City Desk ~ An insider’s view of the policies and politics of Colorado Springs city government

Archive for the 'Tim Leigh' Tag

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Councilman votes for Romney, opposes Maketa tax

November 5th, 2012, 9:38 am by

Tim Leigh

Most people don’t like to reveal how they voted.

City Councilman Tim Leigh is the exception.

In his electronic newsletter, Leigh revealed that he voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.

Leigh also revealed that he voted against Issue 1A, a sales tax increase that El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa is proposing.

Here is the full, unedited text of Leigh’s newsletter:

I have been asked how I voted and I don’t mind telling you.

At the top, I voted for change.  I voted all the judges out of office except for Lowrey and Schwartz.  I did not vote for any constitutional amendments.  Amending our state-wide constitution for legislative purpose is just bad policy.  I voted no on the jail tax.  I voted yes on the PPRTA tax extension because it is a tax with a sunset and funds very specific projects.  I voted for Jennifer George and I voted for Tim Leigh as a “write-in” candidate for congress.  (Of course, you should “write-in Tim” too!)

We grouse around about how bad America is and certainly, we have our challenges.  But, as bad as it is, it is still the greatest country on earth where we enjoy the freedom to succeed or fail famously if left to our own devices.  So please, in the grand tradition of our republic, whatever your predilection, vote.

 

Posted in: City Council • Elections • • | 10 Comments »

Which City Council members have smoked weed?

October 11th, 2012, 10:54 am by

City Council members inserted themselves into the statewide marijuana debate when they took up a resolution to oppose Amendment 64, which seeks to regulate pot like alcohol.

That got some people wondering: Have council members smoked pot? And if so, do they still smoke pot?

A few coughed up to trying weed.

Others said they’ve never touched it and never would.

A couple of councilmen were vague in their answers.

Here are their answers, all via email:

“In high school, I tried it with my four best friends in my home — yes mom was out of town,” Councilwoman Angela Dougan said.

“We had one joint. We all took a couple of puffs, and it was awful tasting. My thoughts were, ‘What a dumb thing and why would anyone do this?’  Never did it again,” she said.

“I have never used marijuana,” Councilman Merv Bennett said.

Bennett said the question posed to council was “very inappropriate.”

“The inappropriateness relates to asking a question that could lead to a criminal conviction.  It isn’t  a problem for me. I haven’t even smoked a cigarette,” Bennett said.

“As it relates to the debate, it is an Amendment to our State  Constitution that could have significant and serious implications to our City, the quality of life of our citizens, federal funding for roads and bridges, public safety, etc.  Something of that significance demands our attention,” Bennett added.

Like Bennett, Councilwoman Brandy Williams said she’s never smoked pot — or even a cigarette.

“I took D.A.R.E rather seriously,” she said, referring to the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program.

Councilman Val Snider took a page out of the Bill Clinton playbook.

“Does it count if you didn’t inhale?” Snider asked.

Councilman Tim Leigh was evasive in his answer.

“I saw your inquiry about council’s pot-smoking-propensity,” Leigh said in his first response.

“While I cannot state with absolute equivocation, it seems we’re all dipping in the medicine on about every other Tuesday afternoon, just after the lunch hour.  That will likely come to an abrupt and unfettered halt when the Mayor (with my full endorsement) creates a no-smoking zone in Acacia Park,” he said.

When pressed for an answer, Leigh continued to be evasive.

“Puff the Magic Dragon, lived by the sea, Frolicked in the autumn mist in a a land called Hana Leigh,” he wrote.

When asked if he was smoking pot when he came up with that response, Leigh, a fitness buff, offered this tidbit and hinted that he may be cover-boy material.

“I’m smoking, alright. I’m on the stair master at the club with Men’s Journal. Photo shoot. Something about my lung power and fitness!” he said.

Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko is out of town and did not respond.

The three council members who served on council before answered the question a few years ago.

Councilman Bernie Herpin said the only marijuana he had ever seen was on TV.

“Until I visited a dispensary, I had never actually seen marijuana in the flesh,” Herpin said.

Council President Scott Hente said he “never” smoked marijuana.

“Look where I graduated from,” said Hente, a retired lieutenant colonel who graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1975.

Council President Pro Tem Jan Martin said she tried it once and only once.

“I was so paranoid and looking over my shoulder the entire time that I decided it just wasn’t worth it and never tried it again,” she said. “That’s a very honest answer from a politician.”

By the way, Martin cast the lone dissenting vote on the resolution opposing Amendment 64.

“I wasn’t afraid of medical marijuana dispensaries, and I’m not afraid of this bill for marijuana in our community,” Martin said Tuesday.

The vote to pass the resolution was 5-1. Leigh refused to vote, saying the council isn’t in the business of making pronouncements.

Czelatdko and Williams were absent, though Williams said she would have voted with the majority.

 

Posted in: City Council • Elections • People • • • • • • • • • • | 12 Comments »

Councilman: Should Utilities CEO hit the road?

September 17th, 2012, 8:10 am by

Jerry Forte

Has the time come to replace Colorado Springs Utilities CEO Jerry Forte?

