By Richard Martin, Contributing Editor

Xcel Energy has distinguished itself over the last couple of years as one of the more progressive utilities in the country in terms of renewable-energy initiatives. Much of that good work has been overshadowed, in recent weeks, by the outcry over Xcel’s efforts to raise rates, and reduce solar rebates, to pay for the new $1.35-billion coal-fired generator at the Comanche Station in Pueblo.

Designed to produce 750 MW of electricity, the new unit will be the largest power station in Colorado when it opens this fall. The third generator at the Comanche station, it is likely to be the last coal-fired plant the company ever builds. In a period when other new coal plants around the country have been put on hold or scrapped, it’s too bad Xcel didn’t have the foresight to alter its plans back in 2006, when construction on Comanche 3 began.

The new plant “was something we desperately needed to do,” Xcel chief executive Dick Kelly told The Denver Post in 2007, when criticism of the plan was reaching a crescendo. “Even today, it is still the best thing we could have done for both the customers and the environment.”

Making statements like that only aggravates the situation, considering the variety of alternatives (multiple small, distributed natural gas plants, for example) now available. And customers and environmentalists are even further aggravated by Xcel’s plans for paying for Comanche 3, which until last week included a surcharge for homeowners and businesses that add solar panels to their buildings.

Xcel intended to hike fees on new solar customers, on the basis of “grid upkeep costs.” Even if you’re a solar-power user whose net electricity use from Xcel’s grid equals zero, the utility argues, you should have to pay for being hooked up to the company’s infrastructure – just in case you ever use it. Saying it’s “immaterial” how much power off the grid a solar customer actually uses, Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz explained to reporters, “We still have to maintain the delivery systems to get electricity to the house when you’re not generating yourself.”

 “That’s on top of the $6 to $7 a month that solar households in Colorado–like all other customers–already pay to cover meter reading and billing costs,” pointed out the Wall Street Journal’s “Environmental Capital” blog.

Faced with harsh opposition  from customers and from the state’s Public Utility Commission, Xcel backed away from the idea last week. But the company has not completely shelved the effort to get more out of solar-power users (who, after all, are eroding Xcel’s revenue by using more free power straight from the sun). In fact, “The solar fee hike was part of a larger increase in electricity rates that Xcel is asking for to recover the cost” of bringing Comanche 3 on line, the Post reported.

In fact, Xcel is also maneuvering to reduce the rebates it provides to customers installing solar panels. Citing new federal funds designed to lower the cost of going solar, Xcel cut the rebates abruptly last fall. “Those in the solar power industry say that Xcel told them to expect another reduction soon,” the Denver Business Journal reports, “and that there’ll be no advance notice this time.”

All public utilities are faced with massive changes associated with the need to rapidly reduce their reliance on carbon-emitting sources of power. In general, Xcel has done a good job of that, and the utility should get credit for initiatives like offering new, more efficient air conditioners  to low-income customers. Gouging people who use solar power is not a glowing addition to that list.

In fact, according to the Resource Plan from Arizona Public Service, that state’s primary utility, the costs of providing back-up power to solar users are outweighed by the benefits to the utility – and, of course, to society. One of the main benefits, the APS report concluded, is “reduced or deferred capital expenditures.” Unfortunately, Xcel didn’t factor that in before it built Comanche 3.