By Cory Gaines | Colorado Accountability Project
Meet the Fellows
SB25-309, linked first below, has lofty and not-unreasonable goals. Quoting the bill’s fiscal note:
“The bill authorizes the Legislative Council Committee to approve agreements between the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) director and nonpartisan organizations to place nonpartisan legislative policy fellows in LCS. Any agreement approved by the committee must ensure that the director retains supervisory authority over fellows, and also specify that any work created during the fellowship remains the property of the General Assembly.”
The concept is simple. We all have our areas of expertise and education, and we are all ignorant outside of those areas. Our legislators are no exception; they’re not super men and women, and have blind spots.
Advertised as (quoting from the press release for the program linked second below) a program to “… meet surging demand for credible, nonpartisan analysis on complex issues” and then later as providing “…impartial, nonpartisan analysis and research to support policy decisions that benefit all Coloradans”, the Policy Fellows are meant to be subject area experts who can prepare briefs for our legislators on their areas of expertise to help guide policy.
According to one of the Republican sponsors of the bill and the Democratic Colorado Senate President, there sure seems to be some excitement for the fellows to get onboard and get writing. Quoting the press release again:
“’What matters to my constituents and all Coloradans is well-informed decisions,’ says Senate Minority Leader Cleave Simpson, an advisor to the fellowship program. ‘This fellowship program will provide my colleagues and me access to reliable information that I can trust. Something that I know many of us are eager to have because we are facing really complex problems.’”
“’I highly endorse having policy fellows from the Institute for Science & Policy at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science support our research work here at the Capitol,’ says Senate President James Coleman. ‘I believe there is a strong need for this, given we lack sufficient staff to execute this specific and important job function. Our members are in need of additional support in this area, and it would be of value for all of us in order to better serve the people of Colorado.’”
While the idea is a sound one in theory, I have a healthy skepticism. It is a skepticism born of watching an expansion of what people call science, an abuse of actual science, and a proprietary hold by some on what they call “The Science”.
To wit, consider the behavior of CDPHE’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, created by a 2021 bill which I link to third below, whose legislative declaration gave it similarly high-minded purpose. Quoting from that bill (whose text is in all caps per the usual convention of newly-minted law):
“THERE IS CREATED IN THEDEPARTMENT THE OFFICE OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION TO COORDINATEAND PROMOTE EFFECTIVE EFFORTS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE AND RELATEDTRAUMAS AND PROMOTE RESEARCH REGARDING CAUSES OF, ANDEVIDENCE-BASED RESPONSES TO, GUN VIOLENCE.”
This office has met some of its purpose, but has more than once strayed beyond the bounds of what its research could tell us, and has on at least one occasion strayed into merely echoing Democratic and gun control group talking points. See the fourth link below for an earlier newsletter on that topic.
In fairness, I want to note here and now that the Office of Gun Violence Prevention did fix the problem I came to them with. When I made them aware of it, of course.
Can we expect similar from the Fellows?
In this first post of a few on the topic, let’s talk history of the program. Later, I will share with you the answers to the questions I put to the Legislative Council Staff, the Institute for Science and Policy (the group behind this effort and mainly responsible for funding and choosing the Fellows), and lastly the Fellows themselves.
I also want to call your attention to perhaps the most important thing of all in this mini series: keep your eyes peeled for what you can do if you see something that concerns you produced by the Fellows.
Getting scientists and engineers involved in policy, and then moving them into the statehouse stretches back a ways. Particular to Colorado, it goes back a bit before the 2025 bill. The History, at least as the Institute for Science and Policy tells it, is linked fifth below.
In brief, the effort began in late 2023 when (quoting the History with embedded links intact) the Institute received a total of 5 grants “…from the National Conference of State Legislatures State Science Policy Fellowship Planning Grant Initiative, supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. The award supported a year of planning and development for a Colorado Science & Technology Policy Fellowship to support the state legislature.”
The process then moved to planning (see Screenshot 1 attached for those involved in the planning), and implementation with the 2025 bill authorizing this first crop.
The money to pay for the program and the Fellows does not come from the state or the legislative budget. For space reasons, I took the extended quote on funding from the 2025 bill’s fiscal note and attached it as screenshot 2.
This first trial year is funded by the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (see the Memorandum of Understanding between the Museum and Legislative Council Staff linked sixth below. That agreement lays out the terms, who pays for what, who gets what.
I took a screenshot of the “who does what and who pays” section and attached it as screenshot 3. Take note, that the Fellows would not only be making reports for the legislature, they could also be asked to advise individual legislators (something that would NOT be public) and/or testify as “experts” at committee hearings. Note also the dual nature of supervision here.
