – 27), despite PSCo’s admitted lack of
experience with the technology. “The environmental impacts of battery production and disposal
. . . are substantial and may overwhelm any environmental benefits of zero-emission wind and
solar power.” James Taylor, “Batteries Impose Hidden Environmental Costs for Wind and Solar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2017/08/17/batteries-impose-hidden-environmental-
costs-for-wind-and-solar-power/ . Solar panels and lithium batteries are also on the list of
Chinese goods now subject to high tariffs in America – Do we know the impact of those tariffs
13
See., e.g., Alona Armstrong, Susan Waldron, Jeanette Whitaker, Nicholas J. Ostle,
“Wind farm and solar park effects on plant–soil carbon cycling: uncertain impacts of changes in
ground‐level microclimate,” Global Change Biology (2014) 20, 1699-1706.
Questions about how much energy it takes to produce energy have dogged the discussion
of ethanol for decades, and have not been resolved. See e.g. Joshua Rhodes, “The Ethanol
Debate Matters, But Is Unlikely To Change,” Forbes (2/25/2018),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuarhodes/2018/02/25/the-ethanol-debate-matters-but-is-
unlikely-to-change/#4bd972ae5e26. Similar questions bedevil the manufacture of solar panels.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
P a g e | 13
on the battery storage projects in the CEPP? And have we got a handle on the environmental
These are questions, not answers, and Colorado’s commitment to movement in the
direction of sustainable energy sources is firm. But a strong commitment should not be confused
with a headlong rush. The only law that is unbreakable is the law of unexpected
consequences: The CEPP is a proposal for a radical transformation of Colorado’s energy profile
in a short time span, and the only thing of which the Commission and the public can be sure is
that the longer the timeline for its projected benefits, the more likely it is that the projections will
be wrong. At a minimum, this suggests a preference for the more incremental Alternative CEPP
or, more practically, acceptance of the preferred ERP, with the coming years dedicated to better
study and more robust modelling of the economic and environmental impacts of alternative
energy production so that planning for a proposal like the CEPP (if appropriate) can be
incorporated into the Phase I process and not introduced after modelling and bidding criteria
the Leeds Study poses more questions than it answers, and the absence of discovery in this Phase
II proceeding leaves little opportunity to resolve the issues other than by rejecting the report’s
conclusions. The study is designed to “examine[] the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan compared
to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan.” (Leeds Study, p. 1) However, the persistent reporting
only of comparative projections effectively makes true comparisons impossible, and minimal
quantitative information about the analytic tools clouds realistic review. Thus at p. 2 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
P a g e | 14
report, it is stated that
Over 23 years, the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan results in 549 more jobs on
average compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan, of which 133 are in
Pueblo County.
These statements suggest at least the following questions:
a. Raw (relative) numbers of “jobs created” tells the Commission almost nothing
about the economic impact of the jobs and therefore the impact on the long-term
The “549 more jobs on average [sic]” is driven almost entirely by the spike in
construction work at the start of the CEPP, work that goes away when the
construction is completed and a handful of employees (whose pay and benefits are
described only in the broadest terms in the Highly Confidential Appendix C to the
120-Day report) are hired on to operate and maintain the new generation units. If
you omit Years 1-5, there is only a net average (relative) job increase of 151 for
the CEPP over the Preferred ERP, which needs to be balanced against the
significant (relative) job loss in years 16-20 (Study, Table 1), a (relative) job loss
figure is, in turn, driven largely by the foregone combined cycle capital
investments projected under the ERP (Study, p. 12). But how many jobs, in total
(including operations and maintenance), and of what quality and distribution does
the REMI model predict for each of the Preferred ERP and the Preferred CEPP?
Impossible to tell, yet that is how job creation affects the long-term viability of
communities.
the kinds of jobs (and what they pay) for each of the Preferred ERP and the
Preferred CEPP is needed to make sense of the Leeds Study’s jobs projections.14
the projected jobs is aggravated by the failure to explain the difference between
the (relative to the ERP) “Total Employment” and (relative to the ERP) “Private
there a wide range in the size of the (relative) difference in the five listed time-
while the differential in the other years ranges from small (Years 1 – 5) to quite
large, on a percentage basis (Years 21-23.)) Which are the (missing) jobs that
create a more negative (relative) impact in the 4th segment? (Are these
investment? There isn’t really enough detail stated to say. But if this is the
explanation, it suggests a larger negative impact from the loss of those jobs under
14
The economic dangers of boom-and-bust development are well-described in a 2012
Denver Post commentary on the 30th anniversary of Exxon pulling the plug on Western Slope oil
shale development. “30 years after Exxon’s oil shale bust in Colorado,” Gulliford, Andrew, The
Denver Post, May 3, 2012. After decades to recover from the precipitous loss of jobs, “[w]here
small farms and sustainability once characterized the Colorado River Valley, towns in the area
now welcome moderately sized industries and a living wage. New Castle, Silt, Rifle and Parachute
are communities with a strong work ethic. Residents want good jobs.”
