EPA Public Hearing: 

Proposed Carbon Regulations for Power Plants 

b : 3N Pf'-1 S lof 

( VV' o v~ lA f t:' rd"WI 7 _. 'b~ ~ 

Testimony Delivered at: 

EPA Region 8 Office 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202 

Tuesday 29 July 2014 

By: William Owens, Jr., Centennial, CO 80112 

"Accepting a Truer Cost of Coal-fired Power Generation" 

Introduction 

My name is William Owens, a resident of Centennial, CO. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. May I deliver two testimonies in this time slot? Thank you! The 

first is from Ms. Leslie Weise, of Monument, CO. I will then deliver my testimony and 

finish within the five-minute time limit. 

Ms. Weise's testimony 

I have worked as in-house counsel for Fortune 500 companies, focusing for the past 

1 0 years on those developing technology and products to displace fossil fuels for 

energy production. (I have solar PV panels on my home, and drive a plug-in hybrid 

vehicle.) 

My 8-year old son and I have witnessed, literally from the road side, three of 

Colorado's most destructive wildfires over the past 3 years: Boulder's 4-mile Canyon 

fire, the Waldo Canyon fire, and the Black Forest fire that destroyed over 500 homes 

including that of my sister. It's disturbing that he is growing up believing that these 

wildfires are normal. Yet, he is academically advanced in science (and has given two 

class presentations on carbon and water cycles). So he was genuinely confused 

when a substitute teacher read to his class a book about weather and then told the 

class that climate change was not true, but was something made up by scientists. 

Because of our knowledge and advocacy on the topic, that teacher was reprimanded 

and had to make a statement of correction to the class. 

Climate change denial also exists in the Colorado Springs City Council, which 

manages their electric utility. At city council meetings I volunteer with a small group of 

community professionals to ensure that a blend of renewable energy and efficiency 

investments are included in the utility's plans to serve over 500,000 people. Change 

won't be easy because at last month's City Council meeting we heard two members 

of the City Council profess to be climate change deniers, with one of them proudly 

stating he had written extensively on the "hoax". 

I've seen the real-world impact of climate change in the catastrophic impact of the 

Colorado fires and in the teacher's and council members' ignorance on the science of 

climate. Therefore, I enthusiastically support the EPA's plans for carbon reduction 

standards so that this critical topic can be addressed, rather than ignored. 

(End of Ms. Weise's testimony) 

Mr. Owens' testimony (next page) 
"Accepting a Truer Cost of Coal-fired Power Generation" 

Testimony by Ms. Leslie Weise and Mr. William Owens 

(continued) 

This debate about C02 in power production is often framed in the context of jobs. I'm 

not here to deny the importance of jobs. I've been laid off a few times so, I fully 

appreciate the value of jobs. But we should also weigh the costs of C02 and other 

harmful emissions from burning coal because they impose a tremendous cost on 

human health. 

The coal industry (producers and users) want us to simply accept the value of the 

electricity they produce. They say that to do otherwise will cost us jobs. You see, they 

are waving the JOBS flag to distract us from its costs to life and health. The costs 

include: 

1. The negative impact to the agriculture we need to sustain life due to C02-

driven climate change, 

2. The increase in downwind debilitating asthma cases, 

3. Breathing difficulties for others with impaired lungs due to nitrous and 

sulfurous oxides from older plants, and 

4. Changing our diet to reduce or eliminate the consumption of coal plant 

mercury laden tuna from our diet. 

So, as we hear the coal industry's argument on behalf of jobs, we must 

also consider the cost to public health. We should ask, "How many created or 

saved coal industry jobs are needed to offset the cost of the lives they 

compromise?" 

We can do better. I urge that the EPA's proposed regulations be adopted 

substantially as proposed. We have to start somewhere, and this is a small but 

important step toward doing better. 

Part of the solution to reach 30% C02 reduction is to use more clean and renewable 

energy sources. They, too, create jobs, but they don't cost lives and health like coal 

plants do. 

(End of Mr. Owens' testimony) 

On behalf of Ms. Leslie Weise and myself, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

29 July 2014 Rev 4 WO 
$2.50 

$2.00 

;::) 

rD 

:IE 

:IE $1.50 .. 

I. 

c» $1.00 

., 

Cl 

! 

$0.50 

$0.00 

Colorado Delivered 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
1.2 

1.15 

Cl) 

g 1.1 

F 

.., 

0 1.05 ~ 

V) 

c: 

0 

·-

1 

= 0.95 co 

0.9 

0.85 

U.S. Coal Production 2003-2013 

1.131 

1.112 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
• 

The Journal Report: The Best Oiiline Tools for Persona] Finance 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. 

