Also known as: Municipalization, Local PowerWhat the city of Boulder calls the muni

What is it? 

Boulder’s attempt to create its own, city-owned electric utility by buying the existing system (power lines and poles, transformers, substations — all the parts it takes to run a utility) from XcelXcel Energy, a publicly traded utility company based in Minnesota. Energy, the company that currently provides power to Boulder.

Where are we now? 

Since Xcel doesn’t want to sell its system, Boulder is attempting to condemn Xcel’s assets in court. The state has signed off; federal regulators have yet to approve a portion of the process. The city is working to produce a final, full estimate of how much it will cost to buy Xcel’s system, which it will present to voters.

Simultaneously, city and Xcel officials negotiated a settlement that would end Boulder’s attempts to condemn Xcel’s assets and form a city utility. Boulder would sign a franchiseA legal agreement between a power provider and customer (in this case, Xcel and Boulder) governing t... agreement with Xcel; the city hasn’t been “in franchise” with the company since January 2011.

Decision point

Should Boulder keep going in its attempts to acquire Xcel’s system or settle with Xcel and re-enter into a franchise agreement with the company?

How (and why) did we get here?

Boulder has long been unhappy with the level of renewables Xcel was providing to the city. The idea of a municipal (city-owned) utility was discussed as early as 2005. Voters in November 2010 decided to end the franchise agreement with Xcel. 

Not much changed, practically speaking, when Boulder went out of franchise (they did miss out on undergroundingBurying power lines underground. This reduces outages, which are often caused by trees, etc. falling...; see more below). State law requires the company to keep providing electricity outside of a franchise agreement.

Voters have to approve re-entering into a franchise agreement. That’s what’s on the ballot this year: a new, 20-year franchise agreement with Xcel plus a settlement to preserve the work done on municipalization so far and allow Boulder to restart that process in the future.

As of mid-2020, more than $27 million had been spent on the muniA utility that would be owned by the city of Boulder. Shorthand for municipalization, which is the p.... All the work has been to determine if Boulder can legally separate from Xcel and run its own utility — yes, most likely — and how much it will cost, which is still TBD. 

If voters don’t approve the settlement and franchise in November, final cost estimates on the muni could be available in 2022, though city staff think later is more likely. If it takes longer,  another funding source will be needed to keep the work going: the Utility Occupation Tax  expires in 2022.

Highlights over a 10-year history

2010: Voters OK replacing the 3% Xcel franchise fee (roughly $4 million/year, which goes into Boulder’s general fund) with a Utility Occupation Tax and to fund research into alternatives through 2015. At the end of 2010, Boulder’s franchise agreement with Xcel expires.

2011: Voters give Boulder the authority to form a utility and condemn Xcel’s assets, if certain conditions were met: That the city can acquire the system and match Xcel’s rates at the time of acquisition while maintaining reliable service, and that rates will cover costs + debt + 25%

Voters also increase UOTUtility Occupation Tax. The first part was initially passed in 2010 by voters, to replace the Xcel f... funding to pay for exploration of municipalization.

2012: Council OKs using general fund money for the muni

2013: Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission (the state regulatory body for utilities, hereafter referred to as PUCPublic Utilities Commission, Colorado’s regulatory body for utilities such as water and electricit...) rules that it will decide what Boulder can and can’t acquire from Xcel. The PUC also finds that Boulder will have to pay to replace/rebuild facilities/infrastructure Xcel needs to provide service to area customers not served by Boulder’s utility.

Voters put a cap on the amount of debt that can be issued to acquire Xcel’s system: $214 million. (That will be adjusted with inflation at the time of acquisition.)

2014: Per a 6-3 vote of council, Boulder forms a light and power utility (on paper, at least), sparking a lawsuit from Xcel that won’t be resolved until 2019. The city files for condemnation of Xcel’s assets in Boulder District Court

2015: Boulder District Court rules that Boulder will have to go through the PUC process before filing for condemnation (January) PUC rules that Boulder can’t condemn infrastructure serving customers outside city limits and that Xcel doesn’t have to share that infrastructure with Boulder. PUC dismisses part of Boulder’s application but allows for discovery process so Boulder can learn more about Xcel’s system to determine what it needs to acquire (November)

Voters extend UOT first passed in 2010 through 2022 

2016: Muni spending passes $10 million (March) Boulder resubmits application with PUC (September) and PUC rules it complete (November)

