PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
Economic Impacts of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan

A consulting research study conducted for Xcel Energy by the:

Colorado PUC E-Filings System

Business Research Division
Leeds School of Business
University of Colorado Boulder

June 20, 2018

1

 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... II
DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................................................. III
ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................. III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1
STUDY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................. 4
ECONOMIC MODEL AND THE COLORADO ECONOMY .................................................................................. 6
SCENARIO DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 8
CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................... 9
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 10
ENTERPRISE ZONE INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS ....................................................................................... 12
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 18
APPENDIX 1: OVERVIEW OF REMI POLICY INSIGHT .................................................................................... 20

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
ii

 DEFINITIONS
Employment: Includes the number of full-time and part-time jobs (headcount) by business physical
location.
Deflators: Measure of price changes within an industry.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP): Total value of final goods and services produced each year within a
country or region.
Leakage: Economic activity that occurs outside the area of study but is driven by activity within the study
area.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): Geographic areas with 50,000 or more population. 1
Multiplier: Change in total economic activity driven by a change in direct economic activity.
Output: Total production value of goods and services, including intermediate goods purchased and value
added.
Personal Income: Includes all sources of income, including employee compensation, proprietors’
income, rental income, capital income, and transfer payments.

ACRONYMS
Wind Turbine Generator (WTG)
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo)
Business Research Division (BRD)
Electric Resource Plan (ERP)
Colorado Energy Plan (CEP)

1For

more information, visit: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-micro/about.html, retrieved May 26, 2018.

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
iii

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an analysis prepared by the Leeds School of Business to quantify the
net economic impacts of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan on the state of Colorado and on Pueblo
County. The proposal from the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) includes reducing future
generation of electricity using coal-fired resources, replaced with a cleaner energy mix through the
creation of 1,100 MW of new wind capacity, 700 MW of new solar capacity, 380 MW of existing natural
gas capacity, and 275 MW of battery energy storage. The purpose of an economic impact study is to
identify the impacts on employment, gross domestic product, disposable personal income, and other
economic metrics for those locations impacted by a change in operating expenditures, capital
expenditures, and electricity rates.
The study areas include the state of Colorado and Pueblo County. The study period is 23 years, from
2018 through 2040. This period was selected to capture the near-term economic activity from changes
in capital investments, as well as the long-term effects of changes in operating expenses and electricity
rates.
The study examined the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan compared to the Preferred Electric Resource
Plan. The Preferred Electric Resource Plan retains all coal-fired resources and adds new wind and solar
power generation, existing gas generation, and some battery storage. Alternatively, the Preferred
Colorado Energy Plan includes early retirement of coal-fired generation, and adds more wind, solar,
existing gas generation, and significantly more battery storage. The installation and operation of wind
and solar generation will be inherently local to Colorado—the project will include the creation of access
roads, pouring of foundations, installation of transmission lines, and other facilities. While there are
additional supply chain benefits due to some local renewable energy manufacturing, other components
are not manufactured locally (i.e., solar and battery components).
At the sub-state level, Pueblo County is positively impacted by the installation of solar generation and
transmission facilities; this impact is partially offset by the early retirement of the Comanche 1 and 2
coal-fired generators. Other Colorado counties—in mountain communities, the Front Range, and the
Eastern Plains—benefit from the installation of additional wind and solar resources, transmission lines,
and other facilities.
The research team used the REMI model for the analysis. The model was constructed specifically for the
state of Colorado and Pueblo County using national and local economic and demographic data. The
REMI model used for this analysis is a two-region, PI+ model 2.1.6 for the state of Colorado and for
Pueblo County. The 2.1.6 model includes historical data through 2015 that the research team calibrated
using updated historical and projected national economic growth from Moody’s Analytics. PSCo
provided data that included capital expenditures, operating expenditures, revenue requirements, and
taxes for each scenario, consistent with the final Preferred Electric Resource Plan and Preferred
Colorado Energy Plan as presented in the June 6, 2018 120-Day report. The research team worked under
the assumption that the company provided good-faith estimates for each scenario.
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
1