MONDAY, J UNE 8, 2009 - VO L . CCLII I NO. 132 

EURO $1 ~'16~ YEN '16 he. 

* *" "'* ;.: 2.nu Last week: DJIA 8763.13 4 262.80 ~ NASDAQ 1849 42 l 4.2'< NIKKEl 9768 01 • 2 D , · • .6% J STOXX 50 2146.3S 4 l .Ol: lO·YR TREASURY l' 3 6/ 32, yield 3.8610:. OIL 68 4~ .1. !.2 13 

U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal 

BY. REBECCA SMITH 

Every year, feder-al employee 

George Warholic .calculat es America's vast coal reserves the same way his predecessors have 

for decades: He , ooks up t he 

prior year's coal-reserve esti· 

mate, subtracts the year's nation· 

wide production and arrives at a 

new official tally. 

Coal provides nearly one· 

quarter of the total energy con· 

su med in t he U.S., and by Mr. 

Warholic's estimate, the country 

has enough in the ground to last 

about 240 years. A belief in this 

nearly boundless supply has led 

officials to dub the U.S. the 

"Saudi Arabia of Coal." 

But the estimate, recent findings show, may be wildly over· 

confident. 

While t here is almost cer- tainly as much coal in the ground 

as Mr. Warholic's Energy lnfor· 

mation Administration believes, relatively little of it can be profit· 

ably extracted. Last year, the U.S. 

Geological Survey completed an 

extensive analysis of Wyoming's 

Gillette coal field, the nation's 

largest and most productive, and 

determined t hat less t han 6% of 

the coal in its biggest beds could 

be mined profit ably, even at 

prices higher than today's. 

"We r eally can't say we'r e the 

Saudi Arabia of coal anymore," 

says Brenda Pierce, head of the 

USGS team that conducted the 

study. 

No one s ays the U.S. is facing 

a coal shortage. But the emerging ranks of "peak coal" theorists argue that current production levels may be unsustainable 

and, if anything, create a false 

sense of security. David Rutledge, an electrical-engineering 

professor at the California Jnsti· 

tute of Technology who has studied global coal production, fig· 

ures the U.S. has about half as 

much recoverable reserves as 

the government says, which 

would work out to about 120 

years' worth. 

The Energy Information AdPlease tum to the next page 

Peak Coal 

U.S. bituminous coal production by region: 

800 million short tons 

4

00

oo 'VV 

~ 

. / ... -

'"' ;~:.~' ~\, .. o.~l'""'"'l""""'liii '""'l"'""' 1950 '60 '70 '80 '90 2000 

Source. En•rgy nform~t ~n 1\dmlnrSlialron 
U.S. Foresees a Thinner Security Blanket From lts L"oal Deposits 

Continued from the prior page 

ministration, part of the Department of Ener gy, says it is r eassessing Its coal tally in Ught of 

the ne.VI( Geological Survey data. It intends· to create a new coal 

baseline from which it will begin 

its annual subtraction "as soon as we can, n says William Watson, 

a member of the ene rgy analysis team at EIA in Washington, D.C. 

In the field. challenges are,be- coming. more apparent. Mining 

companies r eport they have to dig deeper andmovemoreearth toextract coaUrom aging mines, driving up cgs s. Utilities have grown 

skittish about whetherlsuppliers 

can ship promised coru ,on time. 

American Electric Power Co., the nation's biggest coal buyer, says it 

has stepped up its due diligence to 

make·sw e its suppliers can ma.ke 

deliveries after some firms missed 

shipments last fall.lt even bouglit 

a mine to lock down supplies. 

"We are very much concerned, 

and it:s getting worse," said Tim 

Light, senior vice preside nt for 

AEP. 

Coal mines be_gan appearing in 

America in the early 1740s in Vir- ginia_ A century later, as the nation's railroads branched out, coal 

provide d fuel for steamships on 

the Mississippi and bl ast furnaces 

that made steel. The U.S. came to · rely on abundant coal to generate 

electricity, too. About half of the 

electric power in the U. ~ still is 

produced by coal combustion, 

more than in most other industrialized nations. 

The country's coal supplies 

have been seen as a bulwark of energy se curity. In 1979, as the U.$. wasreelingfroman oilshock, Presiden t Jimmy Carter pushed for 

projects to create liquefied gas 

from America's vast coal reserves. Today .the U.S. produces U billion 

tons of coal annually, more thRn 

any nation but China. 