That’s the question City Councilman Tim Leigh ponders today in his electronic newsletter.

“I’m still fuming over the Neumann contract with the Colorado Springs Utilities.  I can’t figure out who thought this was a good deal,” Leigh wrote.

“Who should be held to account? Is it time to consider changes in leadership?” Leigh asked.

Here is the full text of Leigh’s newsletter:

I’m still fuming over the Neumann contract with the Colorado Springs Utilities.  I can’t figure out who thought this was a good deal.

The underlying rationale for the decision is easy to understand.  [Pay less-get more.]  The ultimate business points aren’t as easily understood.

Nuemann was going to provide a robust, full-bodied technology and equipment that would clean Drake’s coal-fired power plant emissions, removing SOx, NOx, particulates and CO2 at ½ the cost of other, (readily available), solutions and we were going to receive sale commissions when he sold the elixir.  Now he’s merely brewing Neumann-Lite, a solution for SOx only with significantly less cost savings; and there are no customers.

From Neumann’s perspective – this is a sweet deal.  He gets all his costs covered plus 10%.  And there is NO cap on costs and NO date-certain for installation.  And, if we use his technology at the Nixon Power Plant, we pay him more!  His contract becomes cost plus 15%!  How wonderful it must be, to be a government contractor.  (Remember fishing when you were young?  It was always a good time – except for the fish.)

I’m not faulting Neumann for being clever enough to pull-this-off.  I’m faulting CSU’s system-of-governance and those board members specifically who were driving it when the contract was contrived.  There was no legitimate oversight then, nor is there yet.

Realize – Neumann had no buyable product – nor does he.  [He does not yet possess a proven-scalable product!]  And shame on us, because his contract clearly says “Statement of Work for Experimental Emission Control Systems”.  Furthermore, even if Neumann had a proven technology, I’ve been told he didn’t have sufficient funding available to build or install without CSU.  We’ve given Neumann a free-pass.  And if his stuff doesn’t work, we’re the schlemiel.

Legitimate questions are:

  • Did the CEO and his team understand the deal?
    • Did they read the contract?
    • Can they justify the speculative risk to the ratepayers and the outrageous profit to the vendor?
    • Did the empanelled board members at the time understand the deal?
      • Did they read the contract?
      • Can they justify the speculative risk to the ratepayers and the outrageous profit to the vendor?
      • Why was a contract of this magnitude signed by a procurement manager and not the CEO?
        • Are there other, similar decisions made by these same folks that need to be re-evaluated?
        • Are there other, similar contracts that need to be re-evaluated?
  • Interesting Rhetorical Questions:
    • If a leader believes Neumann-style contracts are good for the consumer, is he miscast in his role?
      • Should his overall skill-set be questioned?
      • Should his business-decision-making ability be questioned?
  • What other decisions have been made by CSU leadership, which are sheltered by the shadows of an errant bureaucratic process and that are deleterious to the citizens, need to be revisited?
    • How do we shed light on those decisions and contracts?
  • Who should be held to account?
    • Is it time to consider changes in leadership?

The Neumann spend at Drake ($121,000,000) will cause about a 10% electric-cost rate-increase to the average consumer by 2015.  And CSU is facing at a similar spend at Nixon’s coal plant by 2016 (another 10% rate increase); and a similar spend for Mercury Emission Monitors across the system by 2017 (another 10% rate increase).   [10% + 10% + 10% = 30% electric cost rate increase by 2017.] It’s time to look for alternative solutions!  .  .  .  and there are alternatives!

  • BTW – For commercial property owners, think of these rate increases this way:
    • This is taxation without representation – EPA mandates have no explicit authority in law.
    • For every dollar increase in operating costs, your building loses about $10 in value.
      • And for the tax collectors amongst us – realize that in the aggregate, every $10 decrease in property value reduces tax collection substantially.
  • This is how we’re all connected.

I remember questioning the leadership and board at Memorial Hospital.  (You may recall; I called for the CEO’s firing.)  Of course, I was quickly thrown off that bus by many of my contemporaries for making that request.  That was a brutal time when I learned you need thick-skin to play this game.   Eventually, the MHS bus ran into a cathartic ditch emerging as the new CSU/MHS healthy-heath system.   I’m at the same point with CSU with a special indictment of the Carver Model and the lack of oversight driven therefrom.

The CSU bus has left the road.  .  .  That it has, is manifest by dissatisfied employee groups, a divided board and a community crying for greater accountability.  It’s time for serious change at CSU and this Neumann situation proves the point.

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Council • City employees • Politics • Utilities • • • • • • | 18 Comments »

Former Utilities official says Leigh was wrong

August 1st, 2012, 12:56 pm by

Tom Gallagher

A missive by City Councilman Tim Leigh questioning a scrubber technology that’s being tested at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown is continuing to generate more fallout.

On Wednesday, the former chief energy services officer of Colorado Springs Utilities, which is investing $121 million in the emissions control technology, said there were a “number of incorrect or misleading statements” in Leigh’s letter.

