<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" ><channel><title>GlobalWarming.org &#187; Public Service Company of Colorado</title> <atom:link href="http://www.globalwarming.org/tag/public-service-company-of-colorado/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.globalwarming.org</link> <description>Climate Change News &#38; Analysis</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:16:31 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator> <item><title>Update on the States</title><link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/03/07/update-on-the-states-3/</link> <comments>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/03/07/update-on-the-states-3/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:57:27 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>William Yeatman</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Environmental Protection Agency]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Martin O'Malley]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category> <category><![CDATA[nullification]]></category> <category><![CDATA[offshore]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Public Service Company of Colorado]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Public Utilities Commission]]></category> <category><![CDATA[wind power]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Xcel Energy]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=7258</guid> <description><![CDATA[Maryland Offshore wind energy is so expensive that even the Democratic-controlled State Legislature is balking at the price tag of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s (D) proposed “Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act.” The legislation would force the state’s investor owned utilities to minimum 20-year contracts for 400 megawatts to 600 megawatts of offshore wind power. Governor [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="post_image_link" href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/03/07/update-on-the-states-3/" title="Permanent link to Update on the States"><img class="post_image aligncenter" src="http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/us_states_map.jpg" width="400" height="280" alt="Post image for Update on the States" /></a></p><p><strong>Maryland</strong></p><p>Offshore wind energy is so expensive that even the Democratic-controlled State Legislature is balking at the price tag of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s (D) proposed “Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act.” The legislation would force the state’s investor owned utilities to minimum 20-year contracts for 400 megawatts to 600 megawatts of offshore wind power. Governor O’Malley’s office estimates that the legislation would cost ratepayers about $1.50 a month, but this projection is based on unrealistically optimistic assumptions. Independent analyses peg the costs at up to $9.00 a month. The disparity in estimates has elicited a negative response from O’Malley’s own party in the legislature: the Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030305856.html">reported</a> this week that two Democratic lawmakers key to the bill’s prospects have suggested they need more time to vet the legislation than is left in this year’s session.</p><p><strong>Kentucky</strong></p><p>By a bipartisan vote of 28 to 10, the Kentucky State Senate last week <a href="http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=14157292">passed</a> a resolution exempting the coal industry from EPA regulation, according to the AP. The non-binding resolution, which was introduced by Sen. Brandon Smith (R), is now before the House of Representatives.</p><p><span id="more-7258"></span></p><p><strong>Colorado</strong></p><p>The Colorado Public Utilities Commission <a href="http://energy.i2i.org/2011/03/04/preview-of-puc-deliberations-on-solarrewards-program/">held hearings</a> last Friday on Xcel Energy’s request to lower its “Solar*Rewards” subsidy for installations of photovoltaic panels. This year, Xcel ratepayers are projected to pay 4 percent of total sales (about $100 million) on Solar*Rewards subsidies that will result in .3 percent of generating capacity. The Colorado Solar Energy Industry Association claims that the loss of the subsidy would cause a 75 percent contraction in the state’s solar industry.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/03/07/update-on-the-states-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>7</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/9 queries in 0.004 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 284/286 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.globalwarming.org @ 2012-12-13 21:24:00 --