Concerns about supplies are 

out of the spotlight now, masked 

by what could b e a short-term lull 

ip. U,e appetite for coal. ·• Rg~;ession has re.duced de · mand fro'fon the two biggest users 

of coal, electricity producers and 

steelmakers. A proposed raw capping greenhouse-gas emissions 

could make coal-generated electricity-curren tly one of the 

cheapest power sources-significantly more expensive. At the 

same time, the cotmtry has found 

itself awash in cleane r-burning 

n atural. gas after recent big discoveries;p romptingsome powercomPower Source I The U.S!'st ellat1ce 6n:coal 

Coal-producl;..g areas of the U_$. 

U.S. net electricity generat ion, 

·'In millions of megawatt hqurs, 

2008 

I I 

Hydroelectric Other 

248.1 184.7 

pru1ies to pull the plug on proposed coal ·PI ants and shift toward 

gas-fueled power generation. Experts expect coal production to drop this year by 5%to 10%, 

or as much. as 100 million tons. Prices for coal from Wyoming's 

Powder River Basin are down nearly 30% from a year ago, to 

about $8.50 a ton. (Prices of Eastern coal, which burns hotter and 

typically doesn't have to be transported as far to customers, have 

also fallen.) 

Coal is down but hardly out. It remains the electric-power industry's dominant fuel. Emerging 

"clean coal'' technology could help 

improve coal's environmental profile. And coal remains an energy 

ace in the hole, available to substitute for other fuels if shipments 

are di rupte~. 

Some in the coal industry believe concerns about future supplies are overblown_ Coal advocatesarguethatimprovedtechnology could increase the amount of 

coal that can be extracted profitab'ty. Coal "is certain to remain an 

Germany,··\ ·• 228. 4 "P.•t··· lndon la , 1 '180 

Poland :II 161 

Kazakh5ian - I io3 I 

enormously competitive energy resource by virtually any conceivable m easure,» says Kim t.ink, 

spokeswomah for Arch Coal Inc., 

which produced about 12% of the nation's coal last year. 

The U.S. isn't the only nation employing improved drilling data 

and computer modeling to rells- sess its supplies. Germany cut its 

proven hard-coal reserve estimates by more than 99% in 2.004 

as it explored reducing mining subsidies, which would make coal 

more expensive to extract. Over- all, assessments of total world reserves dropped by half from,1980 

to 2005, according to a study l?Y.En- ergy Watch Group, an intlependent group based in Germany. 

The U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Department of the Interior's science agency, :attempted to get a clearer' picture of the nation's coal 

supplies beginning in2004. rts full 

study of the PowderRiver Basin in 

Wyoming and Montana will be 

completed next year. 

The agency began with the 

Powder River's rich Gillette coal 

... 

r. • 

r,, ~'20o7 l stimatl 

• so.ii<H:li.S:Goo\ovl$01 su .... .,. (moo), 

Enotgy Information Adml~ trotlon . .. 

field, an 80-mile-long strip in 

northeastern Wyoming that contains the nation's 10 top-producing min.es. About one-third of all coal in the country is produced 

there. Some 1.2 million short tons 

leave the field daily, a river of coal 

filling more than 75 trains ofl25 to 

150 cars each. For the Gillette study, USGS engineers, geologists and economists spent three years analyzing 

data from 10,200 drill holes, the 

most compreltensive study ever attempted of the region. The team concluded there are 201 billion 

. short ·tons of coal in the Gillette 

·field. Environmental rules and 

physical challenges put much of 

· that out of reach, leaving what 

they figured were 77 billion short 

tons of recoverable coal_ 

Little is presently worth mining. Analyzing coal beds that contained 82% of the Gillette deposits, 

the team determined that with 

coal selling for $10.50 a ton, the 

prevailing price two years ago, 

less than 6%ofthe coal could be extracted profitably enough to leave 

miningcompanies an8%rateofre- After many decaries of mmmR. 

turn. some of th e cowltry's coal fi elds If Powder River prices were to are showing the1 r a~<'. "What's len 

hit $60 a ton in current dollars. as to mine is not ns easv a~ what w .. 

much as 47% could be extracted. mined even 10 or 20 years n)ao," 

But atthatprice, coal would have a says Janine Orf, spokeswoman fm 

tough time competing with other Patriot Coal Corp. m St Low s. 

fuels and fe<:hnologles. "The seams are gettmg tlmme1 

Byadding an e<:onomiccompo· and there are more limestone in· nent, tl1e study broke ground. Jim t rusions." 