“After reading Councilman Tim Leigh’s diatribe on the efforts at Drake Station, I had to weigh in with my perspective,” M. Thomas Black, said in an email to City Council, which doubles as the Utilities Board.

“This latest version is particularly concerning because it points to someone who ‘was there’.  Where were they, and more importantly, who are they?” he asked.

Leigh told The Gazette on Monday that the source of his information was former City Councilman Tom Gallagher, who regularly butted heads with Springs Utilities during his time on council.

“Why can’t I trust what he’s telling me to be the truth?” Leigh asked.

Here is the full, unedited text of Black’s email to council:

As most of you know from February 2006 through January 2010, I had the privilege of serving as Colorado Springs Utilities Chief Energy Services Officer.  It was during my tenure that most of the original application work for scrubber technology was completed.  After reading Councilman Tim Leigh’s diatribe on the efforts at Drake Station, I had to weigh in with my perspective.  This latest version is particularly concerning because it points to someone who “was there”.  Where were they, and more importantly, who are they?  The question of who is important because of the number of incorrect or misleading statements in Mr. Leigh’s Company Letter.  My question is; was the source credible and did Mr. Leigh understand what they were saying?

The first point I would like to address relates to compliance.  The only additional control technology that was going to be required at Drake was for SOx.  The NSG unit would effectively scrub other compounds but in review with our bond council, capitalizing work for say CO2 would not be appropriate because there was no compliance requirement.  I made the decision to focus on SOx because of the State’s impending EPA implementation plan.  I have no idea what Mr. Leigh means by “48 other existing technologies that solved the SOX problem with less capital cost”.  We found no other technology that would meet Mr. Leigh’s claim.  Coal Fired Electric Generation stations are highly engineered facilities based on many factors including era and type of equipment, manufacturer, site constraints, coal type, and combustion byproduct handling requirements, etc.  “Conventional” scrubbers today are engineered for a specific plant and unit with these site specific issues in mind.  In other words, there is no off the shelf solution for flew gas desulfurization FGD technology.  My final point is that through this period of analysis and application engineering, Drew Rankin worked for me, and if he had recommended “killing the baby” (a phrase that I personally find reprehensible), that would have come through my office.  Drew did not recommend canceling the project to me and in fact he continued to be an avid supporter as he led this project for the Energy Services Division.

M. Thomas Black, PE

Colorado Springs

Here is the original letter from Leigh that sparked the debate:

Friday, July 27, 2012

To:  All Council

Thank you for considering the idea of a task force to study the Drake decommissioning and the Neumann systems spend controversy.  While I appreciate the gesture, I don’t think a task force goes far enough, quickly enough, and my fear is that we spend unnecessarily on Drake when other less costly alternatives may be available.

The premise has been, “we’re in so deep that we can’t get out”.  Truly, if you’re digging a hole and you want out, the 1st step is to stop digging.  If we wrote-off the aggregate spend on Neumann to date, we would be millions ahead than if we continue “the spend” at Drake amortizing the cost over 30 years, and then resolve to shelf the facility in any time shorter than the amortized term (10, 15, 20 years, etc).

Since our pre-council meeting Tuesday, where the Task Force plan was hatched, I’ve received new information about the history of the Neumann conversation by folks who were present at the time.  I know – another wild, Tim Leigh idea – [search for the facts from someone who was there] – startling!

– I was told Drew Rankin brought Neumann forward “as someone with new technology that could save CSU millions in compliance costs by solving the 3-fold emissions problem generated by Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide (SOX, NOX, CO2).”

– Neumann’s scrubber’s original intent was grande and its promise bold.  Imagine a 3-fold solution to environmental regulation compliance at a discount.  Unfortunately, something happened on the way to the Forum.

– I was told that while the idea worked in the lab, it failed in field testing.  Yes, it solved the SOX problem but it did not solve the other 2 problems.  Based on those tests Rankin (the father of the original conversation) recommended killing-the-baby.  Apparently, at the time there were 48 other existing technologies that solved the SOX problem with less capital cost.

Then politics entered the arena when Lionel Rivera pushed for a continuation of the project, expressing emotion over empiricism and reason, on the high notion that if the scrubbers worked, (even, if only at the SOX level), CSU should continue making an investment (venture capital funding), “go into business” with Neumann, sell the work-product, create jobs and experience a windfall.  And while that sounds just great, there is seems to be a problem.  .  . we don’t have any customers.  So the story morphed from “being a job generation machine” to being a “mere compliance mechanism.”

– At the last board meeting, Management’s recommendation was “1) move Neumann to Nixon and 2) begin a decommissioning study of Drake”.  We never heard their argument.  We need to.

The elephant in the living room is the perception that CSU is a treasure trove of delicious chocolate pie and it is a piece of that pie that everyone wants.  And to that end, we need to quit talking tactically and start talking strategically and make decisions (not in a vacuum), but in the context of the larger picture.  That context only comes with transparency, study, conversation and daring.  We should be discussing the value of the entire enterprise, its mission and strategic importance to the community.  The Neumann level decisions will take care of themselves in that proper context.

Right now, we receive about $30,000,000 per year to the general fund from CSU.  Like Goldilocks, there are those who think it should be more; there are those who think it should be less; there are those who think it is just right.  Heck, I’m not advocating a position except to say, let’s study it.  And, let’s use outside experts.

– And for the sake of argument, let’s envision a plan called “Reimagine Colorado Springs Utilities” where the utilities company is an integrated part of the city’s strategic vision and overall operation – not a stand-alone enterprise, and that as part of an integrated plan, we could find another $30,000,000 a year.  That second $30,000,000 (at 4% bonding cost) could yield $750,000,000 in serviceable debt that could fund our entire back-log of capital improvements in one fell-swoop!  This one startling, strategic alternative to business-as-usual could jump start our local economy, provide jobs and likely a significant job-multiplier (more jobs!)

– The Sustainable Funding Committee recommended we don’t sell because we’ve so overburdened the enterprise with debt, we’d never receive the full bouquet of benefits we now enjoy.  We owe it to the citizens to reevaluate this conversation at a high level and to see if there is a strategy that gets us out of debt.

I recall being heretical and anathema to council on the Memorial Hospital issue when I called for the administrative leave of the executives and the investigation of their board.  I recall being the lone voice a couple weeks ago when I said I would not support PPRTA II (which I now support because of the Mayor’s amendment to the agreement), and I’m likely a member of a very small wolf-pack on this.  But, that’s OK, because I’m not looking forward to the next election cycle, I’m looking forward to doing the right thing for the citizens.

– I’m asking that we follow the recommendation made by Management – that we hold-off the Neumann spend at Drake and push it to Nixon and complete a revaluation of Drake in the larger context.

– And, while I know this will likely fall on deaf ears, I suggest a special meeting of the council to discuss this as early as possible.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tim Leigh

City Councilman at Large

 

 

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Council • City employees • Politics • Utilities • • • • • | 8 Comments »

(Another) Quote of the Day

July 30th, 2012, 5:00 pm by

City Councilman Tim Leigh voted in favor of moving forward with plans to install scrubber technology at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown.

Last week, Leigh flip-flopped, saying he received new information after the July 18 meeting.

Not everyone believes Leigh’s explanation.

He reversed course after Mayor Steve Bach said he hoped the council would reverse its decision.

Leigh, as well as Councilwoman Angela Dougan, are the mayor’s strongest allies on council.

Here’s what Leigh had to say about it all:

“You can say Leigh is a flip-flopper because that’s what people are saying all over the community today. You know how I roll. Put it right out there. Everybody thinks I’m a flip-flopper, and they think I’m Steve Bach’s stooge. Isn’t that what’s going on?”

 

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Administration • City Council • People • Politics • Utilities • • • • • | 10 Comments »

Inventor calls Leigh’s comments offensive, inaccurate

July 30th, 2012, 10:06 am by

City Councilman Tim Leigh sure knows how to stir up a debate.

The local businessman who invented a technology to reduce emissions at coal-fired power plants is the latest to weigh in on statements made by Leigh regarding the technology and the decision to move forward with plans to install it at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown.

“I am responding to Councilmember Tim Leigh’s latest comments indicating that our system failed testing and is the most expensive of “48” SOx (desulfurization options) for power plants,” David Neumann, CEO of Neumann Systems Group, said in an email to City Council members Monday morning.

“Further claims are that Mr. Drew Rankin recommended ‘killing the baby’ and that Mayor Rivera inappropriately saved the project for political reasons and over the objections of Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) personnel. Mr. Leigh’s comments are highly offensive (including especially the use of imagery such as ‘killing the baby’) and from what I know about the circumstances highly inaccurate.  Let him name his source(s),” Neumann wrote.

Here is the full, unedited text of Neumann’s email to council:

Dear Councilmember:

I am responding to Councilmember Tim Leigh’s latest comments indicating that our system failed testing and is the most expensive of “48” SOx (desulfurization options) for power plants.  Further claims are that Mr. Drew Rankin recommended “killing the baby” and that Mayor Rivera inappropriately saved the project for political reasons and over the objections of Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) personnel. Mr. Leigh’s comments are highly offensive (including especially the use of imagery such as “killing the baby”) and from what I know about the circumstances highly inaccurate.  Let him name his source(s).

As many of you have seen, our technology went through three phases of rigorous development funded by CSU and prior to being chosen for commercial implementation at Martin Drake and Ray Nixon. Comparative cost and performance studies were performed of NeuStream® vs Best Available Control Technology (BACT).  The regulatory environment in existence during Phase 1 of the NeuStream® project (completed in early 2008) and Phase 2 (completed in early 2009) were pointing to much more stringent regulations for SOx and NOx, and for the first time new regulations on CO2.  Note also that both Martin Drake and Ray Nixon at that time had and currently have NOx controls that meet Air Quality requirements. In that vein we did preliminary (and successful) testing on removal of all three emissions. That data is available for you to review. During Phase 2 of the NeuStream® project, it became apparent that in the near term no additional NOx requirements and no new CO2 requirements were going to be imposed on large coal burning sources like Martin Drake and Ray Nixon.  As I understand it, it was on the basis of a documented need for SOx only emissions control capability, that we were then contracted to complete a Phase 3, 20 MW pilot plant for SOx only.

