OMPA outlet

              FEBRUARY 2012 - VOL. 28 NO. 2
(Continued on page 2.)
City looks to hire executive
director, two legal experts
by Laura Snider, Daily Camera Staff
Writer, December 6, 2011
In the month since voters gave Boulder the
authority to break from Xcel Energy and
create a municipal electric utility, city staffers
have been busy working to outline a vision
of how to move forward.
And that vision includes tapping outside
resources.
"I woke up really scared on election morning,
and decided I need help," City Attorney
Tom Carr told the City Council on Tuesday
afternoon.
So Carr and his colleagues are looking
to contract two attorneys. One will advise
the city on issues surrounding condemnation
- the legal mechanism the city likely will have
to use to take over Xcel's local distribution
system - and the other will help the city
navigate the process at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
The commission ultimately will determine
how much money Boulder will have to pay
Xcel in "stranded costs" to compensate the
utility for any investments it may have made
in anticipation of continuing to serve Boulder.
"I'm very much concerned we'll make a
mistake that will hurt us later on without
competent advice in these very specialized
areas of law," Carr said.
Carr was one of the city staffers who gave an
update to the council on Tuesday afternoon on
how Boulder is moving forward with its study
of municipalization after
the November 1 vote.
Boulder plots way forward
following municipalization vote
History of Boulder's
energy future choice
In November 2011, Boulder voters narrowly
approved two ballot measures that give city
officials the permission and the funding to move
forward with forming a municipal utility.
The vote came almost a year after the Boulder
City Council allowed its 20-year franchise
agreement with Xcel Energy to expire
at the end of 2010.
The fallout between the city and the utility
was largely related to Boulder's goal to reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions. And while Xcel
Energy plans to get 30 percent of its electricity
from renewable sources by 2020, that's not fast
enough for the city.
The end of the obligation between the
city and Xcel also meant the end of the
$4 million franchise fee that the utility
collected from Boulder customers and paid
to the city. But in November 2010, Boulder
voters approved a five-year utility occupation
tax that essentially replaces the lost revenue.
Now, after the November 2011 election, city
staffers are working on the nuts and bolts of what
it will take to actually form a municipal utility.
The city estimates that it will take between three
and five years for the city to actually get a utility
up and running, if the city chooses to move
forward with forming a utility.
"We've been busy," said David Driskell,
the city's executive director of community
planning and sustainability. "We've been
trying to figure out really what is the work
program going forward."
Driskell told the City Council that staffers
also have been working on picking a search
firm that will help the city hire an executive
director of "energy strategy and electric utility
development." And there's a reason that "energy
strategy" was included in the title, Driskell said.
"We don't think we're looking for someone
who knows how to operate a utility - not that
we don't want someone who has those skills,"
he said. "We're actually looking for someone
to engage with us in thinking about how are
we achieving a set of energy goals, with
creating a utility as a possible path for that."
Three Tiers
While voters now have given the City Council
the authority to create a municipal utility, the
council may decide to stick with Xcel if the
costs of starting the utility are too high or if
council members believe the city can better
reach its goal of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by not creating a city-owned utility.
Driskell told the council that staffers were
thinking about Boulder's future energy strategy
in tiers. The first tier would be related to
continuing or expanding the work that currently
is being done under the umbrella of the city's
Climate Action Plan, which encourages
a reduction in energy use and a ramp-up
of small-scale renewable energy.
The second tier of the energy strategy would be
to take a closer look at a "localization" strategy,
which could include bringing on community-scale
renewable energy, creating new financing
mechanisms to help people make energy
efficiency upgrades to their homes and
businesses, or possibly creating "energy
districts," which could link heating and
cooling systems between buildings to create
efficiencies.
The localization strategy would not depend
on actually creating a municipal utility.
"We don't want to put all our eggs in the
(municipalization) basket or go into a holding
pattern while we figure this out," Driskell said.
"So there are some things we can do in the
short term."
TRANSMISSION is prepared for members of the State Legislature by the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority (OMPA), 2701 W I-35 Frontage Road, Edmond, Oklahoma 73013. Copies have not been printed, but are available through
the OMPA website. OMPA is a wholesale power supplier to 39 municipal electric systems, who operate the agency to provide wholesale electricity for their distribution. OMPA was established by the Oklahoma Legislature on June
2, 1981. The Authority is a member of the Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma (MESO), American Public Power Association (APPA), and Southwestern Power Resources Association (SPRA). Bruce Ackerman, Editor.
OMPA MEMBER CITIES: Altus, Blackwell, Comanche, Copan, Duncan, Edmond, Eldorado, Fairview, Frederick, Geary, Goltry, Granite, Hominy, Kingfisher, Laverne, Lexington, Mangum, Manitou, Marlow, Newkirk, Okeene, Olustee,
Orlando, Pawhuska, Perry, Ponca City, Pond Creek, Prague, Purcell, Ryan, Spiro, Tecumseh, Tonkawa, Walters, Watonga, Waynoka, Wetumka, Wynnewood, Yale
Page 2
Boulder cont.
