See The Light Boulder!See The Light Boulder!

1

What is our Goal:

• Our goal is to provide Municipalization information (light) to the Public that the City of Boulder doesn’t or won’t provide, or won’t provide without extra cost and persistence.

• Our goal includes the same goal that the Municipalization effort claims is their goal. The smartest and best way to reduce Boulder’s carbon footprint.

2

3

4

The Muni EffortPast

PresentFuture

ResponsibilityThe Past:The vote

5

2011 2b (utility occupation tax)

Votes Percent To reverse this vote

For the measure

13,353 50.40% 212 votes changed from yes to no

Against the measure 13,141 49.60% To lose the vote

Total Votes 26,494 (105) votes changed

from yes to no

2011

The next vote to continue this funding will occur this year or next year.

Otherwise the Muni will be drawing money from the General Fund that seems to be used as a blank check.

If the vote is put off for a year, that will say a lot.

6

The Present

• Too Much Time (3.5 years)• Too Much Money ($14 million)• Too Little Transparency• Too Little Potential Outcome

7

The FutureFaster, cheaper, better, smarter.

• Here are two suggestions that are faster, cheaper, better, and smarter than Municipalization.

• WindSource – Worked Yesterday and Works Today• Buy REC’s – Perfect for a Paper Power Company

REC’s = Renewable Energy Certificates

8

From Boulder Climate Action Plan https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2010-2011-community-guide-to-boulders-climate-action-plan-1-201305081156.pdfBoulder emissions 2010 - 1,896,068 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) [page 9 paragraph 1, and page 10 Table 1]

Boulder’s annual per capita emissions, 18.3 mtCO2e [page 9 paragraph 2] 1,896,068.00 Total emissions

18.3 per capita emissions

103,610.27 estimated population

Current emissions Rate per MWh1,906.06 lbs CO2e/MWh [page 11 paragraph 1]

Goal1,440 lbs CO2e/MWh [page 11 paragraph 2]

Difference = necessary reduction466.06 lbs CO2e/MWh = 1,906.06 - 1440.00

2010 total Electric consumption [page 34 - Energy Metrics figure]1,349,488,508 kWh

1,349,489 MWh2010 total Electric emissions

2,572,206,066 lbs CO2e/MWh = 1,349,489 MWH x 1,906.06 lbs CO@e/MWh2010 total Electric emissions Goal

1,943,263,452 lbs CO2e/MWh = 1,349,489 MWH x 1,440 lbs CO@e/MWh2010 difference = necessary reduction

628,942,614 lbs CO2e/MWh = 2,572,206,066 - 1,943,263,452285,235 Metric tons CO2e/MWh = 628,942,614 / 2,205 lbs/metric ton329,970 Equivalent MWh reduction = 628,942,614 lbs CO2e/MWh divided by 1,906.06 lbs CO2e/MWh

WindSource @ $21.60/ MWh

7,127,351.95$ Annual cost of meeting Kyoto requirements using WindSource = 329,970 MWh x $21.6/MWh

0.0053$ Net increase per KWh to meet Kyoto Requirements using WindSource = $7,127,351.95/1,349,488,506 kWh

5.77% Percent increase per KWh to meet Kyoto Requirements using WindSource = $0.0053/.0915

29,148,951.77$ Annual cost of 100% clean electric using WindSource = 1,349,489 MWh x $21.6/MWh

0.0216$ Net increase per KWh to be 100% clean electric using WindSource = $29,148,951.77/1,349,488,506 kWh

23.61% Percent increase per KWh to be 100% clean electric using WindSource = $0.0216/.0915

Current Boulder Taxes1,900,000.00$ Annual cost of Occupation Tax

6,612,493.69$ Annual cost of CAP tax @ $0.0049 /KWh

8,512,493.69$ Total Tax

(1,385,141.74)$ Annual SAVINGS while meeting Kyoto requirements if Occupation Tax and CAP Tax are excluded

(0.00103)$ Net SAVINGS per KWh while meeting Kyoto Requirements using WindSource if Occupation Tax and CAP tax are NOT excluded.

20,636,458.08$ Annual additional cost of 100% clean electric if Occupation Tax and CAP Tax are excluded

0.01529$ Net increase per KWh for 100% clean electric using WindSource if Occupation Tax and CAP tax are excluded.

17% Percent increase per KWh for 100% clean electric using WindSource if Occupation Tax and CAP tax are excluded.

