News
Up to the Moment:
January, 27, 2012 - A team headed by Dietze and Davis, P.C. is pleased to have been selected on January 25th as a finalist in the City of Boulder’s search for attorneys to provide legal representation before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) regarding the City’s investigation of possible municipalization of a Boulder electric utility.
Xcel Energy Services, doing business as Public Service Company of Colorado (“Xcel”), presently provides electric utility services to the City. Last fall, the citizens of Boulder voted to authorize the City to investigate replacing its contract with Xcel by developing a City-owned electric utility. Thirteen law firms, primarily based in Washington, D.C., submitted bids to represent the City in the FERC component of the City’s investigation.
Other members of the Dietze and Davis team are the Washington, D.C. firm of Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP and well-known Colorado utilities lawyer William H. (“Bill”) McEwan.
“We are very pleased that our team is included among the finalists,” said Karl Kumli, a shareholder and team lead of the energy practice group at Dietze and Davis. “The efforts of the City of Boulder, and the support of the citizens of Boulder in exploring municipalization are truly groundbreaking. The City of Boulder has attracted attention across the nation for its efforts in this regard. We understand the City’s goals and we are passionate about representing them well.”
Kumli noted that the Dietze and Davis team brings together an exceptional set of skilled lawyers to work on municipalization issues.
“The Stinson firm, which, for decades has represented municipal utilities throughout the United States,recently won a decisive, precedent-setting victory representing the City of South Daytona, Florida before the FERC,” Kumli said. “Their work in connection with South Daytona’s efforts to form a municipal utility is the state of the art in this area of the law.”
“In addition, Bill McEwan has represented Colorado municipalities, power producers and utilities on electric matters for decades, including thoughtful analyses of municipalization issues. Bill is the dean of the practicing public utility lawyers in Colorado,” Kumli added.
Lawyers at Dietze and Davis have represented the City for electric utility matters since 1981, including development of the City’s hydroelectric system, the acquisition of Barker Reservoir and its hydroelectric plant from Public Service Company in 2000, and in renewable energy credit litigation against Xcel in 2009.
All three firms on the Dietze and Davis team have substantial experience representing a wide range of clients in administrative proceedings and in court litigation against Xcel.
Dietze and Davis attorneys secure landmark win for independent power in Colorado. Karl Kumli, Mark Detsky, and Robyn Kube congratulate our client, the Colorado Independent Energy Association (CIEA), on achieving a decision from an Administrative Law Judge of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission that is a victory for ratepayers of Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility and for independent power producers in Colorado. The decision denied a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for a 90 megawatt LMS 100 turbine and denied the proposed retirement of two older generating units in Pueblo, Colorado. This decision is a victory for CIEA’s values of upholding competition in the face of utility over-reaching. The ALJ found that the utility’s lack of analysis of available IPP generation was fatal to their application to self-build a $100 million unit that was to be used approximately 3% of the time.
ON November 17, 2011, Mark Detsky spoke at the annual CLE event of the Young Lawyers Division of the Colorado Bar Association on "Hot Topics in Renewable Energy Law and Colorado Water Law."
Mark Detsky congratulates his client Mountain Riders Alliance on their feature in the October, 2011 issue of Powder Magazine.
Natural Resources & Environmental Law Power Ballot: Boulder Municipalization to Create a Local Utility: Karl Kumli served as Moderator; Presenters were David Miller and John Putnam.
Mark Detsky was a speaker on the topic of Legal and Regulatory Considerations for Developers of Utility-Scale Geothermal Energy Development at the Colorado Geo Energy and Heat Pump Association conference held October 20, 2011 in Loveland, Colorado.