 To frame the analysis of this report, an increase in capital expenditures in Colorado increases economic
activity in Colorado while a decrease in operating expenditures reduces economic activity in Colorado.
Conversely, a decrease in revenue requirements is a reduction in costs for utility customers, thus
resulting in additional spending in other industries. The data are analyzed collectively to consider if the
project provides a net economic benefit to Colorado. The study findings show that the Preferred
Colorado Energy Plan will have a net positive economic impact on the Colorado economy compared to
the Preferred Electric Resource Plan. The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan results in capital expenditures
of $412 million above the Preferred Electric Resource Plan from 2018–2040; a larger share—$563
million—directly impacts the Colorado economy as some capital spending is more local (e.g., wind
turbine equipment). Related operating expenditures decrease by $841 million compared to the
Preferred Electric Resource Plan from 2018–2040 largely due to substantial decreases in out-of-state
coal purchases; however, Colorado sees an increase in operating expenditures. Revenue requirements
decrease by $431.5 million, spread across Colorado’s residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan will result in net economic benefits in Colorado due to the net
effects of increases in capital and operating expenditures, and lower revenue requirements. Over 23
years, the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan results in 549 more jobs on average compared to the
Preferred Electric Resource Plan, of which 133 are in Pueblo County. Real GDP increases by an average
of $57.8 million during the study period and an increase of $48.2 million in disposable personal income
when including the dynamic economic impact on the economy.
The pattern for the impact on employment and on GDP are similar; the spikes and dips in economic
activity are largely due to timing—specifically the change in activity (capital expenditures, operating
expenditures, and revenue requirements) compared to the baseline scenario. There are years that the
Preferred Colorado Energy Plan yields economic drag for the state and Pueblo County compared to the
Preferred Electric Resource Plan—primarily in the medium-term for Pueblo County and near the end of
the forecast horizon for the state.
This report presents a net analysis, examining the benefits as well as the costs. The following table
reports the impacts in fixed (2018) dollars.
TABLE 1: ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED COLORADO ENERGY PLAN ON COLORADO,
2018–2040
Category/Units
Total Employment
(Jobs)
Private Non-Farm Employment
(Jobs)
Gross Domestic Product
Dollars (Real 2018, Millions)
Disposable Personal Income
Dollars (Real 2018, Millions)

Area
Colorado
Pueblo
Colorado
Pueblo
Colorado
Pueblo
Colorado
Pueblo

Year
1-5
1,987
516
1,833
477
$203.6
$44.0
$106.2
$21.7

Year
6-10
355
62
227
18
$43.2
$3.2
$32.7
$8.6

Average
Year
Year
11-15
16-20
471
-311
-27
22
364
-317
-38
11
$82.6
-$44.0
-$8.3
$0.4
$39.6
$11.0
$2.7
$3.4

Year
21-23
40
68
11
51
-$32.7
$9.5
$53.2
$5.5

20182040
549
133
460
109
$57.8
$9.8
$48.2
$8.6

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
2

 FIGURE 1: PREFERRED COLORADO ENERGY PLAN NET IMPACT ON GDP

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
3

 STUDY METHODOLOGY
The Business Research Division at the University of Colorado Boulder was hired by Public Service
Company of Colorado (PSCo) to conduct economic impact analyses on the proposed Colorado Energy
Plan.
In August 2017, Xcel Energy proposed the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan, an augmentation of its
current Preferred Electric Resource Plan that could result in $2.5 billion of clean energy investments
with a specific focus on the state’s rural communities. The proposed plan requests the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission’s approval for Xcel to develop a new electricity portfolio focused on increasing
renewable generation while reducing carbon emissions. Under the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan, Xcel
would reduce its coal-fired power capacity by 660 MW through the retirement of Comanche 1 by 2022
and Comanche 2 by 2025. Both plants are located in Pueblo, Colorado. Furthermore, Xcel would develop
a cleaner energy mix through the addition of 1,100 MW of new wind capacity, 700 MW of new solar
capacity, 380 MW of existing natural gas capacity, and 275 MW of battery storage. Xcel estimates that
under the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan, the share of renewable energy on the PSCo System will grow
from 28% in 2017 to nearly 55% in 2026, while the share of coal-fired production will be cut almost in
half—dropping from 44% to 24% over the same period. Compared to 2005 levels, the plan would result
in an approximately 60% reduction in carbon emissions.
Analysis of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan compares project expenditures to the Preferred Electric
Resource Plan, which serves in this study as a baseline scenario. The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan
includes erecting new wind and solar generation in the state; installing battery storage;
decommissioning coal-fired generation units; constructing new roads, transmission lines, and other
facilities; and changing fuel purchases. These activities add capacity to the PSCo System, and also impact
revenue requirements for the company, and thus, consumers.
This analysis includes the impacts on the state of Colorado and on Pueblo County, specifically, as
Comanche 1 and 2 are located in Pueblo County. Localized (sub-state) impacts will vary widely
depending on the locations of the wind and solar installations (construction and operations) and
component manufacturing, and the location of PSCo’s residential, commercial, industrial, and
government customers (rate changes). However, changes in fuel purchases, mainly coal, will have little
impact on Colorado coal-producing communities as Wyoming coal (not Colorado coal) fuels the
Comanche 1 and 2 generators.
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
4

