BANANA. And its okay, because if building anything near anyone (is) not allowed in Boulder, nobody outside the bubble will build anything near anyone else either. Worked so well on housing stock, and made Boulder such a bargain.

Kay McDonald: climate skeptic passing herself off as true believer. Nice try. Fooled most commenters.

Or maybe she lives in an ancient bamboo house off grid, grows all her own food, has a composting toilet, and never, ever drives or flies -- or uses electronics. Kay?

Not men and women enough to sign it themselves? One thing to let the Public Affairs Officer help draft, but solely sign? Lame, dude. For all concerned.

Jesus, Lord. Quite the Protestant riposte. I take it you consider your religion superior but under-valued, and ask that your choices be duly recognized? As you wish. Carry on . . .

Surprised at the backlash? Little to do with right-sizing on Folsom. That's a symptom, not the root of the issue. Mostly about a preachy know-it-all Council lacking humility because they "know what's best for us." Kind of like, you know, Barbara Bennett. Thanks for writing.

Subsidize everybody, or nobody. If there's a cost-effective model for universal eco-passes, put it to a vote.

Under the eco-pass, a homeless citizen working a minimum wage job would pay more for transit than somebody on Mapleton Hill if the rich people opted in because they're, like, way green, in theory, except for, you know, the huge houses and airline miles. Please.

I love Spence, but spare us the equity arguments. That dog don't hunt.

Steve, I get you predicted the muni running into trouble at the PUC. You followed it closely and you were vindicated this week. We got assurances from the City and its special counsel that everything was on track, but it wasn't.

The question I'm raising is the same as Greenlee. What comes next? What's our Plan B?

In 2011, the muni tax (2B) barely squeaked by with 50.4% of the vote -- by about 212 votes out of more than 26,000 total. The antis are fixated on that vote.

But what about 2013? Council-backed pro-muni 2D passed with a comfortable 66.5%; and the anti-muni 310 got all of 31.1%. Not much of a contest.

What's the takeaway? How many Council members, and what percentage of the city electorate, will settle for the current Xcel energy mix in 2015 and beyond? Will a majority of candidates running on status quo energy platforms get elected? Come on.

I'm with you. Boulder needs to get serious and realistic about real renewables and getting the best deal possible out of Xcel. I don't know the details of what Xcel put on the table in 2011: if it was 80% renewables and not just a book-keeping exercise to jack up Boulder's numbers at the expense of surrounding service areas that sounds like a no-brainer.

The muni proponents wanted more. Why can't Xcel put the same or a better proposal on the table in 2015? Can they address Boulder's concerns, or do they want to keep fighting legal battles that don't seem to serve anybody's best interests.

Maybe most important, how to we demand accountability from the Council on a plan that makes sense -- for residents and businesses, as well as from the climate and environment perspective? With all your experience, what's a better solution?

Why aren't we working to take advantage of NREL's proposal to expand the nation's premier wind research facility just south of town by enough turbines to provide about 50 megawatts per this document:
http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f1...

Why aren't the City, the County, the State, the Congressional delegation and citizens working to make that happen. Being a few miles from town, transmission lines would be minimal -- avoiding one of the major environmental impacts of industrial scale renewable power.

It's not easy to fun a project of this size -- but the carryover benefits to the wind sector could be tremendous. What's good for wind should be good for climate and good for jobs and the economy. What's not to like?

Let's talk about positive, forward-looking solutions -- instead of calling names.

Excel is the company as noted. They're the equivalent of the business here, and Boulder the customer. Residents/individual customers (homeowners, renters, and businesses) are mostly satisfied with Excel's service and has concerns about whether the city can competently manage a utility. But we're overwhelming dissatisfied with the power mix being provided by Excel.

If Excel can't address that, we will find a better alternative.

No, Aspen isn't a perfect example for Boulder's strategy. But Aspen and a growing number of other towns and cities around the nation are proof of "where there's a will, there's a way." Boulder has the will. We'll find a way.

Many of us had all kinds of questions and concerns about the muni strategy, which was well-intended but challenging in execution. Starting with, early versions would have traded coal for gas. Full fail, and totally unacceptable.

Main point is if the muni fails at the PUC, we'll come up with something better. Status quo won't cut it. Like Bob's column concludes: Boulder needs a Plan B.

Excel needs to offer Boulder a way out. Boulder is looking at Aspen going to 100% renewables (mix of wind and hydro) and won't rest until we're off coal and fossil fuels. The sooner the better.

So the muni might be in big trouble, but the Excel status quo isn't going to play in our community. If Excel can't provide a more carbon friendly power mix, we will find a way to get there on our own. Excel is bogged down by laws passed in the last century, so is limited in what it could do even if the will existed. That's what's prompting local citizens to take matters into our own hands.

Don't think the latest PUC ruling is the last word on the subject. Whatever your view on the muni -- you need to realize this isn't over yet. It won't be until Boulder is blazing a path to a cleaner energy future. I've got all kinds of qualms about the details and the downsides of the muni as the City is pursuing it. But like most of my neighbors, I want to leave my kids a cleaner, more livable world.

Better options than the muni as currently proposed or the Excel status quo exist. Says here this town has the ingenuity and creativity and resources to tap into them. Aspen's population is only 10,000 -- but if they can get to 100% on paper in 2015 -- Boulder can get way closer than we are now.

Hanging your clothes on the line to dry, versus using the dryer? Riding your bike, instead of driving? Opening your windows on a cool summer night, rather than running the AC? Wearing a sweater in the winter, rather than pushing the thermometer above 68?

Good letter, and valid point -- up to a point. Because individual choices matter. Conserving energy can be a tax-free free lunch that 1) doesn't require fuel from the grid, and 2) doesn't trigger a carbon tax.

That she did. And if we elect certain sects of Mormons to office, they should be allowed to issue licenses to polygamists? A Catholic Judge could decline to issue divorce decrees? Atheists could defy secular law on abortion? A Muslim official would be limited to discharging those duties consistent with his or her faith? A prison warden of a pacifist faith could decline to carry out the death penalty? And on, and on, and on . . .