Luppens, an industry veteran who Evenatlhe Gillette fi eld. when• 

is now chief of the coal-assess- surface mining start ed 01 ounrl 

mentprojectforUSGS.says policy 192>1 and product•on still is bunv· 

makers often confuse the total ant. obstacles are emer)!m)! 

coal resource- which he de· Coal at It$ CJillette's cast('rn 

scribes as the "blood, guts and ed)ae liPs mostly clos<' to thr sm · featl1ers" number- with coal ··e- a~eb t the seams generally slope 

serves, which he likens to the edi- downward in ::1 westerly direction. ble mea t. "They mix up t he forcing mine rs to dig p•ogrpsR-words," he says. sively deeper to l'xtmct it. At Arch 

The findings are percolating Cool's Black Thunder nunc. fi ve> 

through the coal and power indus- pits are ~: westw ard and will 

tries. "USGS made a lenp forward intersect the main Burlington with this study,'' says Vic Svec, Norlhem -Santa Fe mil road hnc <ll 

spokesman for Peabody Ener gy some point. Arch t11en will have 10 

Resources, the .S.'s biggest coal move heavv cqlllpment to th(· 

company. He adds that when his other s1de of the tracks and dilt :1 

company plugs in prices as the new pit down ~evcral hundred 

USGS study did, it reaches similar feet, wltich it says could cost $ 100 

conclusions. million or more. 

Modern estimates of the U.S. Coal's h11t buyer. the power m 

coal resource began in 1907, with dustry, has j!.rown in treas n~;lv 

field geologists repo1'ting on out- nervous about sccunng reliable croppings- plaees where coal suppliers for power plams 1 hat or- Sh tck out of the ground- and len have a usefltl life of SO or 6 0 

mines. Based on consumption a l yenrs. Piantsfine-tune thmr eqlllp 

the time, the USGS concluded ment to burn the coal they expect 

there were three trillion tons of toreceiveanrl to rcmove itspa rlic· 

coal, enough tolastS,OOO years.By uJar pollutams from the waste 

the 1950s, armed with more min- strerun.That makcsitpmblemallc 

ingdata, the USGS and the now-de- to switch suppliers. 

funct U.S. Bureau of Mines re- Last fall, produclion problems 

duced theirestimateofthe total re- caused some coal producers lnt he 

source to 500 billion tons. Easttost ntggle tofulfill contracts. The federal method for calcu- Utility executives s ay the delavs 

lating U.S. coal reserves has were a wake·up call. 

changed little in 35 years. Ln 1974, American Electric f'owe r has 

the Bureau of Mines established a 9,100 railroad cRrs ru1d 2.480 river baseline reserve level. considered barges dedicated to keepmg il s good for its era. Each year since, power plants fttmished with coni. 

the government- currently, the In May, AEP. together will! a p;u1-

DOE's EnergyinformalionAdmin- ner. Cleco Corp_, bought o t· o~l 

istration- has subtracted each mine in Louisinna a fte1 n roal 

coal region's production and mine source faltered U1nt had been fur· 

waste to get a new estimate of nislung fuel ro a power plant rhP\' what's left in the ground. own together. 

In 2007, the ElA said the U.S. Buying the mine ri~:ht . says 

had a "demonstrated reserve AEP's Mr. Light, was the c~ l wny 

base" of nearly 500 billion tons of Lo unde rst11 nd- and ron t rol 

coal. lfregarded267 million tons how much coal the power rom· of that as "economically recover- panv could expect 10 e~c ve. "WP 

able," enough for 240 years. ' don't know what the future hold'·" 

EvenMr.'Warholic, the ElA ana- he said. lyst, says he's skeptical about the 

results. "It's kind of crazy" to postulate how long U.S. reserves will 

last, he says. "It could be llOyears 

pr 225 years or something com· 

pletely different, Jt all depends on 

vour li.Ssnmnt ~" 

WSJ.com 

ONLINE TODAY: See photos 

from the Powder River Basin. at W <;l f*nm lltC. 
4D)) PERSPECTIVE SUNDAY, JUNE.lS. 2014 • DENV ~POST.COM • THE DENVER POST 

Geology's war on coal 

By Leslie Glustrom and Zane Selvans 

Guest Commentary 

As the Environmental Protection Agency moves ahead with limits on carbon 

pollution 

you'll 

from the nation's coal plants, 

Obama's 

hear a lot of industry outrage about 

"war on coal." Don't believe it 

The truth is, the U.S. coal industry is already 

in dire straits, including here in Coloradoand it is due primarily 

Coal 

to geology, not politics. 

is undeniably a non-renewable 

stance. We 

subhave been mining the easily accessible deposits for the last 150 years, and 

the planet isn't making any more on a time 

scale that matters to humans. 