 Economic impact studies detail the direct spending that a company or activity has on the area of study,
as well as the indirect impact, which is the ripple effect that direct spending has on other businesses in
the community. This term is also referred to as the multiplier effect, wherein companies utilize the local
supply chain. A multiplier is a numeric way of describing the full effects of money changing hands within
an economy. For instance, when PSCo purchases natural gas, this affects the mining and transportation
industries. This is the indirect impact. Additionally, spending by employees has an inherent effect on
local communities as they purchase groceries, clothes, and gas; pay rent or a mortgage; get haircuts, etc.
This is understood as the induced impact.
The research team used the REMI model version 2.1.6, build 4817 for the analysis. 2 Appendix 1
provides an overview of the REMI model. The REMI model is a dynamic forecasting and policy analysis
model that incorporates econometric, input-output, and computable general equilibrium techniques.
The model was created by REMI specifically for the state of Colorado and Pueblo County using national
and local economic and demographic data. The REMI model used for this analysis is the Policy Insight
(PI+) model 2.1.6 two-region model for Pueblo County and the Rest of Colorado, with 2015 data as the
last historical year within the model.
PSCo defined the scenario to be examined in this study. This is described in detail in the Scenario Data
and Assumptions section. The Preferred Electric Resource Plan and Preferred Colorado Energy Plan were
provided by PSCo. The research team developed economic scenarios that included portfolios of
spending and rate changes brought about by the two different scenarios (i.e., the Preferred Electric
Resource Plan and the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan). The result is a simulated forecast of the
economy under scenarios where utility rates and spending on operating and capital expenditures
change. Last, the report compares the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan to the baseline Preferred Electric
Resource Plan scenario to quantify the economic impacts on the Colorado economy and the Pueblo
economy.
The research team collected data on PSCo estimates related to ongoing operating and maintenance
expenditures, capital expenditures, and revenue requirements. PSCo provided estimates of the
percentage of expenditures directly in Colorado compared to activity that occurs in other states (i.e.,

2

Contracted by the University of Colorado from REMI, Inc. in May 2018.

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
5

 leakage). The timing of operating and capital expenditures is specific to each scenario (Preferred Electric
Resource Plan and Preferred Colorado Energy Plan). The research team worked under the assumption
that PSCo provided good-faith estimates for each scenario.
Data were provided in nominal dollars, quantified in the year of expected impact. The impacts are
presented in fixed, 2018 dollars and discounted by the model using industry price deflators.
Costs were entered into the REMI model based on total activity expenditures. For expenditures, a
positive (negative) number reflects an increase (decrease) in spending under the Preferred Colorado
Energy Plan compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan. For revenue requirements, a positive
(negative) number reflects higher (lower) electricity costs to residential, industrial, commercial, and
government customers. The researchers deferred to the model for the industry intermediate inputs and
local purchasing coefficients for intermediate inputs, and for the proportion of spending devoted to
capital and labor. The local purchasing coefficients within REMI change over time based on changing
demand.

ECONOMIC MODEL AND THE COLORADO ECONOMY
The REMI model used for this analysis is the two region, PI+ model 2.1.6 for the state of Colorado and
for Pueblo County. The REMI model includes an input-output table, industry spending patterns, and
local purchasing coefficients, in addition to the underlying economic and demographic data for the study
regions.
The Colorado Demography Office estimated Colorado’s population at 5.5 million in 2016; Pueblo’s
population totaled 165,109, or 3% of the total, ranking it the 10th-largest county in the state. Data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) show the state
recorded 2.6 million total nonfarm covered employees in 2017; Pueblo County represented 2.4%, or
60,809 of the total. 3 During the last recession (2007–2009), the state and the county lagged the United
States entering the recession—employment peaked in Pueblo in May 2008 and in Colorado in June 2008
versus January 2008 for the nation. The state also led the nation in the recovery from the recession, but

At time of publication, 2017 data were the most current full-year Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data published by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment.

