Opinion: The next step toward a cleaner energy future


Ballot Item 2B, the Five Year Utility Occupation Tax to Replace Lost Franchise Fee Revenue, has perhaps the longest ballot title since I`ve been involved in Boulder politics. But it is a crucial issue in November`s election. Let me explain a bit about 2B and how it came about.
Ballot Item 2B would safeguard the city`s financial ability to deliver services by simply replacing the franchise fee we already pay on our Xcel bills when the current 20-year Xcel franchise expires at the end of December. So 2B is not a new tax, in spite of what the mandatory ballot language required by the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) says. In fact, 2B is designed so that our energy bills will not increase — we will pay essentially the same amount as we would have otherwise paid, just under a different name.
Even without a franchise, Xcel is required to continue delivering both electricity and natural gas to its Boulder customers. And if Xcel temporarily extends the franchise past December and continues to collect and remit the franchise fee, the 2B occupation tax will not go into effect, so there will be no double-taxation.
Ever since the Boulder City Council made it a goal to meet the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas reduction targets, the council has been interested in exploring ways to supply more renewable energy for Boulder residents and businesses. The objectives are two-fold: to reduce our environmental impact, both locally from pollution and coal ash, and globally from carbon dioxide`s effect on climate change; and to help ensure long term price stability, since as fossil fuels become scarcer, costs will inevitably escalate.
Until this year, the city`s focus has been on the “demand side,” that is, looking at ways to increase energy efficiency. Now the issue has been expanded to include the “supply side” — identifying ways to reduce the CO2 output from the generation of the electric energy that we consume.
Committing to a 20-year franchise would preclude options other than those Xcel might offer. And unfortunately, Xcel so far has refused to work with the city on this unless the city signs another 20-year franchise. Thus, 2B is a necessary step toward a cleaner energy future because it ensures that the city can continue to fund services, like fire, police, parks, libraries, recreation centers, etc., while evaluating its options, but without being limited by a 20-year commitment to a single utility provider like Xcel.
With the passage of 2B, the city can negotiate freely and fairly with energy companies, including Xcel, for a future with more renewable energy implemented in a way that maintains reasonable utility rates. 2B`s five-year term should give us enough time to evaluate these new opportunities. But without 2B, the city may be forced into a situation of having to make some unpleasant choices about what services to cut (e.g. pitching libraries against recreation centers), and thus may be forced to accept less-than-favorable terms from energy providers.
I have been very encouraged over the last few months by the level of interest that has been shown in providing energy services to Boulder. Apparently, we are in the right time window for this enterprise, and Boulder is proving to be an attractive venue. Experienced energy and service companies have already committed time and money to evaluate our situation and see what they can do to help us pursue a cleaner energy future with more stable rates. We could end up creating new local jobs, attracting significant outside investment, and putting Boulder in a position to be a leader in innovative energy technology.
One of the great things about our city charter is that the voters generally have the final say on issues of this importance. So once the options are fully developed, the citizens of Boulder will be the ones considering whether to accept an as-yet-unformulated proposal by Xcel, some new opportunity created by the Legislature, the creation of a municipally owned utility like Fort Collins, Longmont, and Colorado Springs have, or some hybrid that we have not yet conceived of. Exploring these opportunities will include identifying who will supply what kind of energy, how the system will be operated, and, probably most importantly, how our energy system will be governed — who will make decisions and how they will get made.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more