As a result, the U.S. coal industry 

ous 

is in serifinancial distress - right nowmonths, and likely years, before any EPA 

carbon regulations actually go into effect. 

Even if the EPA were to be eliminated 

U.S. 

tomor

coal 

row (not something we advocate), the 

industry would still likely be largely 

As 

winding down in the next decade or so. 

the remaining coal has become more 

difficult and expensive to mine, coal prices 

to electric utilities have increased significantly over the last decade, but these price 

increases have not been enough 

company 

to keep coal 

profit margins healthy. 

In Colorado, the cost of delivered 

almost 

coal bas 

doubled in the last decade, going from 

2004 

an average of 97 cents per million BTU in 

During 

to over $L90 per million BTU in 2013. 

the same 2004-2013 period, Colorado 

coal production bas dropped about 40 percent 

from a peak of almost 40 million tons in 2004 

to fewer than 24 million tons in 2013-

coming 

The bottom lfue is that Colorado coal is beincreasingly expensive to mine, and it 

is largely pricing itself out of the market. 

As Bill Koch said recently about the closing of Oxbow's Elk Creek mine near Paonia, 

"The coal business 

kind 

in the United States has 

of died, so we are out of it now." It is 

possible 

but 

that the Elk Creek mine will reopen, 

it isn't looking like it will happen anytime 

soon. 

A recent Market Watch story noted that of 

the 13 coal company bonds rated by Moody's, 

all13 were below investment grade. Here are 

three facts about the U.S. coal industry: 

Fact No.1: The top three U.S. coal companies are currently running in the red and 

report

coal 

ing large losses: For 2013, the No. 1 U.S. 

producer, Peabody, 

continuing 

reported a loss from 

U.S. 

operations of s286 million, No. 2 

of 

coal producer Arch Coal reported a loss 

Alpha 

s641 million. and No.3 U.S. coal producer, 

Natural Resources, 

billion 

reported over Sl 

in losses. 

Fact No. 2 : Coal company stock prices 

have plummeted in recent years, and the top 

three U.S. coal companies had already 

percent 

lost 8o 

to 97 percent of their stock value 

compared to their highs in 2008 -before 

EPA 

the 

announced regulations 

tion 

on carbon pollufrom existing coal plants. 

Fact No. 3: U.S. coal production is at its 

lowest in 20 years. It is entirely possibJe 

U.S. 

the 

billion 

is past its peak coal production Wi*h 1.171 

duct

tons of coal in 2008. In 2013. U.S. proion fell below 1 billion tons for the first 

time since 1993. Moreover, the largest U.S. 

coal mines are expected to begin playing out 

in the next decade or two. 

with 

The good news is that the U.S. is blessed 

abundant, low-carbon, low-risk renewable resources and the costs of harvesting 

these wind, solar and other renewable resources are falling 

dramatically. Our country's energy future is bright- bur if and 

only if we look to the future and 

not the past to keep us strong. 

Leslie Glustrom is a long-time coal 

industry watcher. Zane Selvans is 

director of research and policy at 

Clean Energy Action. 
Renewable Energy: 

Not Only Cleaner-But More Cost Effective 

By Leslie Glustrom, Member CRES Policy Committee 

303-245-8637 lg!ustrom@maal.com 

CRES members have waited several decades for this good news and there 

should be much rejoicing-and educating! The time has finally begun to arrive 

when renewable energy is not only cleaner and more resilient- it is also more 

cost effective under many reasonable sets of assumptions. 

In Colorado, both analyses by Xcel as well as by the City of Boulder (as 

part of its municipalization process) have confrrmed what many have long feltinvesting in renewable energy now will save customers money over the long 

run. 

Analyses by Xcel Confirm that Wind and Solar 

Yield Significant Cost Savings Over Time 

Here is a graph of what Xcel's most recent an.alysis of wind and solar bids 

shows: 1 

Flt~MW 12 • Annwl Coot flootlneo ol 410 liNt Wlncl ond 1'10 liNt PY 

1 F1gure 22. Publtc Servic:e Company of Colorado 2013 All Source Sohcitat10n, 120 Day Report, 2011 EIOCinc 

Resouoe Plan, Publtc Vers1011. September 9. 2013 (Dod<et II A-869E), page 70 

I 

As the title, the graph and the description of Figure 22 from Xcel's 2013 

analysis affii'ITI---adding 450 MW of wind and 170 MW of solar to Xcel's 

Colorado system will save customers money over the life of the projects-with 

expected annual savings of approximately $40 million in 2027 with further 

annual savings in the 2030s-and likely beyond. 