3

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
6

 Pueblo County lagged in the recovery (the nation recovered in May 2014, Colorado in June 2013, and
Pueblo in September 2014).
Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show Colorado GDP of $323.8 billion in 2016 and $342.7
billion in 2017 (current dollars); Pueblo’s GDP totaled $4.9 billion in 2016, or 1.5% of the state total. 4
Pueblo real GDP outperformed the state in 2016, growing 3.5% versus 1.4%, respectively, in 2016. Per
capita personal income for the state was $52,097 in 2016 and $53,504 in 2017, while Pueblo’s per capita
personal income was $36,148 in 2016—31% below the state average and 26% below the national
average.
The REMI standard regional control calibrated with a forecast from Moody’s Analytics to reflect the
current economic environment and expectations. The Moody’s Analytics baseline forecast places the
U.S. economy on a growth trajectory throughout the analysis horizon, with faster rates of growth in the
short term followed by slower growth (Figure 2). In the REMI model, Colorado and Pueblo County follow
a similar path as the U.S. economy, but Colorado tends to outperform the United States while Pueblo
County underperforms.
FIGURE 2: NATIONAL BASELINE FORECAST, 2018–2040

GDP by metropolitan area lags statewide and national reporting. At the time of this report, 2016 data were the most current available for the
Pueblo MSA.

4

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
7

 Colorado is an energy-producing state. It ranked 7th in the nation in total energy production and 34th
for total energy consumption per capita in 2015, according to data from the Energy Information
Administration. 5 Colorado ranked 30th in 2018 for total electric power generation. 6 As shown in Figure
3, approximately 55% of energy generated in the state came from coal-fired power plants, and an
additional 23% was produced by natural gas plants in 2016. Colorado ranked 8th in wind-generated
electricity in 2016.
FIGURE 3: COLORADO ELECTRICITY GENERATION, SHARE OF MWH GENERATION, 2016

SCENARIO DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS
This study analyzes the net economic impact of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan, which includes
investments in 1,100 MW of new wind capacity, 700 MW of new solar capacity, 380 MW of existing
natural gas capacity, and 275 MW of battery energy storage, and the decommissioning of two coal-fired
generators. Pueblo County is directly affected by the shutdown of Comanche 1 and Comanche 2, but the
Preferred Colorado Energy Plan calls for offsetting investments in solar generation and transmission.
Other counties on Colorado’s Eastern Plains will benefit from investments in wind generation,
transmission, and related investments and operations well above those in the Preferred Electric
Resource Plan. Other benefits stem from local supply of wind generation equipment in Colorado,
including equipment constructed in Pueblo.

5
6

Total Energy Production, 2015 (trillion Btu) and Total Energy Consumer per Capita, 2015 (million Btu).
Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source, Megawatt-hours.

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
8

 PSCo provided the research team with capital expenditures, operating expenditures, and revenue
requirements for the Preferred Electric Resource Plan and the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan. The
timing of operating and capital expenditures is specific to each scenario. The research team worked
under the assumption that the company provided good-faith estimates for each scenario. For modeling
purposes, cost assumptions were provided in nominal dollars.
Nominal costs were entered into the REMI model based on total activity expenditures in Colorado and in
Pueblo County. The researchers deferred to the model for the local purchasing coefficients for
intermediate inputs, and for the proportion of direct spending attributable to labor and capital. The local
purchasing coefficients within REMI change over time based on changing demand.

Capital and Operating Expenditures
Capital
The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan incurs capital expenditures of $412 million above the baseline
Preferred Electric Resource Plan scenario from 2018–2040. The capital activities include the purchase
and installation of solar panels and wind turbines, balance of plant, extension of transmission lines,
construction of switching stations, payment of land leases, decommissioning of Comanche 1 and
Comanche 2, and other utility and related construction. Conversely, PSCo will forego investments in
generic combined cycle turbines that otherwise would have been necessary to meet demand in the
Preferred Electric Resource Plan. Compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan, an increase in net
capital spending occurs within the first five years during project installation, while the remaining 18
years net a decrease in capital spending. Colorado nets an increase of $563 million in capital
expenditures—greater than the total increase—as investments become more localized compared to the
Preferred Electricity Resource Plan (e.g., decommissioning power plants, constructing wind and solar
infrastructure, purchasing manufactured wind equipment, etc.).
The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan calls for the purchase of existing gas generators. While plan capital
and operations are included in the analysis, the capital asset purchase is not included in the economic
impact because the transaction of the transfer of the asset has little economic value outside the
transaction costs (i.e., the true capital investment of building the plant has already occurred).

