LPEA’s board voted in December 2019 to raise rates – for the first time in four years – to adjust for the cost of inflation and to finance system improvement projects needed to maintain LPEA’s reliability and proactively prevent outages. LPEA has been financing its infrastructure improvement projects via cash reserves for more than five years, and now cash reserves are running low. The board approved the increase to generate additional needed funds. This was done in lieu of borrowing (to avoid interest) and was done only after LPEA trimmed nearly 1 million dollars from its budget.
LPEA has budgeted for a total of $16.2 million in capital improvements to our facilities in 2020. These project include: Animas Substation rebuild, addition of a 47 kV mobile substation, addition of 115 kV switches, general substation improvements/upgrades, cable replacements, reconductors, enhanced substation communication (SCADA), new underground and overhead services, new transformers and meters, enhanced smart metering load control, Bayfield to Pagosa transmission line, and a new replacement transmission line.
If you have questions or concerns on LPEA’s budget, we welcome you to attend our monthly Finance and Audit Committee meetings, which are live streamed and open to the public.
Capital credits represent each member’s ownership of the cooperative. They are the margins credited (or allocated) to the members of the cooperative based on their purchases from the cooperative the previous year. These margins are used by the cooperative as capital to operate the business. LPEA bylaws state that capital credits are refunded to the members only after the Board has reviewed the economic ability of the co-op to retire capital credits (Article VII Section 3 and Board Policy 205). LPEA retires capital credits on a 20-year cycle, so that margins allocated to members from 1998 were retired in 2019.
Each year, the board decides whether to retire capital credits and put the money in the hands of members and ex-members. There are two ‘buckets’ of funding for capital credits – the first is ‘Coop’ capital and the second is ‘G&T’ capital. The G&T capital is the amount allocated to LPEA as a member of Tri-State. The Coop capital is everything else. In 2017 and 2018, LPEA retired capital credits from both buckets (3.9 million and 5.3 million respectively) and distributed to members and ex-members. 84% of the total refund checks were less than $200.
In 2019, LPEA retired $3 million in capital credits, all from the Coop bucket. LPEA also had $2.9 million in capital credits from the G&T bucket, but the Board opted not to retire those funds. The funds would have principally benefited those who were members in 1998, of which 70% were not current members. Instead of allocating those funds to inactive members, the board voted in October 2019 to use those funds to establish a Rate Stabilization Fund (i.e. savings account) that would benefit all active members in case of an emergency. This fund is what allowed LPEA to defer the scheduled 2020 rate increase from April 1st to July 1st during the COVID-19 pandemic. The unused funds remain in that account to be used for future emergency purposes as approved by the board.
There are three main reasons that LPEA is exploring an exit from Tri-State (1) we have a right to explore all options that may benefit our members (2) high rates and (3) lack of local control.
I. Right to Explore Opportunities
LPEA has the right to explore an exit from our contract with Tri-State, which currently runs through the end of 2050. Tri-State is owned by 42 rural electric cooperatives and was formed on the principles that it would a) benefit its members and b) allow for its members to withdraw on equitable terms and conditions.
In July of 2019, LPEA asked Tri-State to provide a fair and equitable exit charge. The LPEA Board of Directors wanted to explore multiple options (Resolution 2019-10), which included (1) staying with Tri-State and working to increase contract flexibility (2) fully exiting the contract (3) or finding a middle option.
But, instead of supporting LPEA’s independent decision-making power, Tri-State passed bylaw changes and board resolutions that took away the local decision-making authority of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in favor of federal regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Tri-State has also shown a reluctance to work with other utilities seeking to exit. They initially prescribed an exit charge of $137 million for Kit Carson, but ultimately agreed to $37 million. Likewise, they initially quoted Delta-Montrose $322 million but ultimately agreed to $62.5 million. These reductions only came after long, expensive, multi-year court battles.
As we don’t yet have an exit figure, we can’t yet evaluate what option makes the most sense for our members.
II. Right to Affordability
The main way for LPEA to limit more rate increases is to explore options for cheaper energy, which makes up most of our expenditures. According to Standard and Poor’s, which downgraded Tri-State’s credit rating last November, Tri-State’s rates are 20% higher than average. Between 2000-2016, Tri-State raised its rates 12 times, doubling the price LPEA was paying for power over that period. Tri-State’s administrative expenses also increased 73% between 2017 and 2019.