Nick Muller (far left), Mark Detsky (second from left), Gov. Hickenlooper (center)
Dietze and Davis attorneys draft successful legislation in the 2011 Colorado General Assembly legislative session. Mark Detsky and Karl Kumli congratulate their client, the Colorado Independent Energy Association and Nick Muller its Executive Director, on passage of House Bill 11-1262. This legislation is designed to improve the transparency of information analyzed in Public Utilities Commission proceedings that involve resource selection by regulated utilities. The bill allows independent power producers to verify assumptions used in modeling of their facilities and provides a pathway for a rulemaking to expand the access of the public to the information used in utility resource planning models. The bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, a rare achievement in the energy sector in Colorado. Mark Detsky was the primary author of the bill. CIEA members include over 40 companies that operate or seek to operate renewable and natural gas facilities in Colorado, and CIEA advocates for competitive practices by utilities to achieve the most cost-efficient resources to power Colorado's homes and businesses.
Karl Kumli was a featured presenter on June 15th at the first annual Colorado Small Hydro Association conference which was held at Sturm Hall on the University of Denver campus. Karl's presentation on Negotiating a Power Purchase Agreement was among a wide range of presentations covering many issues of importance to the hydroelectric industry in Colorado. Karl's power point presentation and related materials are available to interested parties upon request. Contact Karl.
Renee Ezer has been serving as co-chair of the Boulder County Bar Elder Law Section for 2011. On May 10, 2011, Renee moderated a CLE presentation with esteemed speakers Dr. Richard Spiegle, forensic psychologist, and Dr. Haleh Noorad-Long, geriatric psychiatrist on "Dementia, Testamentary Capacity, and vulnerability to Undue Influence." Dietze and Davis, P.C. is a sponsor this year of Boulder County's Second Annual Senior Law Day, which was held on August 13, 2011. Renee was a co-presenter with Martha Ridgway on the topic: "Taking Care of our Parents: Alternatives for Family Members to Manage and Resolve conflicts Involving Their Elderly Loved Ones." Click here for a handout from Senior Law Day 2011.
Dietze and Davis, P.C. wind energy client achieves PUC approval of its Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement with Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility LP. Dietze and Davis’ client was a party to an August, 2011, settlement agreement before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission that resulted in the approval of a 29.04 MW wind energy generation project in Huerfano County, Colorado. Dietze and Davis’ client will own fifty percent of the generating capacity and energy of the project. The wind project is the result of a deal between the wind company and Colorado’s second largest publicly-held utility company. The project was valued by Black Hills at over 50 million dollars. Dietze and Davis attorney Mark Detsky was lead counsel in the PUC proceeding, and attorneys Karl F. Kumli III and Robyn Kube assisted in settlement negotiations.
Star Waring has been elected to the 2011-2012 CBA Water Law Section Executive Council. The Water Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association is comprised of over three hundred lawyers committed to the practice of water law in the State of Colorado. For more information click here.
Rental Property: Protecting Your Investment. The rise in residential inventory and distressed properties has convinced many to purchase residences for rental and investment income. Though it might seem as simple as getting tenants and a lease, owners of residential rental property should take steps to protect their investments, and particularly other assets, from potential liability as a property owner. Article available here. By David J. Thrower
Court of Appeals Narrows Definition of Income in Child Support Cases: The Colorado Court of Appeals recently held that prior to acutal distribution, employer contributions to a spouse's retirement account or pension plan do not constitute gross income for child support purposes. In re Davis, 2011 WL 544020 (Colo. App. 2011). In Davis, the trial court did not include Husband's employer contributions towards his 401(k) plan as income for child support purposes. At trial, Husband testified that his employer made contributions to his 401(k) account but that he could not receive those funds prior to retirement without paying a penalty. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's treatment of the employer contributions, finding that these "unrealized employer contributions" are not income for child support purposes. While Colorado's child support statute, C.R.S. § 14-10-115, includes "pensions and retirement benefits" in the definition of gross income for child support purposes, this provision is only applicable to benefits that have actually been paid out and not those that are undistributed at the time of hearing. By Tucker M. Katz
Congress Changes Current Tax Laws - What it may mean to you: Congress has finally taken some action alleviating some of the uncertainty we have all been facing regarding the Estate Tax law. As part of the sweeping tax bill just passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, beginning January 1, 2011, the amount of net worth exempt from Estate Tax liability has been increased to $5,000,000 per estate. This means, with proper estate planning, that a married couple can pass up to $10,000,000 to their heirs free of Estate Tax. We have not yet been able to decipher all of the details of the new law such as how the tax basis in property owned by the decedent is to be determined, that is through an automatic step-up in basis (which was scheduled to return in 2011) or whether property will pass to the heirs with the same tax basis as the decedent held in the properties (i.e. carryover basis), or some other means. CAUTION: the new tax act as it applies to the Estate Tax is scheduled to expire as of December 31, 2012. All it does is give us a two-year window for which to plan...unless Congress changes it again in the interim. By Joel Davis
Attorney Spotlight:
(from left) Magistrate Elizabeth Brodsky, Tucker Katz , Peter Shelley
Tucker Katz was individually recognized on April 18, 2011 at the Boulder County Legal Services luncheon for his contribution of over 75 hours of pro bono services to low-income residents in the community.