Future years, per the 2025 bill, would be no different in terms of funding should the legislators decide to continue the program. I have the sense that many terms of the contract would likely be the same as this first year’s too.
I want to end with an important (and NOT played up in any media coverage or even in the Institute’s own press material). It’s there in the History I quote from right above this. While the National Conference of State Legislatures gets a lot of play in the press material, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation doesn’t. Their role isn’t hidden per se, but you won’t see them mentioned as much.
I think the reason is pretty clear when you look into them. Their website is linked seventh below and the group’s Influence Watch page is linked eighth. It doesn’t fill up the foundation’s portfolio, but much of what they give their money to can easily be described as left-of-center environmental policy.
The Institute, for its part, says multiple times on its site that donors have no say in what they do, but let’s knock on the door and ask for Ronnie Real. As journalism professor Corey Hutchins said about a conservative newspaper and one of its advertisers (no less true for non-conservatives), “relationships matter”.
Funding and incentives matter. As evidence, look no further than this: if an oil and gas company sponsored this initiative, would we have the minor ripple of press coverage we have when it’s a lefty, environmentalist fund kicking in the dough to get it started? Would the Democrats in this state stay mum or “highly endorse” having them?
From what I have seen of the Fellows’ work thus far (see later posts in the series), I have yet to see anything of serious concern. That’s good. Of course, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention started pretty middle of the road too.
My point with this series is less about assuming a problem, and more about learning about the program, it’s potential for problems, and what you can do if you note something concerning.
Stick with me for future posts so you can do just that.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-309
https://institute.dmns.org/about/colorado-science-and-technology-policy-program/press-release/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1299
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/cdphes-lets-talk-guns-campaign-echoes?utm_source=publication-search
https://institute.dmns.org/about/colorado-science-and-technology-policy-program/history/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PqHiCEhIP5SwrFW893_tiVdCbPp8oA-8/view?usp=sharing
https://www.moore.org/home
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/gordon-e-and-betty-i-moore-foundation
Speak up about Xcel Energy’s Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS)
Xcel’s power shutoffs up near Boulder have been in the news a lot lately, so I wanted to (with the help and inspiration from a reader) provide some background and context on them.
Just as importantly, I wanted to remind you that you have a chance to speak to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) about Xcel’s PSPS as well as the PUC’s rules/transparency at their upcoming January 14th public comment period.
First things first, the best way to sign up to speak at the meeting is to go to the PUC calendar linked first below a few days prior to the 14th. By clicking on the 9AM meeting shown on 1/14/26, you will see information on how to register. Set a reminder to check their calendar starting about a week or so ahead of the 14th, say the 8th or 9th.
If you can’t make that meeting, you can still send in your thoughts via email to [email protected].
In order to help you better advocate (and/or for general knowledge), I wanted to give some background on PSPS in general.
As far as I can tell, there is no publicly available rubric that says when the shutdowns happen and when they don’t. This lack of transparency, a great thing to fold into your comment. Xcel and the PUC should be a lot more forthcoming on how these decisions are being made. How are they deciding? What are the criteria?
When you look at Xcel’s materials, as well as some of the contractors Xcel is using (more soon), you see again and again how PSPS decisions aren’t taken lightly. Fair enough, but when the decisions are made, what can we learn about what influences them?
The second and third links below are to Xcel’s PSPS shutoff page and their Wildfire Mitigation Program respectively. In broad strokes, both give a sense of what might trigger a shutdown. It’s what you see in the image heading this post: high winds, low humidity, and dry fuels for a wildfire.
Easy enough. Trying to get more detail is when things get murky like a river starting to carry a lot of silt. A careful look at the Xcel PSPS page shows the following (quoting):
“PSPS Communications:
We start communicating with customers when the forecast includes extreme weather that may require a PSPS. Up to 48 hours (or more if possible) before a PSPS event. We will contact impacted customers using a phone call and/or email, depending on their notification preferences. Updates will be provided daily. Up to 4 hours (or more if possible) before a PSPS event. We will decide whether a PSPS is needed and send an updated phone call and/or email. Please note that in emergencies, we may not be able to provide advance notice of a PSPS to customers.
If a PSPS is necessary, we will make every effort to minimize the size and duration of the event. Other wildfire mitigation strategies, such as activating Enhanced Powerline Safety Settings (EPSS), engaging in preventative brush and tree clearing, pole and wire inspection and replacement and integrating advanced technologies – like AI-powered panoramic cameras and sophisticated risk modeling – also help to limit the size and duration of a PSPS.”