2017: Council declines 6-3 to put a settlement with Xcel — which would end the muni effort and re-establish a franchise agreement — on the ballot (April) Council unanimously decides that voters will get final say before Boulder buys Xcel’s system, once a full and final purchase price has been determined 

PUC rules that Boulder, Xcel have to meet certain conditions before approval is granted to proceed with condemnation (September) Voters extend UOT expansion passed in 2011 through 2022 (November)

2018: Boulder, Xcel file final list of agreements with the PUC (October), though it is later contested and won’t be approved for another year

2019: Muni spending passes $20 million (March) City offers $68.5 million to Xcel for its system (April) City makes $82 million offer and files for condemnation (June) PUC approves separation of assets outside of substations, closing out state process (October) Boulder makes $94 million offer to Xcel (November)

2020: Councilman Bob Yates, Mayor Sam Weaver inform public that Xcel and city are in negotiations for a muni off-ramp; council agrees to continue settlement talks (May) 6-2 vote of council (Aug. 20) and 7-2 final vote (Sept. 1) puts an Xcel franchise and settlement agreement on the ballot

Arguments for the muni / against the settlement

This is just a quick list; each argument is explained in more detail further down

Renewables: Boulder can get more renewable energy, more quickly than Xcel by buying from other suppliers and from local production

Cost: Boulder can provide electricity for the same or lower cost than Xcel, and the money will stay in the community rather than going to a corporate entity beholden to shareholders

Control: Boulder deserves a greater say in where/from whom it gets its energy and how the grid is planned and built. Residents would have more input on these things under a city-run utility.

Trust: Xcel cannot be trusted to stick to renewables and other concessions if they affect profitability, and has a history of passing along the costs of questionable decisions  and investments to ratepayers

Arguments against the muni / for the settlement

This is just a quick list; each argument is explored in greater detail further down

Renewables: Xcel has now set a goal of 80% emissionsIn this context, the GHG that are released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels to g... reduction by 2030, which gets Boulder very close to its own target, and carbon-free electricity by 2050

Cost: Buying Xcel’s system could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, which is too much debt for Boulder to carry and still provide electricity affordably

Control: A city-owned utility comes with considerable liability that would be ultimately born by the taxpayers. Some residents and groups doubt that Boulder can provide system reliability as well as Xcel. The settlement allows Boulder to have a greater say in decision-making

Trust: Boulder has continually under-estimated the cost, time and complexity involved in establishing a municipal utility.

Who is arguing against the muni / for a settlement with Xcel?

IBM, Governor Jared Polis, Colorado Energy Office, Colorado Department of Health and Environment (None of these organizations have formed formal elections issues groups but all have expressed support in various forms.)

The Committee for Boulder’s Great Green Deal is campaigning for approval of the franchise/settlement agreements and extension of the UOT. The group is led by former Boulder Mayor Leslie Durgin and former city council member Andy Schultheiss, who was also chair of Open Boulder for three years.A statement of contributions and expenditures has not yet been filed; this article will be updated with that information.

Who is arguing for the muni / against a settlement with Xcel? 

Empower our Future, a group of local pro-muni residents that includes former city council members and backed by a number of organizations, including Eco-Cycle, New Era Colorado, PLAN-Boulder County and the local Sierra Club chapter.

Some of Empower’s organizers also formed an official issue committee, No on 2C for Local Power. A statement of contributions and expenditures has not yet been filed; this article will be updated with that information.

A deep(er) dive into the arguments

Cost

What has been spent so far — $27.6 million, including staff time — is all to answer two questions: Can Boulder municipalize? And how much will it cost?

There’s much that is still unknown about the cost to buy Xcel’s physical system (power lines, poles, transformers, substations, etc.) and/or the eventual rates Boulderites will be paying, either under a city utility or Xcel franchise. What is known so far:

Municipal utility costs

There are three big costs to consider, because Boulder will need to issue debt financing to pay for them: Acquisition (What it will take to forcefully buy Xcel’s system) Separation/Construction (Once Boulder buys the system, there will be significant construction required to separate the existing distribution electric systems into two independently operating systems; this will include building three substations for the city and Xcel) and Startup (What the city will need to spend on IT systems, fleet equipment, billing systems, staff, offices, etc. to get an operational utility on Day 1, plus enough cash to keep it operational for three months)

Estimates for those:
Acquisition: $68.5 million – $214 million*
Separation: $180 million
Startup: $30 million
Total debt: $278.5 million – $424 million**

*This acquisition range was created using, at the low end, the amount a city-tapped appraiser valued Xcel’s system at and, on the high end, the voter-imposed cap on acquisition debt. But it is still subject to fluctuation. 