Xcel charges a premium of 2.16 cents kWh for Windsource purchases. But Windsource purchase are exempt from Boulder's Climate Action Plan Tax (0.0049 cents/kWh for residential), so for Boulder residents the net additional cost to participate in Windsource is 2.1557 cents/kWh. So for a Boulder residence that uses the statewide average of 8,139 kWh/year, that works out to around $14.62/month to go 100 percent renewable. Since the average cost per kWh is $0.0915 /kWh that means the increase is about 24% vs. Boulder's planned 30+% increase in a best-case scenario.

Using WindSource for 100% of Boulder to have carbon free

electricity would increase rates

24%

Boulder30% rate increaseBest-case-scenario

for 50% renewables.

9

Current Boulder emissions 2010 - 1,896,068 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) [page 9 paragraph 1, and page 10 Table 1]

Boulder’s annual per capita emissions, 18.3 mtCO2e [page 9 paragraph 2] 1,896,068.00 Total emissions

18.3 per capita emissions

103,610.27 estimated population

Current emissions Rate per MWh1,906.06 lbs CO2e/MWh [page 11 paragraph 1]

Goal1,440 lbs CO2e/MWh [page 11 paragraph 2]

Difference = necessary reduction466.06 lbs CO2e/MWh = 1,906.06 - 1440.00

2010 total Electric consumption [page 34 - Energy Metrics figure]1,349,488,508 kWh

1,349,489 MWh2010 total Electric emissions

2,572,206,066 lbs CO2e/MWh = 1,349,489 MWH x 1,906.06 lbs CO@e/MWh2010 total Electric emissions Goal

1,943,263,452 lbs CO2e/MWh = 1,349,489 MWH x 1,440 lbs CO@e/MWh2010 difference = necessary reduction to meet Boulder goals

628,942,614 lbs CO2e/MWh = 2,572,206,066 - 1,943,263,452285,235 Metric tons CO2e/MWh = 628,942,614 / 2,205 lbs/metric ton329,970 Equivalent MWh reduction = 628,942,614 lbs CO2e/MWh divided by 1,906.06 lbs CO2e/MWh

REC's @ $1.10/MWh

362,967.00$ Annual cost of meeting Kyoto requirements using REC's = 329,970 MWh x $1.1/MWh

0.00027$ Net increase per kWh to meet Kyoto requirements using REC's = $362,967/1,349,489

0.29% Percent increase per KWh to meet Kyoto requirements using REC's = 0.00027/0.0915

1,484,437.36$ Annual cost of 100% clean electric using REC's = 1,349,489 MWh x $1.1/MWh

0.0011$ Net increase per kWh to have100% clean electric using REC's = $1,484,437.36/1,349,489

1.20% Percent increase per KWh to have 100% clean electric using REC's = 0.0011/0.0915

1,900,000.00$ Annual cost of Occupation Tax6,612,493.69$ Annual cost of CAP tax @ $0.0049 /KWh8,512,493.69$ Total Current Tax.

Using REC’s for 100% of Boulder to

have carbon free electricity would increase rates 1.2% to 1.5%

Boulder30% rate increaseBest-case-scenario

for 50% renewables.

10REC’s video

Responsibility

• Who decides the off-ramp?

• Is Boulder Energy Future Responsible?• NO

• City Council are the ones who decide.• City Council are the ones who are responsible.

11

There are Faster, Cheaper, Better, and Smarter Alternatives. We 582 petition for

financial facts.

The time has come for Boulder City

Council to provide a detailed financial

update on the status of the

possible outcomes of the

Municipalization effort. Superficial statements of a

“sound” or “robust” financial

status are no longer adequate.

12

13

But wait, there’s more!

Boulder could provide solar incentives especially at optimal locations, and perhaps in the future directly buy REC’s from residents and businesses.

14

City Council - please provide the facts that will allow us to critically review the current and modeled future financial status of Municipalization.

Without Gunbarrel customers and Xcel's assets in the separation area.