As suggested by the quote above, there are two broad categories of weather/fire shutdowns. One is during active fire events; if a fire is blazing its way to a transformer substation, it’s wise to prepare for that and protect as much equipment as possible. For active fire detection, Xcel has an array of sensors to spot fires as they happen (see the fourth link below).
The other category would be a planned PSPS, a shutdown that comes ahead of a possible adverse event. Sometimes coming days ahead. This leaves the question of how that prediction is made. In other words, if Xcel cuts power in anticipation of a problem, what are they basing that on?
Under the general rubric of “adding meteorology and fire science expertise” to the team (see Xcel’s 2025-2027 CO Wildfire Mitigation Plan), Xcel is partnering with a software company called Technosylva. This partnership stretches back a ways and is known to the Public Utillities Commission.
Screenshots 1a – 1c attached come from a packet of screenshots (see the fifth link below) taken from a January 27th 2025 meeting with the PUC, Xcel, and Technosylva. It’s clear from them what we’re about.
This picture becomes even clearer when you visit Technosylva’s own website (linked sixth below), specifically their PSPS page. I won’t go through it in detail, but screenshots 2a – 2e show what Technosylva is advertising to utilities like Xcel: weather and fire predictions to help inform shutdowns while providing cover from both regulators and customers.
To the extent that looking at the advertising for a product can tell you something about the company that bought it, the fact that Xcel is partnering with Technosylva, the fact that the PUC seems on board, is telling. It points to both groups wanting the immunity that comes from something similar to what is known in other fields as “meeting the standard of care”.
They want to point angry customers (and angry politicians/regulators) who come at them to their simulations.
Even knowing the company and broad strokes about what is happening leaves some holes, however.
The nature of weather/fire/utilities modeling depends greatly on what the inputs are and how they’re weighted in the model. Xcel has publicly shared some information on this. If you look at Xcel’s PSPS page or the materials by Technosylva you can see that (quoting the Xcel PSPS page as an example) one of the criteria is “Low Fuel Moisture” defined as the “presence of drier fuel sources, calculated by considering day length, hours of rain and daily temperature and humidity ranges.”
In other words, this particular criterion is an inferred measure, not a direct measure. How many of the other criteria in the model are inferred? This matters because computers compute, they don’t think.
Further, if you’re picturing a computer spitting out something like “shut down this or that part of the grid due to 100% certainty of fire”, you don’t have an accurate picture of what is going on.
What we don’t know, what you cannot know because they’re not sharing it, are what exactly Xcel is working with. For you as a customer, it’s a black box where you’re simply told that smart people and wonder technology have removed any possible risk and are not shutting off power unnecessarily. The computers, you understand, have said it’s time for your power to be off.
I don’t think this latter is an accident. I don’t know what Technosylva is doing with their models specifically, but I know enough about how this all works to give a sense of what the output is: probability.
Some way or another, what Technosylva gives Xcel are probabilities of this or that event occurring. It’s not a certainty and it is based on a limited data set.
It is Xcel that makes the decision, secure in the knowledge that they’ll have cover from regulators and messy court entanglements. That’s why they lean on Technosylva, and Technosylva for their part only offering probabilities means no one is ever wrong and no one is ever responsible for the choice to cut power.
And if you don’t see the gears turning in the black box, you can’t ever ask questions.
This is a failure of transparency by Xcel and a failure of leadership by the PUC, the group tasked by law with watching Xcel’s behavior since you and I can’t just switch power companies.
I want to leave you with one last thing. You and I and everyone else pay more on our utility bills to fund Technosylva and the web of sensors, etc. Just like taking Nyquil doesn’t fix your cold but rather fixes symptoms, Xcel putting its time and energy here fixes the symptoms of the problem but doesn’t cure it.
I will touch on this in the post immediately following this one (a quick look on Xcel’s failed Boulder Smart Grid), but the upshot is this. What if instead of spending money on sensors, Xcel had invested in the past in hardening the grid in places where they knew there were problems?
That would have been a fix for the problem instead of investing in something that merely gives Xcel and the PUC cover from criticism.
https://puc.colorado.gov/puccalendar
https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/outage-safety/wildfires/power-shutoffs
https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/filings/wildfire_mitigation_program
https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/outage-safety/wildfires/advanced-technology#:~:text=We%20use%20Technosylva%20software%20to,predict%20and%20prevent%20wildfire%20ignitions.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=4c5da8237b&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1852797332489285709&th=19b6755b7bd0b04d&view=att&disp=inline&realattid=f_mjqdg67c0&zw&acrobatPromotionSource=gmail_chrome-card
https://technosylva.com/psps-de-energization/
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)