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
9

 Operating Expenditures
The higher capital costs are partially offset by lower long-term operating costs, which includes fuel costs.
While the change in capital spending is front-loaded in the first five years, the change in operating
expenditures begins to be realized post-installation as coal and natural gas purchases decrease
substantially over the 23-year analysis period. The net decrease in coal purchases total $932 million over
the 23 years; the Powder River Basin in Wyoming bears all of the decrease in coal purchase, while
Colorado coal purchases actually increase by $0.5 million over the horizon as PSCo rebalances system
operations. Natural gas purchases decrease by $37.4 million.
While Pueblo is adversely impacted by the decommissioning of Comanche 1 and Comanche 2, the
county benefits from the installation of a large solar generation facility, transmission facilities, and other
operating expenditures. PSCo estimates that Pueblo County will see a net increase in property taxes by
$21.9 million over the 23 years due to the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan after accounting for Colorado
statute 39-4-102; Colorado property taxes increases by $84 million over the 23 years.
Overall, operating expenditures decrease by $841 million, but Colorado in-state operating expenditures
increase by $186 million. This is largely due to the substantial decrease in out-of-state coal purchases
and the increase in ongoing in-state operating expenditures.
TABLE 2: NET CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENDITURES (NOMINAL DOLLARS), 2018–2040
Total
($ Millions)

Percentage
Change

Colorado
($ Millions)

Capital Expenditures
Operating Expenditures

$412
-$841

14.6%
-4.9%

$563
$186

Total

-$429

-2.1%

$748

CEP-ERP

Revenue Requirements
Based on the level of operation and capital expenditures detailed in this report, PSCo estimated the
Preferred Colorado Energy Plan will decrease revenue requirements (included in electricity rates for
electric customers) when compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan. This effectively isolates the
revenue requirements (and the electricity rate impact) for the alternative scenario. 7 Revenue
requirements are not equal to the sum of operation and capital expenditures because capital
expenditures are recovered over the life of the asset. Therefore, revenue requirements occur over the

7Electricity

costs were entered as fuel cost variables: “Electricity (Commercial Sectors) Fuel Cost (amount)” and “Electricity (Industrial Sectors)
Fuel Cost (amount)” for nonresidential sectors, and “Consumer Price (amount) for the residential sector.”

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
10

 life of the asset and include both a return of and a return on capital. The capital and operating
expenditure assumptions also reflect spending only in the state of Colorado. The revenue requirements
estimate the change in electric revenues that would be recovered from customers for the Preferred
Colorado Energy Plan, despite the location of the supply chain for operating and capital purchases. The
reduction in revenue requirements of $431.5 million was applied to residential, commercial, and
industrial customers in Colorado based on company revenue by customer class (see Table 4).
TABLE 3: CHANGE IN REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FOR COLORADO CUSTOMERS (NOMINAL), 2018–2040
CEP-ERP
Revenue Requirements

Change
($ Millions)
-$431.5

Percentage
Change
0.8%

TABLE 4: PSCO ELECTRIC REVENUES, 2017
Customers
Residential
Large C&I
Small C&I
Public Authorities
Wholesale
Other
Total

$
Thousands
$1,033,324
$421,068
$1,227,886
$52,834
$167,971
$100,725
$3,003,808

Percentage
34%
14%
41%
2%
6%
3%
100%

Source: PSCo Form 10-K.

FIGURE 4: NET EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS BY YEAR

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
11

 Enterprise Zone Investment Tax Credits
Electric generation investments in Colorado may be eligible for either the enterprise zone investment
tax credit or the renewable energy enterprise zone investment tax credits. According to the Colorado
Department of Revenue publication on the Investment Tax Credit, 3% of investments may qualify for tax
credits if the plant is in a Colorado enterprise zone. Tax credits are available if the company has not
reached the maximum amount of credits per company. Enterprise zone and renewable energy
enterprise zone tax credits are each limited to a maximum of $750,000 per year per company. The
renewable energy enterprise zone investment tax credit is refundable, whereas the enterprise zone
investment tax credit is not. Both can be carried forward. The economic impact study did not account
for these credits because many of the chosen projects were in both the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan
and the Preferred Electric Resource Plan. As well, some of the proposal companies have already reached
the maximum amount of credits. However, multiple projects from one company in the Preferred
Colorado Energy Plan and not the Preferred Electric Resource Plan may be eligible for renewable energy
enterprise zone investment tax credits of $750,000 per year over the study period beginning in 2022. It
is estimated that these tax credits will max out at $6.9 million over 9 ¼ years. A $750,000 reduction in
taxes was modeled as a $750,000 reduction in state and local government spending per year. In the
model, this results in an average decrease in Colorado employment of 14 jobs and an average decrease
in GDP of $1.2 million over the 9 ¼-year period (from 2022–2031). However, PSCo does not currently
know if the tax credits will be utilized as such; the renewable energy enterprise zone investment tax
credits for the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan may or may not result in a reduction in public revenue
compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan.

