Opinion: Bad process, worse outcome on Xcel ballot proposal


Over the last months, Boulder officials had a number of closed-door meetings with Xcel Energy. They appear to be following the rules for executive sessions (rejected by the voters in 2017) where nothing is revealed other than the basic topics. Given this lack of information, citizens attempting to provide input in the public comment sessions were unable to give detailed feedback.
These agreements, almost 100 pages of dense text, are now public, and predictably, have serious flaws. For example, a critical question is enforceability: What happens if Xcel doesn’t live up to the terms? The only recourse provided is for Boulder to “opt out” of the agreements. The first real opportunity is five years after the Public Utilities Commission approves the agreements. 2026 at the soonest and very far in the future.
Worse, the agreement’s “opt out” language is completely garbled: “The city will notify the company that it will end the franchise, if by vote of the City Council or of its intent to refer the question to the voters and the next scheduled regular or special election, within 30 days after the five-, 10-, or 15-year anniversary of the date the PUC approves this franchise.” But apparently our attorneys approved this language.
There is an earlier exit option in 2023 if Xcel doesn’t meet specified emissions reduction numbers. But the chances of that happening are very low, since Xcel already has a plan to meet these targets. And the 2030 state requirements will be reviewed on an annual basis by the PUC and Air Quality Control Commission, and changes enforced as necessary. Besides, if Boulder exits, the City Council loses the $4 million per year “franchise fee” (a tax imposed by Xcel on customers’ energy bills), so the council has a strong incentive to stay, irrespective.
The fundamental problem with this enforcement mechanism is that it assumes that Xcel really cares whether Boulder is under franchise or not. The biggest threat to Xcel’s monopoly has been Boulder’s pursuit of municipalization.
Xcel makes money by putting its capital into power generation facilities, transmission lines, etc. (collectively, the “rate base”) on which it earns an exorbitant rate of return on this almost risk-free investment. So for Xcel, more customers mean more demand, more investments, and more profits. But if Boulder municipalizes and buys cheaper and cleaner power elsewhere, other cities will surely follow, and Xcel’s profits will tank. It’s as simple as that.
Xcel is quite aware that, after citizens and city staffers have spent 10 years battling Xcel’s obstructionist legal maneuvers, if the City Council members abandon that effort now – especially after many of them promised to wait until the full cost data becomes available next year – that municipalization’s momentum will be lost. So, even if Boulder were to exit its franchise in 2026, Xcel would not be harmed because Boulder would just keep buying electricity from Xcel. This lack of consequence seems to have eluded some of our officials.
The franchise agreement also denies Boulder the right to use Xcel’s poles for broadband cable. So Boulder could not follow Longmont’s lead and have cheaper and faster public broadband service. But the agreement does allow Xcel to lease pole space to private for-profit cable companies. That’s not OK.
The provision that allows Boulder to recover the last 10 years of unpaid undergrounding money is inequitable. Undergrounding is paid for by all of Xcel’s customers; it doesn’t cost Xcel a dime. So Boulder’s “benefit” imposes higher rates on everyone on the system, whether franchised or not. Instead, Boulder should file a lawsuit to finally force Xcel to follow the state law that requires equal treatment, and provide undergrounding to all cities and counties in Xcel’s territory.
The “energy partnership” has lots of grand ideas, but is lacking in detailed deliverables with specific due dates. So measuring Xcel’s interim performance would be subjective. Besides, implementing many of these items requires PUC or legislative approval. Also, the “energy partnership” fails to equitably resolve how jointly implemented projects will be managed technically and financially.
I could go on, but the basic point is clear: These agreements are not even close to being ready for the ballot. The council should take as long as necessary to detail specific results, costs, and timelines. Council members should put in more frequent “opt outs.” And they should add terms so that upon “opting out,” municipalization can be more quickly accomplished and at a lower cost. This includes pricing Xcel’s assets at “rate base” values, eliminating stranded asset claims, rejecting the “going concern” notion, and minimizing separation needs.


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