As we have shown many of you, including Councilmember Tim Leigh, EPRI in their cost study done by the URS Washington Group showed our system to be 30%-40% lower cost than any other competing technology. Councilmember Leigh has seen the cost information as well as the results of the testing on our system twice. I spent 3-hours with him in June 2011 going over our information in detail and touring Drake with him. I have documented records of precisely what he saw in June 2011. He then saw the same information again with additional detail when he recently brought in his and the Mayor’s two experts.

With regard to Mayor Rivera’s involvement in the review of our technology, my only exposure was through Dr. Duncan Stewart who Mayor Rivera asked to do an independent assessment of our technology and report to the Board.  I do not recall seeing a copy of the report. However, my understanding was that it was positive about moving forward and that the Board has copies of that assessment.  I spoke with Dr. Stewart over the weekend and he is prepared to comment to you about the report.  Mayor Rivera spoke with me directly a couple of times about supporting his work as Vice Chairman of the Energy Committee for the National Council of Mayors and definitely was enthusiastic about supporting the technology–especially after Dr. Stewart’s review.

Additionally, with regard to what Mr. Drew Rankin said or didn’t say, I can only refer you to Mr. Tom Black, P.E., now at Fountain Electric. Mr. Black at the time was Chief Energy Services Officer and Drew Rankin’s boss.  Mr. Black is also prepared to speak with you and send you information about what was happening in that time frame.  I met frequently with both of them about the status throughout the program and I don’t recall ever hearing any of the comments that were attributed to them by Councilmember Leigh’s unnamed source.  Our contract with CSU at the time was a Professional Services contract with many smaller short term task orders that focused our work on meeting the emissions control requirements being imposed by the State and Region 8 EPA. The State CDPHE people visited and reviewed our project several times. If something happened “on the way to the Forum” that can only be the changing State and EPA air quality requirements which caused us to narrow our project to meet those specific requirements.

Since Phase II of our project ended with CSU we have garnered other sources of funding which have allowed us to pilot and test at another Utility an optimized NOx, SOx, Hg, and particulate removal system as well as a CO2 system. All of these units use our unique scrubbing technology and all show the same promise of being, by far, the low cost provider in the marketplace.

Thanks for Listening,

Dave

David K. Neumann, CEO

Neumann Systems Group, Inc.

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Council • Politics • Utilities • • • • • • | 5 Comments »

Rivera calls Leigh’s information misguided, contrived

July 30th, 2012, 9:31 am by

Lionel Rivera

Things are heating up over a decision to move full steam ahead with plans to install scrubber technology at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown.

On Sunday night, former Mayor Lionel Rivera sent the City Council an email disputing statements made by City Councilman Tim Leigh about the history of the Neumann Systems Group emissions control technology.

Here is the full, unedited text of Rivera’s email to council:

Esteemed Council Members,

I write you today to give you the facts regarding the previous City Council’s decision to move forward on the Neumann Systems Group scrubber technology for the reduction of SOx and the decision not to provide funding for vigorous testing of NOx and CO2 reduction. I will also address directly Council Member Leigh’s contrived information from an unnamed source. I was there at the time and have a clear recollection of what occurred.

Council Member Leigh states the following in a newsletter he publishes;

  • I was told Drew Rankin brought Neumann forward “as someone with new technology that could save CSU millions in compliance costs by solving the 3-fold emissions problem generated by Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide (SOX, NOX, CO2).”

The Neumann scrubber technology was brought to the previous board as a possible alternative to conventional scrubber technology that would need to be installed at Drake to lower emissions of SOx  and possibly NOx in order to comply with new EPA regional haze standards in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States. While the technology may also have had the potential to scrub CO2, it was not a consideration for full testing and evaluation unless Congress changed the law or the EPA promulgated a rule to limit CO2 emissions. Congress could never get a simple majority in the Senate to change the law and the EPA did not promulgate rules requiring our power plants to reduce CO2.

As briefed by CSU staff, the technology had the potential to accomplish the scrubbing with lower upfront capital cost, lower ongoing operational cost, and a much smaller footprint. Both Drew Rankin and Tom Black were excited about the potential for this technology.

A second quote from Council Member Leigh;

  • Neumann’s scrubber’s original intent was grande and its promise bold.  Imagine a 3-fold solution to environmental regulation compliance at a discount.  Unfortunately, something happened on the way to the Forum.

As I stated in the previous paragraph, the board was not looking for a three fold solution, but a solution to meet the future regional haze standard with the best value, reliable technology in order to save rate payers the sizeable rate increases needed to pay for conventional scrubber technology.

A third quote from Council Member Leigh;

  • I was told that while the idea worked in the lab, it failed in field testing.  Yes, it solved the SOX problem but it did not solve the other 2 problems.  Based on those tests Rankin (the father of the original conversation) recommended killing-the-baby.  Apparently, at the time there were 48 other existing technologies that solved the SOX problem with less capital cost.