**This is the mid-range estimate. Costs are based on industry standards and are subject to change.

The Xcel settlement caps acquisition spending at $200 million, which includes the purchase of two substations and going concernSimilar to stranded costs, this is the amount that Boulder could owe Xcel for future profits that ar...: What Boulder could owe Xcel for future lost profits. (If the settlement isn’t approved, the substations would fall under Acquisition or Construction costs.)

Boulder contends it won’t owe going concern; Xcel has pegged those costs at up to $350 million. If the settlement agreement isn’t approved, going concern would be back on the tablePostponement of a motion, or a vote and the eventual acquisition cost will be determined via a court ruling in Boulder’s case to forcefully condemn Xcel’s assets. 

One unsettled question is stranded costsIf Boulder splits from Xcel, the company will have extra power on its hands that it intended for the...: What Boulder might owe Xcel for investments and plans the company made under the assumption that it would keep the city as a customer for a certain period of time. Stranded costs were not included in the settlement agreement, so those would have to be determined if Boulder were ever to restart municipalization or if voters turn down the settlement.

Xcel has estimated stranded costs between $255 million and $335 million in the past; Boulder has consistently declined to provide a range, citing the numerous factors involved in calculating it. There are several ways to reduce stranded cost obligations, including buying power from Xcel after a municipal utility is formed (see Renewables section for more details).

Rates – city utility 

Boulder’s charter requires that the city be able to provide electricity at rates comparable to Xcel’s at the time of acquisition, and that the utility’s revenue has to cover the cost of acquisition, debt used to buy Xcel’s system plus 25%. 

The charter requires that rates be less than or equal to Xcel’s on Day 1; thereafter, they must be “comparable” to neighboring utilities. What “comparable” means is not clearly defined, but the city’s financial forecasting uses city rates that are lower than Xcel’s projected rates — based on historic increases — for the length of the forecast.

If the city utility needs more money for capital projects, for example, rates could be raised to pay for it. There are plans in Year 4 and 9 of utility operation to take on $39.3 million more in debt for facility upgrades. However, capital spending by the utility and rate increases would be a community decision, according to staff. (See Control section for more detail)

Rates – Xcel

Xcel has raised rates five times since 2010. The city’s data shows that rates have increased between 2.8% and 3.1% over the past 8-10 years. 

Although rates have gone up, Xcel counters that residential and commercial bills have actually trended down over the past five years, as customers use less energy overall. The average residential bill declined some 6% between 2010 and 2019, from $71.30 to $66.84, according to the company. 

Critics of the franchise agreement note that, to reach its carbon-reduction goals, Xcel will have to invest heavily in renewables — costs that will be passed along to ratepayers. Colorado President Alice Jackson in August said any increases due to climate action will be capped at 1.5% per year.

The company intends to spend $7.7 billion on capital investments between 2020 and 2024. Of that, $785 million is related to electricity generation.

Xcel has to file its planned rates through 2030 with the PUC, but those won’t be public until after the November election.

Control

Democratization – Xcel is a publicly traded company, required to submit plans (power supply, proposed rates, etc.) to the PUC every four years. There is a process for public participation, though citizens’ ability to participate as individuals is limited. Boulder as a whole often intervenes on behalf of residents, as a single entity.

Boulderites will theoretically get more of a say in the operation of a municipal utility because there will be fewer layers between them and decision-makers. City council will be the final authority over a city utility, though they may appoint a utility board (similar to the Water Resources Advisory Board). Residents would be able to weigh in on rates, capital spending, grid planning, discounts for lower-income residents, etc. the way they do other city issues. 

At the end of the day, muni proponents say, Xcel is beholden to its shareholders, while a Boulder utility will have to answer to Boulderites. And once the city owns the physical system, it can purchase power from wherever it wants; with Xcel, there is no choice.

(Note: This may change in the future, as Colorado lawmakers are pursuing “community choice energy,” which would allow cities to buy power wholesale from renewable providers. Other states allow this; in Colorado, discussions are still preliminary but promising, supporters say. There is nothing in the settlement that precludes Boulder from taking advantage of community choice, according to a city spokesperson.)