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
P a g e | 16
the CEPP, and suggests that the Preferred ERP may provide a more even
distribution of well-paid jobs over the life of the projection.) And does this figure
(or, for that matter, that for “Total Employment”) represent an absolute loss of
jobs, or only a smaller gain under the CEPP as compared to the ERP? Surely, that
matters for purposes of determining the relative impact of the plans on the long-
generation will not be built going to suffer absolute losses, or only gain less?
timeline of the reported increases, including the heavily front-loaded benefits during the
construction-boom portion of the CEPP. Indeed, it is notable that the GDP number actually turns
negative in the last 11 years of the forecast for the state although, again without adequate
explanation, increases dramatically for Pueblo in the last three years (or four, based on Figure
8).15 Take away the Year 1-5 and Year 21-23 GDP bumps in Pueblo, and the CEPP has a
negative GDP impact (-$1.6 million during those middle 15 years.) If Pueblo is going to
15 The “explanation” that “the spikes and dips in economic activity are largely due to
timing—specifically the change in activity (capital expenditures, operating expenditures, and
revenue requirements) compared to the baseline scenario” (Study, p. 2) is an observation, not an
explanation: Why does the CEPP “yield economic drag for the state and Pueblo County compared
to the Preferred [ERP] . . .” in some periods? And, again, is “economic drag” an absolute
measurement, or just one relative to a (presumptively, better) ERP?
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
P a g e | 17
experience a negative GDP impact for 15 years under the CEPP as compared to the ERP, this
requires more explanation than attributing it to a “change in activity.” Given this pattern, it
would have been particularly useful, or even necessary, to see the raw numbers for each of the
ERP and CEPP: A plan (by way of example) demonstrating a projected steady growth in GDP
might be preferable, at least under the kind of qualitative analysis called for by statute, and better
for the long-term viability of the community, to one with an explosive beginning and a positive
end point.
The end period increase in Pueblo GDP is driven by projected increases in operating
expenditures in Pueblo at the same time as there is a relatively dramatic decrease state-wide.
Without referencing the model from which this projection is drawn, it is difficult to evaluate it,
but it isn’t obvious from where those increased expenditures are expected to come, following on
a projected 10-year decline in operating expenditures. The Study’s statement that “ . . . Colorado
explanation, and isn’t borne out by Figure 4, which shows decreased operating expenditures
from 2020 on, and leaves the question of why Figure 6 shows increased operating expenditures
in Pueblo beginning in 2035. What are the “increase[] in operating expenditures” that Colorado
is expected to see?
There is a similar question and a similar pattern for “Disposable Personal Income” –
Why is there a jump in the final three years, both in Pueblo and, even more dramatically,
statewide? (With all of these numbers, we know why they are high in Years 1-5: Construction.
What happens at the end of Year 20 to bump the numbers that are favorable to the CEPP back
Years 21 – 23 when the relative GDP is significantly negative, and the relative advantage in job
numbers is small? Where, indeed, did that final $53.2 million advantage to the CEPP in
IV. CONCLUSION
IBEW 111 OPPOSED THE LATE INTRODUCTION of the CEPP into the resource planning
process because the Phase I process hadn’t anticipated it and the process wasn’t well designed to
elicit all the relevant information that the legislature introduced into the resource acquisition
process in C.R.S. §40-2-129. The outcome of the process, as represented by the 120-Day
Report, vindicates the Local’s fears: The evaluation criteria established in Phase I are inadequate
for a full evaluation of the proposed portfolios: At best, the criteria do nothing to inform the
Commission, and at worst, the criteria obscure and skew the analysis in favor of PSCo’s
preferred portfolio. Unless PSCo proposes some way to correct these deficiencies, and in light
16
Figures 4-7 in the Study suggest both an answer, and additional questions. It would
appear that the Figures reflect a direct relation between expenditures on the one hand and
employment and GDP on the other, and an inverse relation between revenue requirement and
either measure, and that revenue requirements (may) go down at the tail end of the study period
when the amortization of the capital assets built early on is completed, generating projected non-
sector economic benefits. (Whether it is reasonable even to attempt to project non-sector economic
benefits 20 years from now is, perhaps, another question – but if projections like this are made,
they should play into the qualitative evaluation and, to do that, they need a better foundation than
the Study gives them.)
And in any event, the Study offers no explanation for why (under this reading) revenue
requirements increase between 2031-2033 (gray, below the line, segments on the bar graph), nor
why operating expenditures relative to the ERP also increase from 2025 – 2035, and then decline.
It is not enough to say that this is what was input into the model: These are data points that require
some elucidation.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments On 120-Day Report,
P a g e | 19
of them, Local 111 urges the Commission either to approve the Preferred ERP portfolio as the
only one with an actual and known (likely) impact or, at the least, adopt the more measured
“Alternative CEPP,” as opposed to the “Preferred CEPP,” to permit a gradual transition away
In Peter Hall’s seminal work Great Planning Disasters, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980,
the author of this “pathology of planning” warns, ultimately, against planning decisions that are
overly ambitious and proposes that such decisions be scaled down to changes that can be
achieved in manageable increments, so that success can be defined by the steps that are taken
and not by increasingly hypothetical triumphs in a distant future. As Colorado moves away from
a coal-heavy energy generation mix to one that is predominantly reliant on renewable resources,
the Commission has been directed by the legislature to consider the economic impact of the
changing employment mix this move represents. To do so, it should heed the ancient advice to
“make haste slowly” and reject the headlong change that the Preferred CEPP represents.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Ellen M. Kelman
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local # 111’s Comments on 120-Day Report was served via electronic
filing with the Commission and served on those parties shown on the Commission’ s Certificate
of Service.
/s/Antoinette Vega
Antoinette Vega