As briefed to us by CSU staff, the Neumann scrubber technology met our testing requirements in all phases of testing. Funding of full scale commercial testing of NOx and CO2 emission reduction was never a proposed by staff nor would it have been approved by the board since Nixon and Drake met the proposed NOx regional haze standard with their current technology and there was no CO2 standard to mitigate.

Niether Drew Rankin nor other members of CSU staff never recommended to kill the Neumann SOx scrubber nor are there 48 other existing technologies that solved the SOx problem with less capital costs. To the contrary, CSU staff worked with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to allow them to complete the 20MW test of the Neumann scrubber system so it could be used on Drake and Nixon if successful. Below is an excerpt from the Colorado Regional Haze State Implementation Plan dated January 2011 http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/regionalhaze.html Appendix C, Drake Power Plant

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment – Air Pollution Control Division

The Division conducted site visits and determined:

• Unit 5

o CSU determined dry FGD controls are technically feasible although available

physical space was severely constrained and some demolition and site reconfiguration

would be required; the Division conducted a site visit and determined that dry FGD

controls were not appropriate considering the space constraints, shown in Figure 1

and Figure 2. Therefore control effectiveness and impacts for dry FGD are not

evaluated in this analysis.

o Traditional wet FGD controls are possible considering that there is adequate space

near the baghouse to allow for the installation of controls, but is being eliminated

based on other considerations within the five factors (i.e. energy and non-air quality

impacts). Refer to the energy and non-air quality impact section for the Division

review regarding wet FGD controls for Unit 5.

 • Units 6 and 7

o Dry FGD controls are technically feasible for Units 6 and 7.

o Traditional wet FGD controls are possible considering that there is adequate space

near the baghouse to allow for the installation of controls, but is being eliminated

based on other considerations within the five factors (i.e. energy and non-air quality

impacts). Refer to the energy and non-air quality impact section for the Division

review regarding wet FGD controls for Units 6 and 7.

It is worth noting that CSU-Drake is currently testing a new, innovative non-traditional wet scrubber control system that appears to be as effective, if not more effective, at controlling SO2 emissions with much less pressure drop (less parasitic load from increased fan demands) and requires a much smaller operational foot print area in comparison to traditional wet scrubbing. The pilot-scale wet scrubber control system, called the NeuStream-S FGD process, is presently being tested on a 20 MW flue gas stream. CSU anticipates scaling the non-traditional wet scrubber control to full scale pending successful outcome of the current testing. This new wet scrubber technology uses a unique contacting vessel that makes it different from traditional wet scrubbers. It affords a higher liquid to gas contact ratio and so uses much less water / has lower

pressure drop. It also uses a dual alkali system that is somewhat unique when compared to most traditional wet scrubbers. In comparison to traditional wet and LSD scrubbers, this new technology will have smaller water and energy requirements. There are several non-air quality aspects of the NeuStream-S process that compare favorably to traditional scrubbers, described in Step 4. Regarding the applicability of the NeuStream process to Drake Unit 5, the Division notes that this technology is not commercially available at this time. CSU has not determined if this technology is feasible for this smaller unit. However, the Division will re-assess this technology in the next Regional Haze planning period.

Although the technology being tested by CSU does not technically meet the definition of

“available” as set forth in the BART rules, the Division is willing to allow CSU the opportunity to prove the technology and if successful, the opportunity to install the NeuStream-S FGD scrubber. This process will be required to meet the emission limits established for the LSD technology established in this BART determination. Regardless of the technology utilized, Drake has to meet the LSD-based BART limits within 5 years of EPA approval of the BART SIP. CSU will test the NeuStream system until December 2011, and at that time, determine the control technology that will be used to comply with the specified SO2 BART limits for Units 6 and 7.

You will also find this language in the Nixon power plant appendix.

And finally from Mr. Leigh;

Then politics entered the arena when Lionel Rivera pushed for a continuation of the project, expressing emotion over empiricism and reason, on the high notion that if the scrubbers worked, (even, if only at the SOX level), CSU should continue making an investment (venture capital funding), “go into business” with Neumann, sell the work-product, create jobs and experience a windfall.  And while that sounds just great, there is seems to be a problem.  .  . we don’t have any customers.  So the story morphed from “being a job generation machine” to being a “mere compliance mechanism.”

As I stated before, the goal of the Board and CSU staff was to meet the new regional haze standard with the most cost efficient reliable technology. The NeuStream process met that criteria empirically as briefed to us by CSU staff. I was and still am a supporter of the NeuStream system. I spoke highly of what we were doing at CSU with my fellow Mayors at the US Conference of Mayors Energy Committee meetings.

CSU staff had already developed a revenue sharing concept with Dr. Neumann when the technology was introduced to us and the board supported the concept. If the technology becomes commercially viable outside of CSU there will be some revenue sharing with CSU and it should help mitigate future electric rate increases and create a primary manufacturing employer in Colorado Springs.