Critics point out that local control doesn’t necessarily result in better governance or reflect the will of the people. In the most recent community survey, just 10% of respondents said they felt city council members consider their input before making decisions.

Several city departments are running major maintenance backlogs; there were $375 million in unfunded needs before the COVID-19 pandemic. The city does run large utilities already: water, wastewater and storm/flood management. But, as critics note, rates are being raised significantly (percentage-wise) to pay for a backlog of maintenance and flood control: The 2021 budget calls for an 8% increase in water rates, 5% for wastewater and 12% for stormwater/flood management, on top of 2020 hikes.

Grid planning – The physical grid that delivers electricity to homes places some limitations on how much renewable energy Boulder can source and generate itself. The system needs to be able to transmit a certain level of power; if local generation wasn’t planned for in building that system, then even if the capacity is there, it can’t safely be realized.

That’s one reason Boulder fought so hard to be able to participate in Xcel’s planning process. It will get a seat at the table under the settlement deal — but, again, with less control than if the city was running its own utility. Three groups will oversee grid planning and other projects: executives from Xcel and Boulder; operational staff from Xcel and Boulder; and an “advisory committee” of community members, business leaders and CU representatives.

Reliability – Xcel is better-than average when it comes to reliability, among other providers across the U.S.; even better when looking at large utilities only (more than 500,000 customers). Municipal utilities generally experience fewer and shorter outages than investor-owned utilities; Fort Collins, for instance, consistently averages outages shorter than 30 minutes each year.

Xcel outages averaged about 90 minutes a year over the last five years; 137 minutes on Major Event Days. (MED is a little hard to explain, but it’s an industry benchmark for serious outages.) The average Colorado customer experienced 0.9 outages per year during that time (excluding MED) and 1.1 outages annually with MED included.

Reliability of a system is often tied to how many of its power lines are buried underground. Xcel undergrounds lines for its customers using 1% of the revenue generated in that municipality; in Boulder, that’s around $1 million a year, enough to bury roughly one mile of lines each year when the city was an Xcel customer. 

There are roughly 165 miles of power lines in Boulder. Lines along major roads (28th, Broadway, Canyon, etc.) are buried. Since 2011, only lines in new development — Boulder Junction, for example — have been buried.

As part of the settlement, Xcel will provide $33 million worth of undergrounding over the 20-year life of the franchise agreement; half in the first five years. Boulder does not have an estimate of how much undergrounding it would perform as a municipal utility, but said that the city could choose to direct more funding to that task in order to speed up the process, if city council and/or residents so desire.

Other considerations: IBM’s largest data center in north Boulder. Due to the critical nature of the facility, the failed 2017 settlement allowed IBM to remain an Xcel customer in the event of municipalization. That provision is not included in the current settlement; the city intends to have IBM as a customer. 

The company, however, plans to petition the PUC to opt out of a city utility, if one is eventually established, and remain an Xcel customer.

IBM officials say this decision is not based on an analysis of Boulder’s ability to reliably run a utility. Rather, it is a desire to stick with what works, said Pete Lorenzen, IBM Colorado Senior State Executive. Under Xcel, there has been one outage in 10 years, and the cost for electricity is “incredibly competitive.”

“When you look at making a major change — and this would be a major change for us — you say, ‘What’s the value?’ The equation isn’t close for us.”

The University of Colorado secured a deal from Boulder to keep paying Xcel’s offered rates even under a city utility. The agreement worried some who felt that ordinary residents would end up footing CU’s electricity bill if Xcel’s rates are lower than the city’s. Others look at Boulder’s willingness to offer sweetheart deals to large institutions as an acknowledgment that cost and reliability of a municipal utility may not be competitive or attractive.

Renewables

Xcel today sources 30% of its energy from renewables. It plans to be at 55% by 2025, Jackson said in August.

The company’s goals for 80% carbon reduction by 2030 are not the same as Boulder’s goal of 100% renewable electricity by that year, but the bid to limit greenhouse gas emissions will necessitate a shift to renewables. Jackson says the mix should be 65-70% renewable by 2030. Formal plans for Xcel’s power supply, rates and more won’t be made public until next year.

Boulder can get 90% renewables the first day a municipal utility is operational, according to recently received bids from power providers. There are some caveats, most notably stranded costs, which could be owed if Boulder chooses to buy power from anyone other than Xcel. (See Cost section)

Depending on what stranded costs are owed — which would be determined via negotiation or a court case and a ruling from federal regulators — Boulder may keep buying power from Xcel to lower stranded costs, which would lower the share of renewables the city relies upon. 