The third tier would be to actually start
a municipal utility.
'A great start'
Angelique Espinoza, public affairs manager
for the Boulder Chamber, told the City
Council that she hopes the city will hire
an executive director with an open mind.
The Boulder Chamber recommended voting
against the two ballot measures - 2B and 2C
that gave the city the authority to move
forward with forming a municipal utility.
"It will be important for that person to be
objective about their job, and not come in
with an agenda about what the end result
will be," she said.
Tuesday's meeting was just a brief sketch
of the where the city is at now, Driskell said,
but staffers plan to make a more detailed
presentation at two City Council meetings
in January: a roundtable on January10 and
a study session on January 31.
Despite the preliminary nature of the vision
presented Tuesday, many of the members
of the public who spoke at the council's
meeting said they generally liked the
outlined direction.
"I think this looks like a great start," said
Sam Weaver, who campaigned for 2B and
2C. "It's a really good way of visioning
from the top down."
Energy Policy:
Brookings’ Muro says state clean energy funds could help boost the economy
OnPoint Aired: Thursday, January 12, 2012
With legislative action on clean energy at a
standstill, what can states do to develop new
energy technologies and benefit the economy?
During today's OnPoint, Mark Muro, senior
fellow and policy director at the Metropolitan
Policy Program at the Brookings Institution,
discusses a new report focused on leveraging
state clean energy funds for economic
development. Muro explains why he
believes the private sector cannot manage
these technological investments on their
own and how CEFs can help spur
development.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome
to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me
today is Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy
director at the Metropolitan Policy Program
at the Brookings Institution. Mark, great
to have you here.
Mark Muro: Yeah, great to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: Mark, you've just authored
a new report focusing on leveraging state
clean energy funds for economic development.
Explain how the state clean energy funds work
and whether their existence is broad enough
to really have an impact on the clean energy
profile of the United States.
Mark Muro: Great question and the funds
have been around roughly a little more than
a decade, often funded by system charges or
surcharges on electricity bills, on utility bills
to, you know, raise funds for clean energy
purposes, you know, that are defined very
tightly in some states, more loosely in other
states, all with the idea of promoting clean
energy. About 20 states have them, so they're
not ubiquitous, none in the South, none in the
Intermountain West. Yet in states that have
them, they're doing a substantial amount of
work. We're talking about leveraging at
minimum very conservatively at least
$12 billion in the last decade, probably
much, much more. We had to use a
very conservative account.
Monica Trauzzi: So then why the need for
the report? What's happening with these clean
energy funds that makes you perhaps question
how the money is being handled?
Mark Muro: Yeah, actually I think we don't
question how the money is being handled.
It's being used very well, but in one particular
way, you know, actual finance through rebates
or other forms of projects, individual projects.
You know, during the time that the funds have
been operating, I think the needs of the country
have changed. There's a greater concern about
where we're going to finance clean energy,
economic development, clean energy industry
growth and some of the funds have been
experimenting with doing just that. So, we
think it's an interesting time to take another
look and suggest a second complementary
activity that the funds could engage in that
would help us create a real vibrant clean
economy in this country at a time where the
federal government appears to be pulling back.
Monica Trauzzi: And so is your sense then,
at this point, that we won't see any kind of fed-eral
action on clean energy for some time?
Mark Muro: You could bet that there will
be no action for at least 18 months and I think,
you know, the subject of work we are doing
also will be - we're going to be seeing a
massive pullback in tax programs, subsidies,
incentives. Already many of the programs
of the stimulus package will be sunsetting.
Dozens of programs are expiring, so I think
over the next five years we're going to have
to deal with a different finance and policy
background for clean energy. So, we're
looking where is there usable funding around
and the states have some and we all do well
to think about how it could be best leveraged.
Monica Trauzzi: So, since there's no federal
policy on all of this, is there a way for the
states to sort of link up all of their programs
and have a cohesive approach to clean energy?
Mark Muro: Absolutely. One of our - I mean
a few of our recommendations are states that
don't have a clean energy fund should create
one. This is a cheap, smart, efficient way to
invest in the future and clean up the economy.
States that do have them need to try to leverage
this money, partner, get better data on what
their regional industries are and then try
to work out partnerships to leverage money,
either with the private sector or with the
federal government. And I think it's something
that Department of Energy is increasingly
interested in partnering with states and regions.
Monica Trauzzi: So, are there particular
regions that may benefit more by putting more
of an emphasis on the clean energy funds?
Mark Muro: I think first having one gives a
state economic development advantage and,
again, more than half of the states don't have
them. States I think that have a nascent, clean
economy, as we call it, you know, vibrant
clusters of industries beginning to create jobs
and create new innovative firms should really
think about piling on and maybe applying, you
know, we suggest a portion, maybe no more
than 10 to 15 or 20 percent of their existing
clean energy funds to this kind of economic
development activity.