These cost increases are not indicative of all power sources. As just one example, Holy Cross Energy – a comparable cooperative in northwest Colorado that sources its own energy – spends 44% less on their energy than we do. What’s more, Tri-State estimates its rates will increase an additional 50% by 2050, even while energy costs are trending downwards. With more than 3 billion dollars in long-term debt, it will be difficult for Tri-State to do anything but raise rates for many years to come.
LPEA’s initial, conservative calculations for pursuing other energy options estimate hundreds of millions of dollars in cost savings over the life of LPEA’s existing contract with Tri-State. That is why we believe the costs being incurred for legal fees to pursue an exit charge are worth the initial investment. We only wish that Tri-State would work with us – and other members – so legal fees were not necessary in the first place.
III. Right to Local Control
Two of the board’s initial concerns with Tri-State which led them to want to explore other options were their coal-heavy energy portfolio, and the limitation that only allowed LPEA to generate 5% of our power from local renewable sources. To their credit, they are working to fix these issues, but their solutions are still far from ideal.
Tri-State is working to clean up its energy portfolio, due largely to member pressure and to independent analysis like that of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which found in a 2018 report that Tri-State could save its members 600 million by closing coal plants and boosting renewables. According to that report, Tri-State’s commitment to its existing coal plants contributed to rates increasing more than 5 times the national average between 2007-2016.
That said, LPEA’s can achieve our emission reduction goal an estimated 10 times faster than Tri-State if we pursue a partial or full exit from our contract.
Tri-State is also pursuing options to allow their members to supply more of their own power, but there are limitations. If all of Tri-State’s members were to use the self-supply option, LPEA would only be able to provide renewables to 10% of our load, and we want to do much more than that.
LPEA has an almost 30-year history with Tri-State. We appreciate this partnership and the valuable service they have provided to LPEA and our members for decades. We are asking them to remain a good partner by allowing us to examine all energy options and do what is best for our local communities – especially in light of the new economy in which we live.
For a full timeline of LPEA's engagement with Tri-State around this issue, CLICK HERE
Tri-State does have a very large debt load in relation to its overall assets but has been taking steps in 2020 to reduce its interest costs by refinancing much of its debt at a lower rate. They have also implemented other cost cutting measures. However, there are still concerns about the debt load and that is one of the reasons why LPEA is exploring its options and looking for more flexibility in its power supply options.
LPEA regularly evaluates our rate structure by performing Cost of Service analyses. These assess the costs incurred by LPEA and evaluate how much revenue must be generated from electric sales to members to cover these costs and provide a margin to finance the maintenance and operation of our electrical infrastructure. This ‘revenue requirement’ determines our electric rates and that requirement will decrease if power costs are substantially reduced.
Transmission services would still need to be purchased from either Tri-State or WAPA, as they are now. These costs have been considered when evaluating the economics of alternative power supply options.
Our legal costs to pursue a potential exit from Tri-State are as follows:
2020 (as of Oct.): $1.3 million
These expenditures represent just 1.2% of LPEA’s total annual budget. LPEA’s initial estimates show that we could save hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of our contract with Tri-State by exiting early. That is why the board believes the costs being incurred for legal fees to pursue an exit charge are worth the initial investment.
LPEA spends roughly $72 million each year sourcing power. This is roughly 64% of our total annual budget. Even a modest 2% decrease in power costs returns an annual savings of $1.44 million. That would repay the legal costs spent to achieve it quickly.
These costs would not have been necessary if Tri-State had supplied an exit charge when initially requested in July of 2019. LPEA has the right to explore an exit from our contract with Tri-State, which currently runs through the end of 2050. Tri-State is owned by 42 rural electric cooperatives and was formed on the principles that it would a) benefit its members and b) allow for its members to withdraw on equitable terms and conditions determined by its Board of Directors.
Yes and no. If the solar production fed into the grid is later consumed by the producing member, then no. But, if over a one-year period the member has generated more electricity than they used, then that excess amount of electricity generated above and beyond what they used does count towards the 5%.