The city has modeled three years of continued power purchase from Xcel, based on a worst-case stranded cost estimate, though the city declined to name a worst-case dollar amount. 

There are several ways for stranded costs to be reduced. Xcel has a legal obligation to try and sell the power it planned for Boulder to someone else. Boulder’s own power supply cost can also be taken into consideration, further reducing the stranded costs it owes. 

Whatever is left over after those two avenues are explored, Boulder would have to pay.

The city contends that the savings it will realize by purchasing wholesale renewables elsewhere — about $30 million a year, based on a 2018 request for indicative pricing — will help to pay off stranded costs. The contents of the RFIP and a recent competitive bidding process are not publicly available.

Trust

Pro-muni folks don’t trust Xcel for a number of reasons. The company has a history of raising rates (see Cost section) and has continued investment in fossil fuels. The Comanche coal-fired power plant was finished in 2010 — when municipalization efforts began in earnest — and is supposed to operate until 2070. 

An early retirement is being explored, but critics contend that customers will foot the bill for shutting down the $1 billion facility, just as costs were passed along in another ill-fated project: Smart Grid City.

The plan was to provide hyper-connectivity of homes and appliances to the grid, providing real-time usage data and therefore opportunities for more efficiency. In reality, Smart Grid went over budget — 3X more than estimates — and under-delivered. Boulder later fought Xcel’s attempts to recoup its spending via higher rates, successfully.

(Xcel responded that it learned lessons from Smart Grid that are still being applied today. Officials did not respond to concerns over the Comanche plant or other investments.)

To critics, Comanche and SmartGrid together paint a picture of a company insufficiently committed to carbon reduction making questionable decisions, secure in the knowledge that customers will pay for missteps. Although Xcel has a goal of 80% carbon reduction by 2030 and 100% carbon-free power by 2050, muni proponents worry it won’t stick to that if profitability is adversely affected.

Xcel will be legally bound to the plans it files with the PUC, due next year, though there is a process for exemptions. Colorado has its own targets for emissions reductions and renewable energy, codified into law last year. 

Boulder will also have the opportunity to end a franchise if climate goals aren’t met. (See: Xcel, Boulder settlement: What’s in it?) 

Opponents of the muni argue that Boulder has continually underestimated the time and cost required to municipalize. They point to the ever-extending timeline for an operational city-owned utility: 2016 was the original inception date, then 2017, and 2022, now 2025 — a start that is subject to a court ruling on condemnation of Xcel’s assets. 

Citizens’ final say over municipalization has been likewise postponed, from 2020 to 2021 and now, assuming the settlement isn’t approved and Boulder loans $2.1 million from its general fund, 2022, though staff in August said that timeline is only likely if “all the stars align.”

Boulder officials respond that municipalization is uncharted territory — most municipal utilities were formed decades ago — and that delays were the result of Xcel’s intentional actions to slow the process.

The city has presented too rosy a picture, critics have long contended, painting setbacks as victories or otherwise downplaying judgements against Boulder. A notable example of this was an initial contention that the 2017 PUC ruling wouldn’t result in extra spending, “clarified” days later that it would, in fact, add $23 million to costs. City Manager Jane Brautigam and then-muni leader Heather Bailey penned a 2014 Daily Camera op-ed extolling the virtues of municipalization; four years later, they were in the Camera‘s pages once again, pledging to present a more complete and neutral picture of municipalization’s viability.

Because of this perceived bias, muni opponents worry that the city is presenting an incomplete picture of costs. A lawsuit forced release of financial models on which Boulder’s analysis is based; for years, indirect staffing costs were left out of total expenditure reports, as were possible stranded costs. (Boulder contends these are incredibly complicated pieces of information to parse out, something other city projects have not been required to do.) 

Lastly, opponents of a municipal utility point to city handling of other large projects as evidence of its inability to manage large, complex systems. Progress as slow and spending rarely matches initial budget estimates. (See Control section)

Author’s note: There’s one more consideration: Xcel’s lack of responsiveness to the press. Multiple interviews were requested over many months, without success. Xcel was provided the full text of this story but failed to answer several questions and did not address all the points raised. Boulder, given the same opportunity, arranged multiple interviews, answered nearly every question and provided supporting documentation.

The press is often the only channel for the public to access large organizations. The failure to be available, the selectiveness in answering questions and addressing concerns, adds weight to critical voices arguing that the company is not accountable to its customers.

Voting history

2010: Issue 2B replaced the 3% yearly franchise fee (approximately $4 million per year) customers pay to Xcel with the Utility Occupation Tax, which would fund research into alternatives for five years. (Passed 68.4% to 36.6%. Turnout: 35,580)

2011: Issue 2B raised the UOT by $1.9 million per year, through 2017 (Passed 50.4% to 49.6%. Turnout: 26,494)

Issue 2C gave council council the authority to form a light and power utility and condemn Xcel’s assets (Passed 51.9% to 48.1%. Turnout: 26,541)

2013: Issue 2E limited the amount of debt that could be issued to buy Xcel’s system to $214M. (Passed 66.5% to 33.5%. Turnout: 29,319)

2015: Issue 2O extended the original UOT. (Passed 71.4% to 28.6%. Turnout: 26,824)

2017: Issue 2L extended the 2011 UOT increase. (Passed 51.7% to 48.3%. Turnout: 30,659)

Where does council stand?

Bob Yates: The only council member who has been openly critical of the muni. He has consistently voted against efforts and was involved in bringing Xcel and Boulder back to to the negotiating table this year. In 2017, he voted in the minority to put a settlement to voters; that motionFormal proposal calling for a vote failed. Voted to place the current settlement on the ballot.

Mayor Sam Weaver: Ardent supporter of the muni. Prior to election to city council, he served on resident groups who studied aspects of municipalization. He also works in renewable energy and owns Cool Energy, which develops and manufactures engines that convert waste heat into energy. Voted against putting a 2017 settlement to voters. Voted to put the current settlement on the ballot.

Mary Young: Has consistently voted for the muni. Voted against putting a 2017 settlement to voters. Voted to put the current settlement on the ballot.

Mirabai Nagle: Has voted for every muni measure thus far. Voted to put the current settlement on the ballot.

Aaron Brockett: Has consistently voted for the muni as the “only path” to 100% renewable energy — he voted against putting the 2017 settlement to voters — but has shown himself more willing to draw lines than other pro-muni council members.

For example, in 2016 he voted against forcibly annexing Boulder businesses to better position the muni over the objections of owners. (Yates joined in the dissent, while Weaver and Young supported the move.)

Voted to put the current settlement on the ballot.

Adam Swetlik: “Firmly” pro-muni; has said the effort is “worth every penny.” Voted against putting the current settlement on the ballot.

Junie Joseph: Is “definitely” pro-muni, mostly for the value of putting an essential utility into the hands of the people. Voted against putting the current settlement on the ballot.

Mark Wallach: Wrote an op-ed opposing the muni before he was elected to council, but during campaigning, switched to a position of support and made it a tenet of his platform. He attributed the change to learning how “fossil-fuel dependent” Colorado was. Voted to put the current settlement on the ballot.

Rachel Friend: Categorizes herself as a tentative supporter, saying she’d need to see the numbers before deciding. But has also made statements indicating she thinks taxpayer money would be better spent on other climate initiatives. Voted to put the current settlement on the ballot.

Read more:

Xcel, Boulder settlement: What’s in it? Boulder Beat
Pros, cons of settlement weighed Daily Camera
Cost of Transitioning to 100% renewable energy Institute for Energy Research

Author’s note: This article has been updated to correctly reflect who is supporting the settlement and who is opposed, as well as to correct the vote total for the UOT expansion in 2011.

Published: Thursday, Sept. 10, 2020 (Updated Friday, Sept. 11, 2020)

— Shay Castle, boulderbeatnews@gmail.com, @shayshinecastle

Want more stories like this, delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to sign up for a weekly newsletter from Boulder Beat.

Elections Municipalization 2030 Aaron Brockett Adam Swetlik Bob Yates Boulder Boulder Chamber Boulder's Great New Green Deal city council clean energy Colorado Community Choice Energy CU electricity emissions Empower Our Future Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal regulating body for energy (the transmission and w... going concern IBM Junie Joseph Mark Wallach Mary Young Mirabai Nagle muni municipalization No on 2C power grid Public Utilities Commission PUC Rachel Friend renewables Sam Weaver stranded costs University of Colorado utility Utility Occupation Tax Xcel Energy