Sangre De Cristo Electric Association (SDCEA), the electric cooperative that supplies electricity to a significant portion of the Arkansas River Valley, held its monthly board of directors (BoD) meeting on Monday, July 31.
One subject took up a significant portion of the day’s conversation: geothermal energy. This was fitting, given how much attention geothermal has garnered in Buena Vista outside of the SDCEA board room.
Exploration of Geothermal Energy Source
Director Dan Daly introduced an addition to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting for the board to discuss and potentially confirm a resolution of support for Mt. Princeton Geothermal in their efforts to conduct test drillings (some might refer to them as “proof of concept”) near Rodeo Road and County Road 323.
Daly explained that he had become concerned at the degree of “misinformation” about the project that was moving around the community, saying he felt it was important the board express support for the project and take a clearer stance on it to avoid the further propagation of hearsay.
“Rumors have taken hold and run rampant through the community,” said Daly, “there were some concerns—legitimate concerns—this morning, but this group has gone a little ahead of the process.” The concerns he mentioned were raised by a group of SDCEA members during the meeting’s public comment period.
In response to the expressions of concern over geothermal energy, Daly announced that Senator Michael Bennet’s $1 million congressional spending request on behalf of SDCEA for test drilling was not advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee determines the funding of projects in yearly federal budgets.
Many of the complaints to which Daly alluded are rooted in worries of excessive noise or seismic issues that could come with geothermal electricity generation infrastructure. These concerns, while valid, are related more so to a geothermal plant’s final form than to the preceding test-drilling process.
Ark Valley Voice has confirmed with industry experts that any construction of a plant would potentially be years away and entirely contingent on a great deal of resource testing.
Daly introduced a resolution suggesting that SDCEA “…joins Mt. Princeton Geothermal, LLC, and other project supporters in their combined efforts to obtain grants and other available funding for the limited purposes of drilling test wells to study and prove or disprove the viability of the geothermal resource in central Chaffee County.”
The directors debated adopting the resolution at length. Four of the six voting members voted for the resolution (Blake Bennetts, Dan Daly, Mark Boyle and Jeff Fiedler), and two voted against it (Charles Abel and Nick Hellbusch). Chairwoman Sandra Attebery did not vote.
Those in favor of the resolution adopted it only after it was amended to more clearly indicate that the expressed support was limited in scope and did not explicitly recommend the construction of a plant, merely the proving of a resource’s existence or lack thereof.
“We owe it to the membership to engage it,” said Boyle. Others agreed, adding that if SDCEA is involved, it can more directly advocate for the members’ interests.
Hellbusch, one of the directors who voted against the resolution, said “We just got the pitchforks put away; it’d really be nice to focus on our own stuff.” The pitchfork comment was made presumably in reference to the recent board elections, which were largely dictated by members of the co-op who were upset about rate restructuring as it related to solar usage.
“I think we need to sit back and say ‘how important is geothermal?’” he continued, telling other directors it may be better to focus on issues such as a likely rate restructure and the hiring of a new CEO before the co-op focuses on new projects.
Director Abel explained his objections, saying “There’s no prize for being first, there’s only a prize for being right.” He worried that engaging in an exploratory well could send the project down a slippery slope wherein it’s hard to stop the project’s mounting momentum.
Ark Valley Voice is working on more in-depth coverage of the geothermal debate in Chaffee County. The arguments discussed above will be examined more fully in the coming weeks.
SDCEA CEO Search Progressing
The board provided updates on SDCEA’s search for a new CEO. Applications for the position were closed on July 17, and roughly 30 applications were received. This will be pruned to five or more candidates when they meet with a search consultant on August 17. Interviews with those candidates will then take place in September.
One SDCEA member inquired as to what level of input co-op members will be allowed to have in the hiring of a CEO. Daly responded that no decisions had been made yet, but involving members might be challenging due to the inclusion of information under non-disclosure agreements in the hiring process.
The board also discussed the potential for applications to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for project grants. Both grant programs, the Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas (ERA) grant from the DoE and the Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) grant from the USDA, only require a letter of intent to begin the application process. This means SDCEA could apply for project grants before having full plans for a project they are interested in pursuing, such as the addition of a battery to the Trout Creek solar array.
The board also discussed news from Tri-State Generation and Transmission—SDCEA’s primary supplier of electricity—that a 6 percent rate increase is likely to come to SDCEA in the next year. This will likely necessitate a rate restructure for SDCEA customers. The board began discussing surveying efforts that would help them more clearly understand how such a rate restructure should be put together.
There was talk of reports that some other rural electric co-ops are putting in applications to Tri-State for projects that exceed the 5 percent cap on energy generation written into Tri-State’s contract. This 5 percent cap means that SDCEA (which is one of several distributor-owners of Tri-State) and institutions like it are only allowed to generate 5 percent of their own electricity. Changing that could clear a path for SDCEA to have a considerably more diverse energy production profile.
Aristata Communications provided an update on projects that may be related to SDCEA. But the topic was moved to an executive session to protect information proprietary to Aristata. The executive session only included an informational presentation, no decisions requiring votes were to be made.
The next board of directors meeting is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, August 23, but the date is subject to change. Meetings are open to all members of the co-op, provided they register for in-person attendance before 5:00 p.m. the day before, or for online attendance by 9:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting.
Recent Comments