In just three weeks, citizens of Boulder, CO, will vote on whether to begin a big, formal process to unplug from Xcel Energy's system and plug into local energy self-reliance. The vote to form a municipal electric utility could set a precedent for communities across the United States to keep millions of dollars local instead of sending them to remote electric utilities each year.
The vote on ballot measures 2B and 2C is the culmination of a multi-year struggle by the city of Boulder meet the Kyoto greenhouse gas emission targets by getting less coal power and more renewable energy from its investor-owned utility.
At every turn, the utility has stalled local efforts.
When the city first considered municipalization, Xcel offered to finance and build a local smart grid but has since been allowed by the state's public utility commission to charge Coloradans for significant cost overruns. When the city asked Xcel to bring in more clean energy, the utility offered to build a new wind plant and import its power from across the state only if Boulder citizens agreed to pay more when the wind blew and pay when it didn't, too. Despite the ill nature of the offer, the city offered to put it on the ballot along with a vote to municipalize, but Xcel refused, demanding that the city also offer citizens a separate "status quo" measure.
In contrast, a Boulder-owned utility offers enormous clean energy and economic opportunity without having to beg a big, private company. The city could increase renewable energy production by 40% from multiple, local sources without increasing rates, according to a citizen-led peer-reviewed study. The economic value of local energy ownership would multiply within the city's economy to as much as $350 million a year, according to research by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
But with $100 million a year in revenues from Boulder ratepayers on the line, Xcel's fight is getting as dirty as its nearby Cherokee coal plant. Xcel has dumped over $450,000 into a vote no campaign, 10 times the expenditures of the grassroots groups supporting the municipalization ballot measure. The utility's front group has flogged a web advertisement that falsely asserts that electricity will be unreliable if the city has control, even though 1 in 7 Americans gets their (reliable) electricity from municipal utilities. Xcel has posted job notices on light poles offering residents up to $12 an hour to work as "grassroots" utility flaks. And in a purely spiteful move, Xcel also succeeded in banning Boulder resident Leslie Glustrom from participating at the Public Utilities Commission, where she had asked tough questions about Xcel's new coal power plants and proposed rate increases.
Locals are fighting back. Citizens for Boulder's Clean Energy Future has organized a crack team of technical and financial experts to model the impact of the municipal utility and is pounding the pavement to counter Xcel's campaign of misinformation. The coalition has received endorsements from dozens of local elected officials and businesses, two local newspapers, and nearly one thousand residents. Even President Obama's former green jobs advisor Van Jones starred in a video endorsing Boulder's effort for local energy self-reliance.
The battle for local control isn't just in Boulder. Recently a number of Massachusetts towns have pursued municipal electric plants when the private electric company took too long to restore power after Hurricane Irene. And in nearby Longmont, CO, citizens may vote to use their existing fiber optic network to provide better Internet broadband services (if citizens can overcome the $250,000 being spent by private providers CenturyLink and Comcast).
The stakes are high. Buying electricity from Xcel sends $100 million out of the Boulder economy each year, and helps perpetuate a centrally controlled grid reliant on coal-fired power (and often hostile to wind power). Ratepayers across America may not have the chance to weigh in on Boulder's vote this November, but they should watch intently (and donate if they like), because Boulder citizens may be firing the first "shot heard round the world" for local control of their clean energy future.
Follow John Farrell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnffarrell
Bill Meadows: The Trillion Dollar American Job Engine
and here you can see al other sorts of endorsers... http://www.renewablesyes.org/?page_id=241
Every US nuclear reactor is a cooling system, failure away from melt down and explosion spewing cancer all over the world.
Rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels are cheaper, or soon will be, than nukes, new coal, and oil wars. In combination, these green energies are 24/7, forever, clean, safe, ready to replace all fossil and nukes in 7-15 years, Carbon, land and fresh water negative.
Solar: http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 1-2 cents per KWH after the first 20 years and the loan is paid off.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/
Far more solar than any other energy: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/
http://www.sunelec.com/ 75 cents per Wp.
cheapest new solar panels 1-2$/Wp http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
Wind 6 months energy payback: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html 3 months
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/
http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt waste bio char energy plant. 100 GW electricity
I have a few essays you might find interesting. (You might hate them, too.)
My favorite is this one:
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/09/broken-washington-201009
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer
Peace.
"...disaster waiting to happen"
I guess you missed the part about the being designed with passive safety systems.
"...probably be more expensive."
Not likely. The scale of these reactors means that the components can be assembled in a factory instead of on site. This will help control costs. A site can be scaled up to meet growing demand by adding additional modules.
2) This argument that Xcel takes 100 million dollars a year out of the boulder economy is absurd. The plant that produces the power is a stones throw from the city, and those people must live in Boulder, or its surrounding areas. I call that reinvesting the community
3) How would buying power from a wind farm (over a hundred miles east) ameliorate the "taking money out of Boulder" problem?
4) Is it not customary to require electricity users to pay for the power, regardless of whether the wind is blowing? The power's on regardless, isn't it?
2) The Valmont plant closes in 2017 per Xcel. It is not absurd to say a sizable share of over $100M is taken out of the local economy. Profits and corporate overhead are considerable. In any case, the local utility will need qualified people so many that may live in the area can just shift employers but would now have a local focus.
3) Boulder could actually own the wind farm so the dollars would stay local, but wind is not the only resource. Our local solar industry has been badly hurt by Xcel policy and indifference. That is why the solar industry backs this. Xcel cuts or stops the rebates at its own whim and write rules that limit the local solar industry unnecessarily except to keep Xcel profiting from coal plants. They also buy the hydro power Boulder generates at wholesale and sells it back to us at retail. All of these take dollars out of the local economy.
4) Paying for power is not the issue. It is who does it and where it comes from at what price both in dollars, our health and the planet's. Coal power pollutes our air and water and kills people every year.
It just goes to show how energy illiterate our citizens are, if something as important as this receives no comments in over half a day. It's a perfect example of the sort of local initiative that should evolve out of the Occupy movement making communities more resilient and equitable. There isn't anything more important than energy and environment at a time when conventional energy is diminishing along with the environment.
I, for one, appreciate your report and hope that you'll be able to report on an appropriate outcome before long. When does this vote come up?
This is an incredibly important step, not just for our local community, but all communities that would pay the same rates for increased use of renewables with a growth path to even more when storage technology comes of age. We are under siege from a more than 10 to 1 money blitz by a utility that skirts our election laws that are not designed to cope with a billion dollar corporation messing in local politics. They use fear, misinformation and astro-turf groups to scare out their vote, undermining our local democracy. I have heard the craziest paranoia. My wife has been flipped off for having a "Boulder Light & Power" sticker on our car. Our signs have been stolen, vandalized and finally burned. Xcel has manage to whip up a frenzy in what should be a community discussion. The opposition is paid (through their front group) and hired gun "experts" (expert in killing municipalization efforts) to confuse and scare folks. Our business and citizens groups fight back. Learn more at RenewablesYES.org
We need progressives across the country who want to see renewable energy go mainstream to support us with any donation they can.
City government has been silenced by election laws but apparently a corporation that supplies the city its power and street lighting is not considered a contractor and speaks loudly. If you want to help, even small donations on the RenewablesYES.org website will help.