2B Boulder is 2C Green
Over on our Environmental Policy blog, Amy Oliver has written a couple of fantastic posts about Boulder’s municipalization dream. The dream has manifested itself in two ballot measures – 2B and 2C. These ballot measures will determine whether Boulder will cut ties with Xcel energy and start producing its own energy. Like the teenager who has had enough living under Mom and Dad’s roof, Boulder wants to sever the “dirty” energy cord and go off on its own towards a clean energy future. Sounds good right? Well… it’s not that simple.
The first problem is what Amy describes as Boulder’s Utopian Utility Effect. This is when a city believes it can have its cake and eat it too. In Boulder, that means providing all your own “clean” energy AND paying less for it. In reality, Boulder will come to realize that leaving the comfort of Xcel and the PUC means doing it all on your own – on a much smaller scale. With no gains from economies of scale and much less efficient energy sources, energy costs won’t be lower in Boulder. If anything, they’ll be much higher – as much as 15% higher.
Another problem lies in the fact that neither 2B nor 2C requires any of amount of clean energy at all. No one knows how much wind, solar, or natural gas Boulder would end up with if these ballot measures pass. In fact, it is quite conceivable that Boulder “could potentially end up with less renewables” in its power portfolio. Ouch. Furthermore, the idea that tons of natural gas will help reduce carbon emissions and global warming is also not likely. A study by Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that switching from coal to natural gas would do little for climate change. Oops.
Boulder needs to own up to reality. It’s nice to have hopes and aspirations, but they’ve got to be reachable to be meaningful. And at the rate Boulder is going, their fantasies are becoming more and more distant by the day. For example, take a look at this.
Three strikes and you are out. Amy’s one sided, slanted article was all based on the word of a paid Xcel consultant who is a utility hired gun that fights municipalization for utilities. Strike one.
There is no comfort in the “PUC/Xcel” system nor are there significant economies of scale that a for profit company has over a non-profit. If there were, Xcel would have the lowest rates in the state. It doesn’t 4 muni’s beat it handily. Strike two.
The ballot issue 2C requires plans for more renewables and emission cuts. Strike three and you are out.
I’ll give you a fourth strike. The NCAR study you referenced came to its conclusion, not because natural gas had high emissions but because coal emits sulfur dioxides as another pollutant which gas does not. While this does offset GHG heat trapping in the short run, it doesn’t last anywhere near as long as CO2. So coal would constantly pump out twice the CO2 making the heat trapping steadily worse but the relative counter effect would be steady. By the way SO2 also causes acid rain so this pollutant will be limited more and more eliminating its usefulness to offset the CO2. On top of all that, the study assumed a direct swap of gas for coal but that is a flawed assumption. In a gas system, unlike coal, the generation can be turned down or off with storage when renewables are available. This can mean less gas is used overall with high enough renewable resources so that much less total gas is used than the equivalent of the coal generation it replaces. Strike four and you are gone.
15 Oct 2011 at 12:01 am