Opinion: The Xcel franchise, the Valmont coal ash cleanup and a clarification

As many of you know, the city’s 2020 Franchise Agreement with Xcel grants Xcel exclusive rights to deliver electricity in Boulder for 20 years. But Xcel also agreed to give Boulder the right to exit the franchise every five years. This year, 2025, is the first opportunity.

The money for undergrounding powerlines, which Xcel denied Boulder during the 10 years we were out of franchise, has been committed for that purpose. So that concern is resolved. And the Legislature finally clarified existing state law guaranteeing equal treatment for all customers to ensure that all Xcel-served areas get undergrounding money, whether in franchise or not.

According to all reports I’ve received, the Xcel-Boulder advisory panel, created as part of the 2020 settlement with Xcel, has not produced much of consequence. Thus, there is a significant level of dissatisfaction with what Boulder has gotten, and some enthusiasm for pursuing an alternate path. This dissatisfaction was strongly amplified by Xcel’s ill-considered proposal last year to frequently and preemptively shut off power during high wind warnings to avoid wildfire risks rather than improving the lines.

Given the above, my suggestion is that the city forcibly negotiate a deal with Xcel where Xcel agrees to deliver specifics on a set timeline. And in exchange, the city agrees to not exit the franchise now, but rather to extend the 2025 exit date by a few years.

These specifics would include (1) bringing all transmission and distribution lines up to a standard to withstand 100+ MPH winds, and not fail as they did on Sunday night for almost 7,400 customers, and power was shut down again for some customers on Wednesday and will be shut down again; (2) installing alternate connections for all critical facilities, like water treatment plants, so that if one part of the grid fails, they will still receive power; and (3) building micro-grids, so areas of the city can be separated off from the rest of the grid and be able to share local PV power (solar), generators, batteries, etc. This should include an equitable rate design so that people who own PV panels don’t have to sell their excess power to Xcel at a discount.

An additional issue relates to the coal ash cleanup at Xcel’s now defunct Valmont coal plant. From what I’ve heard, Xcel’s plan is to convert the coal ash into a precursor for making concrete. Coal ash is a toxic material and not something we want blowing around. Thus, it’s critically important that there is an independent third party monitoring the air quality where Xcel does the processing, with enforceable consequences if Xcel allows the ash to end up in nearby residential areas or Sombrero Marsh.

Unfortunately, the County has recently shut down their air quality monitoring over budgetary concerns. So, one other piece of the city-Xcel negotiations should be an Xcel commitment to fund the County’s installation and operation of the appropriate monitoring equipment so Xcel can be held accountable for keeping the ash out of the air and water. Although the plant is not with Boulder’s city limits, the wind here can blow from any direction. So, this can easily become a problem in Boulder.

I recently heard that Xcel may also be considering importing some coal ash from another Metro area coal plant to be treated here. In my opinion, trucking a toxic and easily spread material would be a big mistake. Better to treat it on site.

Then there’s the issue of Xcel’s Comanche Three coal-fired power plant near Pueblo that will be retired in around five years. It was built about 20 years ago right in the face of global warming, which was well understood then, and so should never have been allowed. And worse, if that’s possible, it has been unreliable. We should not have to pay Xcel a single dollar more of cost recovery on the hundreds of millions of dollars they invested in this wasteful, polluting anachronism. And let’s make sure that its ash isn’t foisted on us.

A clarification: Regarding my last column, a few people commented to me that they thought I was saying that Boulder’s budget had gone up over $100 million each year over the last decades, making the overall increase way more than a billion. That is not what I meant. What I did was to compare the city’s 2006 and 2024 annual budgets after adjusting them for population growth and inflation. The increase over that 18-year interval was well over $100 million in 2024 dollars, somewhat over 20%. Sorry for the confusion!

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

Opinion: Why is Boulder sending out another biased survey?

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.”  Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future. In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing cost...
Read more