[BoulderCouncilHotline] Study session input - municipal electricity system

[Weaver, Sam]

Fellow Council Members and HOTLINE followers,

I will be unable to attend the study session tonight for personal reasons.  Below are my thoughts on our Local Power/Municipalization Update portion of our agenda.

I would like to start my comments with a bit of context.  Due to many years of under-investment in its critical infrastructure, Pacific Gas and Electric has cut off electrical power yesterday and today to 600,000 'customers', which means electrical meters, which affects millions of human beings. Think of those who depend on electric wheel-chairs, oxygen systems, house lights, and communication devices and now have no source of convenient electricity.

Monopoly for-profit electricity suppliers have 3 constituencies: their shareholders, their ratepayers (not-necessarily-willing customers), and their regulators.  Municipal electricity providers, as well as rural electric associations are also typically distribution monopolies, with one crucial difference - the management practices of these muni and REA systems are directly decided democratically at the local ballot box.  The voters can determine the power procurement practices and planning of their local distribution system, which is crucial to the 3 D's that Boulder is pursuing: decarbonization, decentralization, and democratization.  The management practices of vertically-integrated for-profit monopoly electric utilities are negotiated with state legislatures and public utilities commissions, which is a much less direct, less transparent, and less effective control system than local control.  Municipal electric systems have rates that are typically 15% lower than investor-owned utilities, because share-holder profit is not in the picture.  That extra margin can be invested by municipal systems in undergrounding of wires, micro-grids, and other community-serving resilience measures.

Many have died tragically in PG&E territory due to their poor system investment, as evidenced by their current bankruptcy and current intentional power outages to prevent more loss of life and liability.  The Hobson's choice that PG&E is making (will the loss of life be less in cutting power to a majority of California counties, or in starting fires with our poorly maintained poles and wires) should not be in Boulder's future.  Like Fort Collins with 8 times better reliability than Boulder, or Longmont with 4 times better reliability than Boulder, we can choose to join with more resilient and reliable communities with local control of their power systems.

My comments and questions:


  1.  As usual, our staff has done a wonderful job of summarizing where we are in this process.  Onward to condemnation, and boy would it be nice if our state legislators and governor asked that Xcel be more cooperative with local communities and their choices.
  2.  To the perennial critics of our muni efforts, I will quote staff: "Over the past several years, Boulder and city taxpayers have invested valuable resources to strengthening energy codes, begin climate-friendly transportation initiatives, work with local and regional partners to advocate for regulatory changes and many other initiatives. As a result, the city's most recent Greenhouse Gas inventory for 2018 indicated that the city had achieved an 18% reduction in greenhouse emissions." This is fantastic progress, and thanks to the Boulder community for supporting it.
  3.  Xcel's Electric Resource Plan as filed currently calls for 45% fossil fuel supply in 2027.  Yet its state requirements will be 80% emissions reduction (from a 2005 baseline) by 2030.  A few questions:
     *   How does Xcel plan to bridge this huge divide between 2027 and 2030?
     *   What will be the ratepayer impact of shutting down Comanche 3 before 2069?  Is that part of the plan between 2027 and 2030?  If not, how on earth will the 80% emissions reduction be achieved?
     *   Why on earth is Xcel, in the face of this legislation, trying to acquire ownership of 400 MW of natural gas (fossil methane) generation?  Given that even with modest leakage rates, fossil methane is more deadly to our planet than burning coal, why would we be perpetuating either?  What is the City perspective on this acquisition?  How are we pursuing out position?
     *   If we are forced to remain with Xcel, or the voters of Boulder choose to do so, is there a pathway to require that Boulder's share of the electricity generation is done with no carbon emissions?
     *   Given that carbon-free electricity generating technologies are now cheaper than coal, how can we enable more local input into Xcel's energy mix?
     *   How can Boulder participate with reviewing and commenting on the current state and future plans for our city distribution system? Why did Xcel not work on a path toward a local input mechanism in the 2017 settlement negotiations?
     *   Could staff once again explain our options around stranded costs?  Perennial muni critics claim that we do not understand this process, so a few sentences about what the risks and opportunities are around stranded costs would be great.  It is clear that the largest costs will be determined in condemnation court, but those bringing up fear/uncertainty/doubt issues continue to harp on stranded assets issues.  Please speak a bit on whether there is new information on stranded assets law, and how we could ease off of the Xcel system over time to potentially make stranded assets a non-issue.
  4.  Finally, one of the persistent critics of our clean electricity works speaks of carbon offsets often (though they uses different words that mean the same thing). Given that there is deep skepticism about these mechanisms (https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/carbon-offsets-are-not-our-get-out-jail-free-card , https://www.propublica.org/article/these-4-arguments-cant-overcome-the-facts-about-carbon-offsets-for-forest-preservation and many others), what is the City position on carbon offsets/RECs/other-remote-action programs?

Thanks to all for the great work!

All the best,

Sam Weaver
Mayor Pro Tem
Boulder City Council
weavers at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:weavers at bouldercolorado.gov>
Phone: 303-416-6130

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20191010/5dc5cc04/attachment.html