Energy commodity pricing moves up and down frequently, but LPEA’s power supply has very little exposure to these pricing fluctuations. 37% of LPEA’s power supply comes from renewables which have fixed pricing. 52% of our power supply currently comes from coal that is located at the generation source and owned by Tri-State (our wholesale power provider) so it's not susceptible to pricing fluctuations. Only 11% comes from natural gas and open markets and therefore has little impact on the overall total. Tri-State’s wholesale rates to LPEA remain fixed the entire year and absorb the small pricing fluctuations. If at the end of the year, commodity pricing is below what was budgeted, then that will produce margins at Tri-State that get allocated back to LPEA in the form of capital credits which are in turn allocated to our members.
There are several ways to time your usage for the benefit of the system in conjunction with solar. The first would be to remain on the standard rate and time your usage to coincide with your solar production. This will take full advantage of the power you are self-producing and minimize the reverse power flow onto the grid. Keeping reverse power flow to a minimum allows LPEA to interconnect even more distributed solar resources onto the system.
Another option would be to sign up for LPEA’s Time of Use (TOU) Program. As a general rule of thumb, if you have more controllable load than you have solar capacity, you should consider LPEA’s TOU rate. For instance, if you add a timer to a 4.5 kW electric water and your solar array is 4.5 kW or less, you should consider TOU. If you have an electric vehicle, that is another 4-7 kW of controllable load.
40% of LPEA’s energy use occurs between the hours of 8am and 6pm when solar resources are plentiful. Small, battery banks can be used in conjunction with the solar to ensure daytime cloud cover is mitigated. Solar plus storage projects can be extremely cost effective and provide savings to LPEA and its members.
LPEA has an “obligation to serve”. This means that we must provide service to any member within our service territory who has applied for service and is willing to pay for that service. The amount a member is required to pay for service is governed by LPEA’s Line Extension Policy.
Unless significant amounts of energy storage are used, some form of “dispatchable” generation will be necessary to cover load when intermittent renewables are not available. Dispatchable generation is generation that can be ramped up and down at any time. Hydroelectric and natural gas are two common types of generation that can be used to serve peak load until energy storage becomes more prevalent.
Hydro generation is certainly an asset LPEA would like to have more of in our portfolio. We already purchase the output from Lemon Dam as part of our 5% and there are other hydroelectric opportunities with irrigation canals in our service area that could also be considered.
Yes. LPEA has considered biomass generation in the past and we will continue to do so if it is competitive with other renewable resources we can acquire. Biomass has other attributes that make it an attractive option such as its continuous generation profile, the creation of more jobs, and the benefits of forest thinning.
The primary benefit of installing solar on your home comes from LPEA’s net metering policy – in which we pay you for what you generate. The Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are only the icing on top and are based upon market rates, which have fallen in recent years as the cost of solar installations has fallen dramatically.
LPEA strives to operate our lines within a standard 5% voltage tolerance. If LPEA finds any part of our system is not within 5% of expected voltage, a system improvement project is established to address it. There are areas within LPEA’s system where lines must operate at the high end of the 5% to serve our members across long distances. In these areas, a voltage rise from a solar PV system can push us over the 5% limit. To alleviate this issue, LPEA is using smart inverter settings that reduce the solar output (for a short time) if the voltage starts to get too high. There are also some areas where the footprint served by the LPEA’s substation (the voltage source) is relatively small and we have been able to lower the voltage for the entire area. If you were previously not able to install solar on your home or business, I recommend you contact us again at firstname.lastname@example.org as these improvements are making more areas viable.
If a large solar project is installed in the Four Corners, there would be no impact to LPEA, but it could provide an opportunity for renewable power purchases.
Local PV can be competitive with purchased electricity during daylight hours, and a significant portion of LPEA’s load could be served by local PV even before the use of energy storage is required. With the dropping cost of solar over the last several years, it presents a great opportunity.
LPEA has seen interest in battery installations with dozens of systems in place already. Most of what we have seen are early adopters that are interested in what the technology can do. We have also seen the use of energy storage at locations where exporting power to the grid is limited. For LPEA to obtain value from energy storage, we would need some degree of control for charging and discharging. As such, will be investing in a Distributed Energy Resource (DER) software platform that can assist with the management of energy storage devices. Once systems like this are functional, LPEA may be able to offer incentives to increase battery installations in our area.