RESULTS
The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan will result in net economic benefits in Pueblo and in the overall
Colorado economy. These benefits are the result of a net increase in capital expenditures and operating
expenditures in Colorado and a decrease in revenue requirements. Over 23 years, these result in an
average of 549 more jobs compared to the baseline resource plan scenario, of which 133 more jobs are
in Pueblo County. The greatest economic benefits occurs in the first five years—the most capital
intensive period of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan; the largest economic costs occur in years 14–23
with the foregone combined cycle capital investments and the trailing associated operating costs. Real
GDP increases by an average of $57.8 million per year during the study period and an increase of $48.2
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
12

 million in disposable personal income per year—a nominal (0.01%) impact in Colorado’s $343 billion
economy. 8
The impact on Pueblo County’s GDP averages $9.8 million over the 23-year horizon, or 0.16% of total
GDP in Pueblo County. The impact on Pueblo County is registered primarily in the first five years,
followed by 18 years of relatively little change, positive or negative.
Given that this is a net analysis, the growing demand for energy and plant energy output is controlled by
comparing the economic impacts of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan to the Preferred Electric
Resource Plan. This section reports the impacts in fixed (2018) dollars, and the following paragraphs
summarize the economic impacts by scenario.
TABLE 5: ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE CEP ON COLORADO, 2018–2040
Year
6-10
355

Average
Year
Year
11-15
16-20
471
-311

Percentage Change

Year
1-5
1,987
0.05%

0.01%

0.01%

Jobs

1,833

227

364

Percentage Change

0.05%

0.01%

Dollars (Real 2018, Millions)

203.6

43.2

Percentage Change

0.05%

Dollars (Real 2018, Millions)

106.2

Percentage Change

0.04%

Units

Category
Total Employment
Private Non-Farm Employment
Gross Domestic Product
Disposable Personal Income

Jobs

Year
21-23
40

20182040
549

-0.01%

0.00%

0.01%

-317

11

460

0.01%

-0.01%

0.00%

0.01%

82.6

-44.0

-32.7

57.8

0.01%

0.02%

-0.01%

-0.01%

0.01%

32.7

39.6

11.0

53.2

48.2

0.01%

0.01%

0.00%

0.01%

0.01%

Year
21-23
68
0.08%
51
0.07%
9.5
0.11%
5.5
0.07%

20182040
133
0.16%
109
0.16%
9.8
0.16%
8.6
0.14%

TABLE 6: ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE CEP ON PUEBLO COUNTY, 2018–2040
Category
Total Employment
Private Non-Farm Employment
Gross Domestic Product
Disposable Personal Income

Units
Jobs
Percentage Change
Jobs
Percentage Change
Dollars (Real 2018, Millions)
Percentage Change
Dollars (Real 2018, Millions)
Percentage Change

Year
1-5
516
0.62%
477
0.70%
44.0
0.73%
21.7
0.37%

Year
6-10
62
0.07%
18
0.03%
3.2
0.05%
8.6
0.14%

Average
Year
Year
11-15
16-20
-27
22
-0.03%
0.02%
-38
11
-0.05%
0.02%
-8.3
0.4
-0.12%
0.00%
2.7
3.4
0.04%
0.05%

For reference, Colorado’s economy was estimated at $342.8 billion in 2017 (nominal dollars). The $57.8 million presents and average annual
change over 23 years, 2018–2040.

8

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
13

 FIGURE 5: PREFERRED COLORADO ENERGY PLAN IMPACT ON COLORADO EMPLOYMENT

FIGURE 6: PREFERRED COLORADO ENERGY PLAN IMPACT ON PUEBLO EMPLOYMENT

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
14

 FIGURE 7: PREFERRED COLORADO ENERGY PLAN IMPACT ON COLORADO GDP

FIGURE 8: PREFERRED COLORADO ENERGY PLAN IMPACT ON PUEBLO GDP

The greatest increase in economic benefits occurs early in the project—the first five years. This is the
period of intensive capital investment—Colorado capital spending in the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan
exceeds the Preferred Electric Resource Plan spending by $1.1 billion during this five-year period. Direct
capital impacts stem from decommissioning Comanche 1 and Comanche 2, and purchasing and installing
wind and solar generation, transmission, and storage. Of the remaining 18 years within the analysis
period, 4 years have increased planned investments compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan
and 14 years have decreased planned investments. Decreases in the investments are attributed mostly
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
15