At the time we made the decision to move forward with the NeuStream process the idea of decommissioning Drake was never on the table. The cost to decommission, reclaim the site, and acquire more electric power from Front Range and/or the spot market or longer term contracts made that decision extremely expensive and would have required much larger rate increases than investing in new scrubber technology. I would imagine that from a cost standpoint it is still better for rate payers to keep Drake. From what I read in the Gazette it appears the conversation has turned more political and aesthetic and is less about what the cost is to rate payers. I support your last decision to move forward with the NeuStream System. If you choose to study it more, CSU has the capabilities to give you the estimates you need for decommissioning cost and reclamation of the site, and they are the experts for projecting future electric costs without a Drake power plant. I hope you don’t spend $500,000 for information CSU staff should be providing to you.

If you’re not getting the information you need in a timely fashion and the detail you require then hold the CEO accountable. We had the same challenge when I chaired the board. It will take more of your time to get the detail you need and dig into it, but we the rate payers need that kind of leadership to protect our interests.

Council Member Leigh please disclose who are the “folks who were present at the time” who gave you your misguided information. You owe it to your colleagues so they can verify your version of history.

Good luck in your deliberations.

Lionel Rivera

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Council • Politics • Utilities • • • • • | 9 Comments »

Dougan: Decision on Drake made without all the facts

July 30th, 2012, 7:19 am by

Angela Dougan

City Councilwoman Angela Dougan says the decision to move forward with plans to install emissions control technology at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown was made without all the facts.

“It is clear to me that the real questions have not even been asked and decisions are being made that will affect generations to come without factual, true, give me both sides, put it all on the table, data,” she wrote Monday on Facebook.

“Am I wrong here??” she asked.

Dougan listed a long list of questions that she says need to be answered before Colorado Springs Utilities can go ahead with the technology at Drake. The technology was invented by Colorado Springs-based Neumann Systems Group.

The council, acting as the Utilities Board, voted 7-2 to proceed with the technology. Dougan and Councilwoman Brandy Williams cast the dissenting votes.

“All I know is that the (Utilities Board) needs to start running utilities instead of the other way around and that will take way more than 5 hours a month and the famous tag line “I need 5 board members” to do anything I don’t already want to do. It will take the citizens demanding it,” Dougan wrote.

Dougan’s request that additional questions be answered comes on the heels of Councilman Tim Leigh saying that the decision on Drake needs to be revisited.

Leigh voted in favor of moving forward with the technology but now is backpedaling.

All this comes after Mayor Steve Bach said on the radio Friday that he hoped the council would reverse its decision on what he called “experimental” technology. Utilities isn’t under the purview of the mayor, but Bach said voters expected the mayor to weigh in on an issue as important as the city-owned utility.

Dougan and Leigh are allies of the mayor.

The big question now is: Do Dougan and Leigh have enough votes to put pause on the decision?

Here is the full, unedited text of Dougan’s statement on Facebook:

I had a busy weekend and it was wonderful but the hot topic was Utilities and what to do.. everyone seemed to have a position but as i talked to both sides it is clear to me that the real questions have not even been asked and decisions are being made that will affect generations to come without factual true, give me both sides, put it all on the table, data. Am I wrong here??
A few questions I would like answers to that I could trust…Do we need the power of Drake? If so how much do we need? How often do we need it? Have we ever looked at other power usage models within our own company? Will Neuman work in the field for more than three years? Why are they not part of the maintenance contract? If Neuman falils or needs maintenance can anyone fix or are we over a barrel with having to pay them whatever they want since they are the only guys in town? Will Neumann scrubbers be easily and economically retrofitted to take care of new EPA/legal conditions? Does the community understand we are gambling 100M of their money? What are the odds of that gamble? What is the true chance of payback? Can Drake even be moved and at what cost? Does Nixon need scrubbers now and if not when? Why does utility continuely put them selves at such debt load and finance everything for 30+ years? Why not save first or make a plan to pay off in 5 or 10 years? Why does Utiliies need five board members to tell them to knock it off with food at meetings that are not true working lunch meetings?
Okay, mayber the last one is not so vital in concern of Drake but it is important into Utilities current philosphy of what and how they balance their check book. Could we merge duplicate efforts in HR and IT? Why so much top ADM at Utility compared to the City and Private?
All I know is that the board needs to start running utilities instead of the other way around and that will take way more than 5 hours a month and the famous tag line “I need 5 board members” to do anythiing I don’t already want to do. It will take the citizens demanding it. Trust me I have tried and now I am asking for your help. We need these questions and many more answered so we can make a good trustworthy backed on fact decsion for the future of our City and its utility needs.

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Administration • City Council • Politics • Utilities • • • • • • | 13 Comments »

Czelatdko points finger at city attorney over McMillion

July 26th, 2012, 9:56 am by

An editorial that resurrected the $1.15 million separation agreement with former Memorial Health System CEO Larry McEvoy led City Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko to divulge new details about what happened behind closed doors.

On a Facebook post of Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen, Czelatdko revealed discussions in closed executive session.

Here is what Czelatdko wrote, with edits:

I was actually in the closed executive session Wayne Laugesen and so know exactly what was said and not said. What was not said was a 1.2 million dollar severance package was being given to (former Memorial Health System CEO Larry) McEvoy.

