News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Tuesday March 28th 2023

Support the Blue Line

Subscribe to the Blue Line

That's what she said

city council transportation energy municipalization xcel housing urban planning april fools bicycles climate action density election 2011 affordable housing boulder county open space election renewables agriculture CU local food climate change election 2013 development youth jefferson parkway pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD mountain bikes immigration boards and commissions plan boulder farming fracking GMOs transit urban design decarbonization planning board fires colorado politics wildlife land use smart regs downtown architecture new era colorado transit village parking homeless journalism plutonium natural gas ghgs commuting radioactive waste rental coal height limits taxes april fools 2015 walkability historic preservation energy efficiency historic district Neighborhoods diversity zoning population growth growth students North Boulder flood arts gardens education University Hill water supply bus election 2010 solar election 2018 nutrition RTD sprawl water quality election 2012 groundwater bike lane electric utility safety library april fools 2016 renewable energy affairs of the heart organic flood plain wetlands planning reserve zero waste mayor blue line electric vehicle ballot right-sizing street design transportation master plan obama hazardous waste county commissioners politics hogan-pancost longmont colorado legislature climate smart loan diagonal plaza campaign finance flood mitigation bears Mapleton solar panels PV recycling comprehensive plan golden conservation easement epa boulder junction pesticide congestion food drought road diet oil bus rapid transit commercial development inequality election 2016 flooding planning daily camera public health community cycles BVCP ecocycle Newlands automobile PUC climate change deniers children david miller ken wilson sam weaver community league of women voters wind power public spaces boulder creek crime mlk civil rights west tsa marijuana technology arizona Orchard Grove EV green points al bartlett Whittier city attorney

Staying with Xcel Is Too Risky


I support Ballot Issues 2B and 2C because staying with Xcel is too risky.  Whoa, you say, that’s not what I’ve heard.  That’s because what you’ve heard is what Xcel has spent half a million dollars, so far, to tell you.   The next time you get a slick mailer with a dire message from the Boulder Smart Energy Coalition, remember that these “concerned citizens” have gotten $250,000 (so far) from Xcel.  Full disclosure: I’m not getting paid a penny to write this.

The truth is that there are a number of bad things that could happen if Boulder stays with Xcel.  Some are catastrophic, and less likely, but some bad things are virtually certain to happen.  The first, and worst, is that Boulder citizens will continue to subsidize growth elsewhere in the state.  Colorado is projected to double in size to between 9 and 10 million people by 2050.  Xcel will build many new, large generating facilities to serve its share of 5,000,000 new electricity consumers, and these facilities will be built well in advance of need and will be paid for by existing Xcel customers, including the citizens of Boulder.   But, that growth might not happen, you say.   That’s even worse–Boulder will be stuck paying off plants that have no customers.  It’s a lose-lose proposition and is certain to occur if we stick with Xcel.

Another bad thing is that Boulder will certainly continue to pay profits to Xcel shareholders and bonuses to its management, only a very small portion of which will return to Xcel shareholders who happen to live in Boulder.   And, Xcel’s administrative costs will continue to leave Boulder (their headquarters are in Minneapolis).

Things could get even worse. Xcel is a publicly traded company, and investors, who set share prices, demand quarter-to-quarter revenue growth.  There is no guarantee that Xcel management won’t make decisions that increase our electric rates and compromise reliability in order to feed that growth addition.  Pshaw, you say?  In fact, just such a thing happened to Montana Power, which would have been a 100-year-old company if it had survived until next year.  Bored by by life in a regulated utility, MPC’s CEO, with help from Goldman Sachs and some slick lobbying, got a last-minute bill passed by the Montana Legislature to de-regulate electricity.  MPC sold all of its generation and transmission assets and all of its natural gas infrastructure and got out of the utility business altogether.  It invested the money in a small fiber optic firm called Touch America, which soon was worth pennies on the dollar.  In Butte, the last working copper mine was forced to close when electricity rates increased up to 20 times, and many of those folks in Montana who were faced with skyrocketing electric rates were also MPC shareholders, who now owned worthless Touch America stock.  The only things standing between Boulder electric consumers and the greediest investors, managers and investment bankers are the Colorado State Legislature and the Public Utilities Commission.  Not a very comforting thought.

Voting no on Ballot Issues 2B and 2C will end any effort that could prevent these bad things from happening to Boulder.   I strongly urge a Yes vote on 2B and 2C to allow us to examine the costs and benefits of municipalization.  Those benefits include bringing control of our electricity supply into our own community, ending our subsidy of growth elsewhere in the state, and keeping profits and administrative expenses in our local economy.

Rate this article: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 2.67 out of 5)