 to the foregone investments in Comanche 1 and 2, as well as decreases in generic combined cycle
investments to meet long-term utility demand.
Operating and maintenance costs were lower under the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan than under the
Preferred Electric Resource Plan for the entire forecast horizon when including fuel costs (i.e., natural
gas and coal and related transportation). While Colorado has abundant indigenous fossil fuel resources,
the Comanche generators run off Power River Basin coal from Wyoming; Colorado coal purchases
actually increase modestly under the plan. Overall, the Colorado economy benefits from the net
increase in in-state operating and maintenance expenditures compared to the Preferred Electric
Resource Plan due to more localized spending. Compared to the front-loaded capital expenditure
impacts in the first five years of the study horizon, 95% of the impacts from the change (decrease) in
operating and maintenance expenditures are realized in the last 18 years of the study horizon.
Changes in expenditures are effectively passed along to rate payers either through increases or
decreases in revenue requirements. Revenue requirements increase for 11 of the 23 years analyzed and
decrease for 12 of the 23 years. Overall, revenue requirements decrease. The sum of the changes in
revenue requirements totals -$431.5 million. These savings were assigned to residential, commercial,
and industrial customers. Xcel only has one (industrial) customer in Pueblo; thus, the benefit of lower
revenue requirements is largely borne by Colorado customers outside of Pueblo County.

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
16

 CONCLUSION
This paper provides an analysis of the economic impact of the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan in
comparison to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan. This report finds the costs associated with an
increase in capital investments for wind, solar, and storage are more than offset by the benefits of lower
operating costs and lower revenue requirements.
This analysis uses data on operations, maintenance, capital expenditures, and revenue requirements
provided by PSCo on the current Preferred Electric Resource Plan and on the alternative resource plan—
the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan.
Overall, the study found the following:
•

Compared to the Preferred Electric Resource Plan, the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan will result
in comparatively greater growth within the Colorado and Pueblo economies from 2018–2040 in
terms of:
o

Employment (549 jobs on average; 133 in Pueblo County),

o

GDP ($57.8 million on average; $9.8 million in Pueblo County), and

o

Real disposable personal income ($48.2 million on average; $8.6 million in Pueblo
County).

•

These changes are a relatively small percentage of the overall Colorado economy. The changes
in employment, GDP, and income represent no change (0.01%) from the Preferred Electricity
Resource Plan projections, and the impact on Pueblo County represents about a 0.16% increase.

•

The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan will result in lower revenue requirements of $431.5 million,
mostly due to the net decrease of $970 million in lower fuel costs—a benefit to Colorado
customers.

•

The Preferred Colorado Energy Plan capital and operating investments are more localized
compared to the investments included in the Preferred Electric Resource Plan, leading to a net
increase in local spending.

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
17

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts. http://bea.gov/regional/index.htm.
Accessed June 8, 2018.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office. Colorado Population Estimates by
County. https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/population-totalscounties/#population-totals-for-colorado-counties. Accessed June 12, 2018.
Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxpayer Service Division, Income 11 Investment Tax Credit.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Income11.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2018.
Colorado General Assembly, 2017 CRS Titles for Download. Taxation, Property Tax.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2017-title-39.pdf. Accessed June 13,
2018.
Federal Register (June 28, 2010). 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/06/28/2010-15605/2010standards-for-delineating-metropolitan-and-micropolitan-statistical-areas. Accessed May 28,
2018.
Moody’s Analytics. U.S. Macroeconomic Outlook Alternative Scenario (May 2018).
Public Service Company of Colorado, Form 10-K, Electric Operating Statistics.
http://investors.xcelenergy.com/Cache/1001232692.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001232692
&iid=4025308. Accessed June 8, 2018.
Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). Amherst, MA.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Gross
Domestic Product. http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed June 12, 2018.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, State and County Employment and
Wages, Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages – QCEW.
http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment. Accessed June 12, 2018.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings –
National (Current Employment Statistics - CES), http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment.
Accessed June 12, 2018.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings - State
and Metro Area, Current Employment Statistics – CES. http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment.
Accessed June 12, 2018.
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
18

 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Colorado State Profile and Energy Estimates.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO. Accessed June 5, 2018.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. Accessed June 5, 2018.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Rankings: Total Net Electricity Generation, February 2018
(thousand MWh), https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=CO#series/51. Accessed June 5,
2018.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Rankings: Total Energy Production, 2015 (trillion Btu).
http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=CO#series/101. Accessed June 8, 2018.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Rankings: Total Energy Consumed per Capita, 2015 (million
Btu). https://www.eia.gov/STATE/rankings/#/series/12. Accessed June 8, 2018.

Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
19

 APPENDIX 1: OVERVIEW OF REMI POLICY INSIGHT
This summary was provided by REMI, Inc.
Policy Insight is a structural economic forecasting and policy analysis model. It integrates input-output,
computable general equilibrium, econometric, and economic geography methodologies. The model is
dynamic, with forecasts and simulations generated on an annual basis and behavioral responses to
wage, price, and other economic factors.
The REMI model consists of thousands of simultaneous equations with a structure that is relatively
straightforward. The exact number of equations used varies depending on the extent of industry,
demographic, demand, and other detail in the model. The overall structure of the model can be
summarized in five major blocks: (1) Output and Demand, (2) Labor and Capital Demand, (3) Population
and Labor Supply, (4) Compensation, Prices and Costs, and (5) Market Shares.

Block 1. Output and Demand
This block includes output, demand, consumption, investment, government spending, import, product
access, and export concepts. For each industry, demand is determined by the amount of output,
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
20

 consumption, investment and capital demand on that industry. Consumption depends on real
disposable income per capita, relative prices, differential income elasticities and population. Input
productivity depends on access to inputs because the larger the choice set of inputs, the more likely that
the input with the specific characteristics required for the job will be formed. In the capital stock
adjustment process, investment occurs to fill the difference between optimal and actual capital stock for
residential, non-residential, and equipment investment. Government spending changes are determined
by changes in the population.

Block 2. Labor and Capital Demand
The Labor and Capital Demand block includes the determination of labor productivity, labor intensity
and the optimal capital stocks. Industry-specific labor productivity depends on the availability of workers
with differentiated skills for the occupations used in each industry. The occupational labor supply and
commuting costs determine firms’ access to a specialized labor force.
Labor intensity is determined by the cost of labor relative to the other factor inputs, capital and fuel.
Demand for capital is driven by the optimal capital stock equation for both non-residential capital and
equipment. Optimal capital stock for each industry depends on the relative cost of labor and capital, and
the employment weighted by capital use for each industry. Employment in private industries is
determined by the value added and employment per unit of value added in each industry.

Block 3. Population and Labor Supply
The Population and Labor Supply block includes detailed demographic information about the region.
Population data is given for age and gender, with birth and survival rates for each group. The size and
labor force participation rate of each group determines the labor supply. These participation rates
respond to changes in employment relative to the potential labor force and to changes in the real after
tax compensation rate. Migration includes retirement, military, international and economic migration.
Economic migration is determined by the relative real after tax compensation rate, relative employment
opportunity and consumer access to variety.

Block 4. Wages, Prices, and Costs
This block includes delivered prices, production costs, equipment cost, the consumption deflator,
consumer prices, the price of housing, and the wage equation. Economic geography concepts account
for the productivity and price effects of access to specialized labor, goods and services.
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
21

 These prices measure the price of the industry output, taking into account the access to production
locations. This access is important due to the specialization of production that takes place within each
industry, and because transportation and transaction costs of distance are significant. Composite prices
for each industry are then calculated based on the production costs of supplying regions, the effective
distance to these regions, and the index of access to the variety of output in the industry relative to the
access by other uses of the product.
The cost of production for each industry is determined by cost of labor, capital, fuel and intermediate
inputs. Labor costs reflect a productivity adjustment to account for access to specialized labor, as well as
underlying compensation rates. Capital costs include costs of non- residential structures and equipment,
while fuel costs incorporate electricity, natural gas and residual fuels.
The consumption deflator converts industry prices to prices for consumption commodities. For potential
migrants, the consumer price is additionally calculated to include housing prices. Housing price changes
from their initial level depend on changes in income and population density.
Compensation changes are due to changes in labor demand and supply conditions and changes in the
national compensation rate. Changes in employment opportunities relative to the labor force and
occupational demand change determine compensation rates by industry.

Block 5. Market Shares
The Market Shares equations measure the proportion of local and export markets that are captured by
each industry. These depend on relative production costs, the estimated price elasticity of demand, and
effective distance between the home region and each of the other regions. The change in share of a
specific area in any region depends on changes in its delivered price and the quantity it produces
compared with the same factors for competitors in that market. The share of local and external markets
then drives the exports from and imports to the home economy.
The Labor and Capital Demand block includes labor intensity and productivity as well as demand for
labor and capital. Labor force participation rate and migration equations are in the Population and Labor
Supply block. The Wages, Prices, and Costs block includes composite prices, determinants of production
costs, the consumption price deflator, housing prices, and the wage equations. The proportion of local,
inter-regional and export markets captured by each region is included in the Market Shares block.
Business Research Division  Leeds School of Business  University of Colorado Boulder
22