What was said was:

1) Why is McEvoy here in chambers announcing a resignation with no announcement of it on the agenda or notification to Council from the City Attorney’s Office?

2) What was said from the Memorial Hospital Board Chair Jim Moore, was that they (board and Chris) were working on a severance package for McEvoy up to 18 months and that they had been working on possible packages for two weeks under the direction of Chris Melcher

3) What was said was that no Memorial contract would be valid without the signature of Jim Moore and Chris Melcher

4) And lastly, what was said was the reminder that Council, the City Attorney’s Office and Memorial board could not enter into any contracts over 1 million dollars without all three parties acknowledging it. This understanding was put in place a month prior to protect the lease negotiations and keep the current admin entering into big money contracts that UCHealth might not want.

When I left that room I know myself and many of my colleagues who did not support retention packages thought, ‘Good luck getting us to agree to anything more than his agreed contract package,’ and we went home after a 7-hour meeting day.

Wayne, please, please stop perpetuating incorrect information and writing articles based on non factual assumptions. Did (council President Scott Hente) and (council President Pro Tem Jan Martin) know more specifics? I don’t know. Do you know for a fact? Did (Councilman Merv Bennett) and (Councilwoman Brandy Williams) know? I’m not sure. Do you? All I know is Council was told by Jim Moore that Chris Melcher, City Attorney was assisting in package negotiations. Chris did not refute that as he stood there listening to Jim speak. Chris confirmed to Council what I mentioned above regarding signatures needed for agreed contract limits and Council was told a package would come back for confirmation. No confusion for me when I walked out of the room that the city attorney who is suppose to serve both Council and the Mayor, who dare Council question or challenge his legal opinion, had it under control and was working on it with the board. Assumingly looking out for the best interest of council and the city.

I also know after the nightmare began, Chris Melcher, city attorney informed council that he paid for an outside legal consult who confirmed the board could do what they did, that if we challenged them through litigation which (Councilwoman) Angela Dougan, (Councilman Tim Leigh) and myself all said we’d support, the City would be responsible for paying all their attorneys, fees, etc and they probably would win costing the taxpayers millions more of wasted dollars. Chris told Council it was a weak case to challenge, a done deal, basically Council would have to take the lumps, and the lame press release was put out by my colleagues (I was flying with space command) that we would not pursue the matter further. So as I see it everyone won but Council and the health payers.

Memorial and UCHealth got rid of McEvoy who was tainting the campaign and poisoning the morale of hospital employees, the Board showed defiance and wielded their authority one last time, McEvoy lost a job but got a heck of a lot of money, and Council gets the blame for not overseeing the Board more thoroughly. A board who legally was given full authority and fiduciary responsibility years prior. I can only assume that decision was because the prior council thought it made sense to appoint a full time board of knowledgeable people who could dedicate their time to the health system and report back monthly to council. Council, who back then, was a part time, poorly compensated body in charge of the city, the health system and the utility company. Council, who now is even more limited and minionized by certain vocal, agenda driven, influential people, who so obviously serve one master. All I can say is I hope someone is keeping track of some of these personnel issues and making permanent notes in personnel files.

Posted in: City Council • Meetings • Politics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • | 21 Comments »

Leigh says Paige asked him to keep quiet

July 17th, 2012, 8:47 am by

Tim Leigh

City Councilman Tim Leigh says the deputy state director of Americans for Prosperity called him Tuesday morning to ask him not to engage in a public debate about a homegrown coal emissions technology being tested at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown.

“I just took a phone call from my pal, Sean Paige who asked if I couldn’t argue with Dave Neumann outside the front page of the Gazette,” Leigh wrote in his electronic newsletter.

“I told Sean, it’s not my intention to argue with anyone in the Gazette or otherwise, and that I feel no animas toward Dave Neumann or his Neumann Scrubber system,” he wrote.

(Read the story that sparked the telephone conversation between Leigh and Paige by clicking here.)

Paige, a former city councilman and former editorial page editor of The Gazette, disputed Leigh’s characterization of what he said.

“It’s not that I would say he misrepresented what I called for,” Paige said.

“I wasn’t telling him not to discuss it in The Gazette. All I did was call to say, ‘Hey, have you sat down with Dave Neumann? Have you guys done a briefing? Have you talked about it?’” Paige said.

Colorado Springs Utilities, which owns the downtown power plant, has invested about $17 million in the technology and stands to profit if it goes commercial. The technology could also help it meet increasingly strict regulations involving sulfur dioxide emissions.

Paige said he had been out of town for 10 days and came back to see a story about Leigh questioning the technology and Neumann alleging that Leigh has a financial motive to kill the deal.

“I’m just trying to be peacemaker as someone who is familiar with the Neumann project and also somebody who respects Tim Leigh,” Paige said. “I just felt like maybe there was a lack of communication and a situation of talking past each other.”

When asked if he was trying to silence Leigh, Paige said: “Absolutely not.”

“For once in my long and undistinguished career, I was trying to maybe play peacemaker,” he said, laughing.

Posted in: City Council • People • Politics • Transparency • Utilities • • • • • | 9 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »