The city of Boulder has embarked on a sustainable energy program focused on the reduction of green house gas emissions (GHG), energy use and global warming effects. Boulder's city council has taken the position as fact that GHG emissions cause global warming. Council has therefore directed the city staff to design a program that will achieve the Kyoto protocol target of reducing local emissions to a level of 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. A growing number of scientists believe that GHG emissions cause global warming. Many of them support the city's program. But there are also many scientists who believe that the present warming of our planet results from normal historical cycles; and that spending large amounts of our resources on GHG represents overmedication, is wasteful and unnecessary, and in fact can be damaging to our economy over time. In our view however, regardless of which side of the global warming debate you are on, it is clear that reducing emissions of carbon into our atmosphere is a worthy goal. Further, whatever reductions in GHG we achieve will have the co-salutary effect of reducing our dependence on other nations for our energy needs. However, a more important aspect of this debate is how the city could accomplish its goals, and how much it should cost.
City staff has determined that their Climate Action Plan will require a budget of approximately one million dollars per year. Their plan proposes to generate the funds by imposing a "carbon tax" or "fee" on Boulder citizens and businesses. One of staff's proposed mechanisms would have Xcel Energy include the tax/fee on their monthly statements, then remit these collections to the city. This levy would be based on the amount of energy consumed by Boulder customers. In another version, the city would tax everyone based on the amount of square feet a home or business occupies The city would then include this levy in the monthly water & sewer billing statement to all users within the city's system. This effort may be ahead of itself in that city staff, with input from a task force of citizens, has designed a program for collecting money to support programs for energy abatement, yet no abatement programs have been designed. A more logical approach would be for city staff to design an energy reduction program before developing a budget and before making a request for new funding mechanisms.
At the same time Boulder is attempting to meet its GHG goals, the state is mandating energy companies to offer millions of dollars in renewable energy rebates, and add renewable energy such as wind power to their energy generation resource plan. Boulder’s energy provider, Xcel, is now the largest supplier of wind energy in the United States with 1,048 millawatt (one MW will provide the power needed by 1000 homes). Xcel is offering 196 million dollars over an eight year period for demand side management programs (such as compact fluorescent lighting incentives) to its Colorado customers, including Boulder.. The city appears to be jumping in (or piling on) with what may be duplicative programs and efforts, perhaps wasting tax payers’ money on efforts which would inevitably be provided more efficiently by private sector companies. Xcel Energy already has lower GHG energy production than any other power producing utility in the state. As an aside on another Boulder initiative; it is interesting to note that if Boulder were to municipalize the electric power system (take over Xcel), and then purchase power from a source other than Xcel, Boulder’s GHG emissions would become higher because it would be purchasing power from a producer that generates higher per unit GHG emissions. In addition, Boulder would become ineligible for the millions of dollars of Xcel’s demand side management programs. The task force did not take these facts into consideration in designing their emissions reduction program.
Many of the measures needed to lower GHG emissions already have an investment payback of less than five years. With the Xcel rebate program, some payback periods would be further lowered to approximately two years. Demand side management programs are a good thing. They save energy and they lower carbon emissions needed to produce energy. These rebate programs, along with new technology, provide us many opportunities to reduce energy use. What the city needs is a widespread campaign to educate citizens about ways to take advantage of these energy saving opportunities. Unlike the proposed Climate Action Plan, the education plan will not require one million dollars each year for 8 years or take 10 years to implement. And as these education programs take hold, follow-on years would continue to need fewer dollars, finally phasing out in a few years as the programs become self sustaining.
Boulder Tomorrow, along with much of the business community, is skeptical about the Boulder Climate Action Plan, as it represents yet another drag on our economy, making energy more costly here than in other surrounding cities. The Plan is also regressive, as it hurts those at the lower end of the economic ladder the most.
Boulder Tomorrow believes the city should be involved in educating citizens on how to save energy and take advantage of existing rebate programs. With some tough but astute budget choices (as the city is now asking its citizens to make), we believe this effort could be financed from the existing general fund without imposing a new tax on Boulder citizens and businesses.
Boulder Tomorrow supports the city's goal to reduce GHG emissions and recommends the following actions: