[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Voting against acceptance of conditions for municipalization and 3rd party review

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Wilson, Ken

In the interest of time during tomorrow's council meeting, I wanted to state why I will not be voting in favor of one of the items on the consent agenda.

I will be voting against the acceptance of the 3rd party review of municipalization and finding that the conditions precedent to formation of an electric power and light utility of Charter Section 178(a) have been satisfied.  The council is basing acceptance of this ordinance on the 3rd party analysis of Power Services of the city's plan for municipalization.  The following are the top three problems I have with the Power Services analysis:

First, major assumptions such as acquisition costs, stranded costs and other costs were not evaluated.  These were the assumptions of the Base Materials, which were not evaluated by the 3rd party per contract.  The costs incurred during acquisition are a major factor in the affordability of creating a municipal utility.

Second, Power Services did not look at the City's current model runs that are now being used for Council's decisions.  Power Services used a previous version, which was very different.  No analysis has been done by a third party of the current, improved model runs, which show outcomes that are quite different, and show a less promising picture for the proposed utility.  The new model runs fix some problems and create others.

Third, Separation Plan and costs - Power Services reviewed the wrong separation plan.  The plan they reviewed did not include the transmission loop and additional substation elements that are now part of the City's plan.  In addition, Power Services does not talk about the risk of not being allowed by the court and PUC to actually condemn all of the Xcel assets that are being proposed.  Power Services also does not review separation costs under different scenarios, or if they did, they are not discussing their findings.  These costs are only available in confidential material that is not available to the public for critique, but were probably available to the consultant.  

These omissions in the report are not the fault of Power Services as they were not given the time or the authority to evaluate the details described above.

Finally, we are essentially being asked to take the Power Services report on faith.  There is no forum for cross examination of Power Services personnel by experts who have had access to the same information.  This would never be acceptable in a Public Utility Commission docket, where multiple intervenors, their attorneys and experts can review all the information and cross examine witnesses.

Ken Wilson