Dietze and Davis congratulates David Thrower as he begins his 10th year of service as the prosecutor for the Town of Superior.
Mark D. Detsky spoke to the Colorado Bar Association Water Law Section in December 2010 on the topic of Geothermal Energy Development in Colorado and its synergy with Colorado water law and administration.
Star Waring has been teaching water law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law as an adjunct professor for the Spring 2011 semester.
Peter Dietze's Blog:
November 2, 2011 - "How to make the first meeting with an attorney productive."
The initial conference with an attorney can be somewhat unproductive because neither side knows whether an attorney/client relationship will result. Whether the parties can agree to form an attorney/client relationship depends on a number of factors. How well do the parties communicate with one another? Is the problem or the service the prospective client wishes the attorney to undertake within the skill set and experience of the attorney? Can the parties agree on the financial terms of the relationship? Does the attorney have a conflict of interest which would prevent him or her from accepting the engagement? Sitting in the conference room with the prospective client, the attorney often is not in a position to determine whether a conflict may exist until he or she has adequate information of the case or the legal services involved. In particular, the identity of one or more parties who may have an adverse interest must be ascertained before the attorney is able to make a conflicts check, which routinely takes place after the meeting is concluded.
In recent years, many people have come to look for, or expect, the first meeting with an attorney to be a “free consultation”. If the attorney cannot accept the person as a client, most attorneys would not bill the person for the time spent. But will the first meeting be billable if the client wishes to think about his experience with the attorney before committing to engage him? The attorney should make it clear at the outset if he or she intends to charge for the time spent in the first meeting and the time spent preparing for it.
Many times, the prospective client expects the attorney to offer an assessment of the matter, even if only preliminary. The prospective client can assist in this prior to the first meeting by organizing the facts involved in the case and by gathering documents and written papers which may relate to the matter. Copies of documents filed in court, i.e., summons and complaint, or issued by a court, i.e., court orders, are the kind of documents which the prospective client should make available at the first meeting or before. If the case is a business dispute or a controversy involving land and or buildings, the attorney should request that the prospective client deliver the documents which may have to be considered in advance of the first meeting so that the attorney can evaluate them and at the initial meeting give his or her first impressions. The better informed the attorney is about the nature of the task or the dispute facing the prospective client, the better he or she is in the position to offer first impressions about the legal options or remedies available, and provide an estimate of the range of fees and costs which may accrue. To be sure, there are cases where a layperson may not wish to reveal sensitive documents or information relating to trade secrets, sales or financial data, or documents containing accusations of sexual harassment, until an attorney client relationship is established. My experience has been that those cases are in the minority.
In a word, both sides will benefit from the preparations which each make prior to the initial meeting. When sufficient information is exchanged or made available prior to the first meeting, the chances are better that the expectations of both parties are met.
