High winds, fire danger: Could Xcel do more to prevent power outages?
Re: “Extreme winds fuel fire, outages,” April 7 news story and “Xcel’s preemptive shutdown criticized,” April 9 news story
In response to complaints about Xcel proactively cutting off electricity to 55,000 Front Range customers during our windy weekend, would you rather take your chances with a devastating fire?
Those who say that Xcel has done this to avoid lawsuits are only seeing half the issue – lawsuits would follow loss from wildfire.
Is having electricity every minute of every day more important than whether wind-driven wildfire burns your house (or someone else’s) to the ground, as we saw in the Marshall fire?
Weather forecasting is imperfect at best. I consult 3 weather apps, which base their predictions on the same National Weather Service data — they often disagree. I think Xcel made the right call with the information available.
Nancy B. Weil, Denver
I live in north Boulder and I am one of the 55,000 Xcel customers whose electricity was shut off from 3:02 p.m. Saturday, April 6, until 4:24 p.m. on Sunday, April 7. Interestingly, the houses immediately one block west of me and in the neighborhood west of me did not lose their power. I received two phone calls from Xcel giving me a heads up, which allowed me to at least fully charge my electronics, but I really didn’t believe it would happen because we didn’t have any power poles or transformers in our neighborhood. I was wrong.
Xcel claims that this preventative de-energizing action is not the result of the lawsuits from the Marshall fire. I find that hard to believe. The smart preventative measures that Xcel needs to do and should have been doing for these many years are investing manpower and money into upgrading the electric infrastructure. Isn’t that why we pay our bills? Will I now have to be concerned during the summer months that my electricity will be cut off when there is a high wind warning together with high fire danger? I can tell you that Xcel’s website was not informative regarding the resumption of power this time, and I don’t expect it to be so for any future shutdowns.
The PUC better stop approving rate hikes and look at how Xcel is not providing consistent electricity to their customers.
Teri Jacobson, Boulder
Downed power lines sparking fires, high winds blowing embers everywhere, trees and shingles catching fire, blowing embers creating more fires and windblown embers: disaster! On my block, a downed utility pole tangled in two trees. But the line was de-energized, so no sparks, no fires.
We will never know how many lives and houses were saved. Xcel was right to cut the power in the massive windstorm.
Jan Marie Belle, Denver
Xcel Energy has a problem, and they know it. They cannot design and maintain power distribution lines that can withstand typical Colorado Front Range wind events. Xcel’s solution seems to be to not invest in high-wind-safe power distribution systems. Instead, let’s just cut off power for 24 to 48 hours to 55,000 customers so we don’t get sued for causing wildfires.
Clearly, with global warming ramping up, this problematic solution will continue to be Xcel’s No. 1 choice. So, the legislature should step in and require Xcel to pay for 48-hour Powerwall energy backup systems for the 55,000 customers who will routinely be without power during Colorado’s routine high wind events. I estimate these backup power systems would cost Xcel more than a half-billion, which could be better used to design and maintain wind-safe power distribution systems in the first place.
Reed Bailey, Boulder County
Wasting water
Re: “Where does the basin’s water go?” April 7 news story
Thanks for telling us that a significant amount of water in the upper Colorado River Basin is used to irrigate alfalfa. It was a great relief. For a minute there, I was worried it was being used to flood medians on streets in the Denver Metro area.
Barry Noreen, Denver
Maybe more should be anti-growth
Re: “Despite questionable poll, most Coloradans aren’t anti-growth,” April 7 commentary
Might the reason why there is not more opposition to growth be that most people still believe the statement from the 1% that the economics of growth trickle down? In fact, for the past 40 or so years, the wealth from growth has trickled up, and this explains a large part of the growing income disparity in the country.
If the question was, instead, do you support the results of growth, you would get a far different answer.
With growth, we get increased congestion, less affordable housing, dirty air, less available water, more crowded public spaces, increased crime and homelessness, more income disparity, and a lessened quality of life. With that understanding, very few people would favor more growth.
The kicker is that you cannot grow indefinately on a finite planet, and don’t want to grow more when you have already outgrown the biological assets of the planet as the 8 billion people have.
Don Thompson, Alamosa
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
