HoratioPeabody
105p1,503 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0
8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder asks Xcel to s... · 0 replies · +9 points
4.2 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS TO BID. Financial performance assurance requirements are designed to achieve two goals: (i) to determine PSCo’s eligibility to bid, and (ii) to protect the City and Retail Customers from non-performance risks. PSCo must demonstrate in its Bid that it has the financial resources and experience to meet the terms and conditions of the Standard Contract and perform such Standard Contract if selected as a winning Bidder.
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder asks Xcel to s... · 2 replies · +19 points
"(1) PSCo is not adding new owned or contracted generating capacity to its system in order to serve Boulder’s load". TRANSLATION: We don't want to be on the hook long term for any new capacity you have to add.
"(2) generating resources previously deployed to meet Boulder’s requirements are redirected to providing service to new demand on other portions of the PSCo system..." TRANSLATION: This is the same old argument the city has tried to get Xcel to agree to for years: all the capacity Xcel has invested in to provide power to Boulder can be used by provide power to the rest of Colorado.....so please let us out of paying Stranded costs.
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder police ticket ... · 1 reply · +4 points
Classic!!!!
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder\'s Steel Yards... · 0 replies · +7 points
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder\'s Steel Yards... · 0 replies · +3 points
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder\'s Steel Yards... · 0 replies · +10 points
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_275721...
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder concerned abou... · 1 reply · +18 points
Makes you question the competency of the planning department (and City Council) as to how they could have gotten this far on these plans without bothering to make sure RTD was on the same page.
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Peter Lilienthal: Refo... · 0 replies · +1 points
As you possess such financial sophistication did you bother calculating what the City of Boulder projects the "profit margin" to be on their muni over the first 20 years? Of course you didn't because if you had you'd know that they forecast an average "profit margin" of 16.1% with several years approaching 25% "profit margin".
Think about that for a minute. A 16% profit margin (3% points higher than Xcel currently returns) for an entity that supposedly doesn't have to worry about returning a "profit" for shareholder?
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Judge: Boulder late in... · 0 replies · +5 points
Instead of leveling with its citizens regarding the likely financial risks associated with their business plan the City chose to fabricate the fiction that “gee, we’d like to give you the results but unfortunately its part of our confidential litigation strategy”.
Only after being sued by one of its citizens (something which should embarrass any progressive liberal democratic government let alone one that self-stylizes itself as the "Peoples' Republic of -") did the City finally release a set of financials for their cherry-picked best case scenario (“Low Cost Option” with $150 million upfront costs) thereby revealing that even the best case scenario is likely result in 30% rate increases in just the first 3 years (with an unknown or at least unstated reduction in GHG).
Adding to the City’s deceit is the fact that the City ran and had the results of this “Low Cost Option” scenario in July 2013, 4 months before the 2013 election. An election where the City had to place it's own ballot initiative before voters in an attempt to prevent a more restrictive citizen sponsored initiative. In other words, there was a conscious decision by the City Council and Staff to keep these financial results from voters going into the last election. Information that would have been very useful if not central to the potential outcome of the citizen-sponsored initiative requiring the entire Muni issue be brought back before voters for a final decision once costs were known.
Now that the public knows the City not only chose to bury these unfavorable financial projections, but actively fought to keep them from becoming public, how does the City move forward? Do they continue to act as if everything is perfectly A-ok with their business plan (despite 30% rate increases) or do they finally recognize they've utterly failed in their fiduciary duty to inform taxpayers and start giving us a comprehensive information that allows the community to make its own informed consenting-adult decisions regarding costs, rates and GHG reductions?
As for the Daily Camera, now that citizens (thank you again Patrick Murphy) have done your work for you and laid out not only how the City Council and Staff knew their best case scenario would result in 30% higher rates but ACTIVELY CONSPIRED to keep this information from voters in the run up to the election, what are you going to write about?
9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Judge: Boulder late in... · 0 replies · +40 points
Now City Council needs to explain why the "Low Cost Option" which requires a 30% rate increase is such a good deal?