Laserfiche WebLink
i p @LoUd srf REpkmo f Iha Path �@ WMnodp&R&&Tafi� <br /> Ii <br /> t : <br /> physical separation would involve engineer- tric utility.The second asked for a temporary city would go forward only if rates wou' <br /> 1 ing studies; and the issue of stranded costs increase in the occupancy tax to provide comparable to Xcel's at the time the utilitl <br /> would be an issue requiring a determination $1.9 million per year to ca out the nec- formed. The idea of"off-rams became <br /> q g P Y nY p „ <br /> at the federal level by FERC. However,such essary studies and to hire legal counsel to important selling point.If costs proved to <br /> studies could not be carried out without a pursue the key cost issues at the state and as prohibitive as Xcel indicated, the muni <br /> resolution of intent by the voters. federal levels. palization process would come to a halt. <br /> In 2011, the Boulder City Council put "The issue we put to the voters was sim- Public discussion was intense. "I deb <br /> the issue of potential municipalization to ply `do you want us to move forward in ed representatives speaking for Xcel in pt <br /> the voters. Two hard-fought measures ap- our exploration of this option or not?"' said lic forums seven times," said Weaver. "X, <br /> peared on the November ballot. The first Huntley. The authorization to issue bonds made it an issue of cost and told the vot <br /> rr authorized the city to issue bonds to acquire to acquire Xcel's electric distribution system initial costs would make it prohibitive. <br /> the Xcel system and start a municipal elec- would be contingent upon the cost,and the argued the start-up costs in our model wf <br /> reasonable." <br /> "We still don't believe Boulder can de <br /> r ` J I the way they describe it,"said Xcel's Jeror <br /> Davis. "We don't believe they can have b. <br /> 's ter rates or reliability than us, and have <br /> j c I C_J much higher renewable mix. We've nei <br /> believed that." <br /> ` Although Xcel outspent the local adv <br /> cacy groups 10-to-1, the measures passe <br /> The vote to charter a local utility was 52 pi <br /> r< ` ' cent in favor, 48 percent opposed, and t <br /> vote to use tax dollars for engineering ar <br /> legal fees was even closer. <br /> ` The pathway 4arrwavdl will be c <br /> — plex and protracted and will not necess <br /> lead to municipalization. "Our anticipati( <br /> { has always been it will be a three- to fi-v <br /> �. year process," said Driskell. "This year i <br /> are focusing on getting our legal teams <br /> J place,hiring an executive director of ener, <br /> strategy and utility development a tw <br /> I year position—updating our Climate Actic <br /> Plan,developing an Energy Action Plan,at <br /> preparing for a vote in November 2012 <br /> extend the carbon tax that we have used <br /> _. _, fund [demand-side management] and e <br /> . the ergy efficiency programs over the past ft and <br /> ''• energy projects. years." <br /> Two legal battles loom.One is at the sto <br /> As part of a global organization level,a relatively routine condemnation pr <br /> utility-scale with plants across cess that could be avoided if Xcel is willing <br /> , bring ,. negotiate.The two sides are said to be abo <br /> of experience „ expertise to $50 million apart in terms of estimated val <br /> - o of Xcel's assets,but the spread for initial n <br /> every proj <br /> gotiation is another matter. <br /> Stranded costs will likely be the me <br /> contentious long-term issue. "We consi <br /> ered the issue of stranded costs when <br /> developed our initial cost model and 0 <br /> city determined at that time that we <br /> not owe Xcel anything. Boulder's posita <br /> 858.521.3300 Toll free:888.903.6926 wwwenXco.com is that Xcel should not have made inve: <br /> �,,, ments with any expectation that ratepaye <br />