Prove that Municipalization is still a viable option that is better than WindSource or REC’s. Sign the petition - MuniMoneyFacts

15

16

Facility Location Capacity In-service Date

Ponnequin Weld County (just south of the Wyoming border) 26 MW 1998

Foot Creek III Wyoming 25 MW 1999

Ridgecrest Peetz, Colorado 30 MW 2001

Colorado Green Lamar, Colorado 162 MW 2004

Cedar Creek Grover, Colorado 300 MW 2007

Logan Wind Peetz, Colorado 201 MW 2007

Peetz Table Peetz, Colorado 200 MW 2007

Twin Buttes Lamar, Colorado 75 MW 2007

Northern Colorado Wind Peetz, Colorado 174 MW 2009

NREL/National Wind Testing Center Golden, Colorado 10 MW 2010

Cedar Creek II Weld County, Colorado 251 MW 2011

Cedar Point Wind Lincoln & Elbert Counties, Colorado 252 MW 2011

Limon Wind I Lincoln & Elbert Counties, Colorado 200 MW 2012

Limon Wind II Lincoln County, Colorado 200 MW 2012

In 2013, Xcel Energy announced plans and received utility commission approval to purchase power from two new projects totaling about 450 megawatts, increasing our system total to about 2,600 megawatts over the next several years. The additions are expected to save Colorado customers about $231 million in fuel costs over 20 years.

17

2011 ($830,000) 2012 ($1,477,254) 2013 ($3,851,935) 2014 ($2,312,000)2011-2014 Loss of Undergrounding

($4,800,000) Dollars 830,000 1,477,254 3,851,935 2,312,000 4,800,000 Cumulative Dollars 830,000 2,307,254 6,159,189 8,471,189 13,271,189

Startup (34,809,558)

Assets and Stranded ??

(214,000,000)

Additional Stranded?? (25M

to 122M)

Separation (10,000,000)

Enterprise/Going Concern

(100,000,000) Dollars 34,809,558 214,000,000 25,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000 Cumulative Dollars 48,080,747 262,080,747 287,080,747 297,080,747 397,080,747

Total +/- = $397 million

18

Xcel Undergrounding Projects Xcel Energy invested over the years about $19.5 million through the “one percent fund” to convert power lines to underground in Boulder. As a favor to the city, Xcel Energy allowed Boulder to carry forward about $350,000 of unspent funds from 2010 (when the franchised expired) into in 2011 (after the franchise expired) to convert power lines along East Pearl Parkway at Boulder Junction. Other “one percent” projects include:- All of 28th St from the Turnpike to Iris- 30th St. – Walnut to Pearl- Arapahoe from west of Folsom to east of Foothills Parkway- Majority of Pearl St, Canyon, Walnut, Broadway, Spruce, Iris, Valmont

19

20

Shall the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7920, to limit the portion of bonds or other obligations issued for the purpose of purchasing or otherwise acquiring the existing assets of the electric system and for paying stranded costs in one complete payment to an amount not-to-exceed $214 million, which amount may be increased annually by the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index, and without limiting the authority of the utility to issue bonds or other obligations in any amount for all other lawful purposes in compliance with the Charter and other applicable laws, and without limiting the authority of the utility to pay stranded costs as a part of rates rather than as one complete payment; and limiting the underlying fees and other costs of issuance of the bonds to amounts paid by other similarly situated utilities; limiting the utility’s service area to an area supporting safe and reliable service to its customers; providing for elections at special or general elections; requiring the utility advisory board to advise the council on rate making; providing for customer choice for out of city customers; for out of city customers to be represented on the utility advisory board; and to provide that, if this ballot question receives more votes than all other initiatives which pertain to debt limitations or the adoption of a new Section 188 of the city Charter, then this measure shall become law and such other initiatives shall not be implemented?

21

In the Colorado Supreme Court case of Mountain States Telephone and Telegralph v. DiFede, that's D-I-F-E-D-E, I have a copy if Your Honor would like a copy today. That's 780 P.2d 533, 1989. The Court found that a privilege against nondisclosure is waived if the party seeking to protect the information puts the information at issue, and I think the record is going to show here today, Your Honor, the City has continuously and repeatedly put at issue its modeling, and more specifically for today's purposes, cash flow modeling. It was essential to the analysis, to the conclusion the City reached, that it could meet the Charter requirements.

It's proud of its analysis, justifiably so. It's extraordinary sophisticated. But having put it at issue, and having publicized it repeatedly, it can't now say, I'm sorry, you're not allowed to see what's inside of it.

22

23

2011 2c (charter requirements for electric utility)Votes Percent To reverse this vote

For the measure 13,784 51.93% 1,027 votesAgainst the measure 12,757 48.07% To lose the vote

26,541 (513) votes change from yes to no-1.93%

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

votes

For the measure

Against the measure

Spreadsheet

24

Google Earth