From 2009 through 2012, Xcel's analyses were showing that wind 

projects could save customers money depending on the assumptions used and, 

with the 2013 analysis shown above, utility scale solar also gained this status. 

Here is bow Xcel described the long-awaited cross-over point when solar 

bids received in 2013 could provide cleaner energy and also save utility 

customers money. 

In fact, the bid pricing received represents a watershed event for 

Colorado. For the first time, the Company received bids for utility-scale 

solar P V resources that are cost-effective head to head with natural-gasfired generation under base-gas price forecasts and !J!Lcarbon emission 

cost adders. (Xcel 120 Day Report. 20 ll Resource Plan, Docket 11A869E, page 4. Emphasis in the original.) 

Xcel's own analysis confirmed that utility-scale solar was more costeffective than natural gas--even when there was no "carbon adder" and none of 

the external costs of fossil fuel use (e.g. climate change, water use, air pollution, 

fracking impacts etc.) were included. Wow-that is great news!! 

As solar installation costs continue to fall and fossil fuel costs continue to 

rise, the "cross-over" point for distributed solar on rooftops and ground mount 

systems being lower cost than grid power is either very close or we are already 

there, depending on how the analysis is done. 

Analyses by the City of Boulder Confirm that 

Cleaner Energy Can Also Save Money 

As part of the City of Boulder's analysis of its municipalization options, 

the City and its consultants performed hundreds of detailed modeling runs using 

a host of variables in a "probabilistic" modeling process that included testing 

high and low values of key variables in a variety of combinations. A full 

description of the process and the results can be found in Boulder City Council 

2 
. . . 

memos from February 26, 2013 and July 23, 2013 available from the City of 

Boulder's website or from the author of this article. 

In general, the City of Boulder found that instead of being satisfied with 

300/o renewable energy (and about 700/o fossil fuel generated electricity) as is the 

expected case with Xce~ there is every reason to believe that renewable energy 

could become the dominant source of electricity for Boulder- and by extension 

likely all Front Range communities being served by Xcel- while reducing 

costs. Below is a graph of the increase in renewable energy for two of the many 

scenarios that were modeled by the City of Boulder. 

2 

Ql 

1i 

IV ...... ~ ~ Ql 0 

c N 

Ql 

oc: .~ Ql u 

QO · - IV ._ 

... 't 

c Ql 

cu - u L&.l .. 

Cll 

0.. 

% Renewable Electricity--

Xcel v Boulder Modeling 

60 

so 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Xcel Boulder Boulder 

Scenario I Scenario II 

Reviewing the detailed financial analysis done for Boulder, increasing 

reliance on renewable energy for electricity into the 40-60% range is expected to 

save Boulder approximately $200-$400 million in electricity costs over the 

2017-2037 time period-with more savings expected after that. This result is in 

' Results for Boulder taken from page 20, February 26. 20 13 Boulder City Counal Staff packetavRJiable from 

the Caty ofBoulder•s websate or the author The % renewabl• l!llelliY for Xcel assumes that the wand and aolar 

proJects oelec:ted an 2013 as part of the 2011 Resouroe Plan (Doclc.et l lA·869E) move forward 

3 

line with Xcel's modeling results shown above and the intuitive sense that 

investing in renewable energy now will save a lot of money in the future. 

As modelers like to point out, "All models are wrong; some models are 

informative." Neither Xcel nor Boulder's models are likely to be precisely 

correct, but they both indicate that renewable energy can not only be cleaner- it 

can also save utility customers money. 

In the case of the City of Boulder's modeling, the exact results that will be 

achieved if Boulder succeeds in its municipalization elTort will not be known for 

many years as final decisions will depend on a variety of fmancial and 

operational issues, but after hundreds of extremely detailed modeling runs, there 

is every reason to believe that we are entering a time when Coloradan's 

electricity can not only be much cleaner-but lower cost. 

CRES members can rejoice. In Colorado and elsewhere, there is mounting 

evidence that we are linally entering the era when renewable electricity is not 

only cleaner- it will also lower our energy costs. Onward to the post-fossil fuel 

era! 

# 

4