1. See The Light Boulder! 1

2. What is our Goal: Our goal is to provide Municipalization information (light) to the Public that the City of Boulder doesn’t or won’t provide, or won’t provide without extra cost and persistence. Our goal includes the same goal that the Municipalization effort claims is their goal. The smartest and best way to reduce Boulder’s carbon footprint. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. The Muni Effort Past Present Future Responsibility The Past: The vote 5

6. 2011 2b (utility occupation tax) VotesPercentTo reverse this vote For the measure 13,35350.40% 212 votes changed from yes to no Against the measure 13,14149.60%To lose the vote Total Votes 26,494 (105) votes changed from yes to no 2011 The next vote to continue this funding will occur this year or next year. Otherwise the Muni will be drawing money from the General Fund that seems to be used as a blank check. If the vote is put off for a year, that will say a lot. 6

7. The Present Too Much Time (3.5 years) Too Much Money ($14 million) Too Little Transparency Too Little Potential Outcome 7

8. The Future Faster, cheaper, better, smarter. Here are two suggestions that are faster, cheaper, better, and smarter than Municipalization. WindSource – Worked Yesterday and Works Today Buy REC’s – Perfect for a Paper Power Company REC’s = Renewable Energy Certificates 8

9. Using WindSource for 100% of Boulder to have carbon free electricity would increase rates 24% Boulder 30% rate increase Best-case-scenario for 50% renewables. 9

10. Using REC’s for 100% of Boulder to have carbon free electricity would increase rates 1.2% to 1.5% Boulder 30% rate increase Best-case-scenario for 50% renewables. 10 REC’s video

11. Responsibility Who decides the off-ramp? Is Boulder Energy Future Responsible? NO City Council are the ones who decide. City Council are the ones who are responsible. 11

12. There are Faster, Cheaper, Better, and Smarter Alternatives. We 582 petition for financial facts. The time has come for Boulder City Council to provide a detailed financial update on the status of the possible outcomes of the Municipalization effort. Superficial statements of a “sound” or “robust” financial status are no longer adequate. 12

13. 13

14. But wait, there’s more! Boulder could provide solar incentives especially at optimal locations, and perhaps in the future directly buy REC’s from residents and businesses. 14

15. City Council - please provide the facts that will allow us to critically review the current and modeled future financial status of Municipalization.  Without Gunbarrel customers and Xcel's assets in the separation area. Prove that Municipalization is still a viable option that is better than WindSource or REC’s. Sign the petition - MuniMoneyFacts Sign the petition - MuniMoneyFacts 15

16. 16

17. FacilityLocationCapacityIn-service Date Ponnequin Weld County (just south of the Wyoming border) 26 MW1998 Foot Creek IIIWyoming25 MW1999 RidgecrestPeetz, Colorado30 MW2001 Colorado GreenLamar, Colorado162 MW2004 Cedar CreekGrover, Colorado300 MW2007 Logan WindPeetz, Colorado201 MW2007 Peetz TablePeetz, Colorado200 MW2007 Twin ButtesLamar, Colorado75 MW2007 Northern Colorado WindPeetz, Colorado174 MW2009 NREL/National Wind Testing Center Golden, Colorado10 MW2010 Cedar Creek IIWeld County, Colorado251 MW2011 Cedar Point Wind Lincoln & Elbert Counties, Colorado 252 MW2011 Limon Wind I Lincoln & Elbert Counties, Colorado 200 MW2012 Limon Wind IILincoln County, Colorado200 MW2012 In 2013, Xcel Energy announced plans and received utility commission approval to purchase power from two new projects totaling about 450 megawatts, increasing our system total to about 2,600 megawatts over the next several years. The additions are expected to save Colorado customers about $231 million in fuel costs over 20 years. 17

18. 18

19. Xcel Undergrounding Projects Xcel Energy invested over the years about $19.5 million through the “one percent fund” to convert power lines to underground in Boulder. As a favor to the city, Xcel Energy allowed Boulder to carry forward about $350,000 of unspent funds from 2010 (when the franchised expired) into in 2011 (after the franchise expired) to convert power lines along East Pearl Parkway at Boulder Junction. Other “one percent” projects include: - All of 28 th St from the Turnpike to Iris - 30 th St. – Walnut to Pearl - Arapahoe from west of Folsom to east of Foothills Parkway - Majority of Pearl St, Canyon, Walnut, Broadway, Spruce, Iris, Valmont 19

20. 20

21. Shall the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7920, to limit the portion of bonds or other obligations issued for the purpose of purchasing or otherwise acquiring the existing assets of the electric system and for paying stranded costs in one complete payment to an amount not-to-exceed $214 million, which amount may be increased annually by the Denver-Boulder- Greeley Consumer Price Index, and without limiting the authority of the utility to issue bonds or other obligations in any amount for all other lawful purposes in compliance with the Charter and other applicable laws, and without limiting the authority of the utility to pay stranded costs as a part of rates rather than as one complete payment; and limiting the underlying fees and other costs of issuance of the bonds to amounts paid by other similarly situated utilities; limiting the utility’s service area to an area supporting safe and reliable service to its customers; providing for elections at special or general elections; requiring the utility advisory board to advise the council on rate making; providing for customer choice for out of city customers; for out of city customers to be represented on the utility advisory board; and to provide that, if this ballot question receives more votes than all other initiatives which pertain to debt limitations or the adoption of a new Section 188 of the city Charter, then this measure shall become law and such other initiatives shall not be implemented? 21

22. In the Colorado Supreme Court case of Mountain States Telephone and Telegralph v. DiFede, that's D-I-F-E-D-E, I have a copy if Your Honor would like a copy today. That's 780 P.2d 533, 1989. The Court found that a privilege against nondisclosure is waived if the party seeking to protect the information puts the information at issue, and I think the record is going to show here today, Your Honor, the City has continuously and repeatedly put at issue its modeling, and more specifically for today's purposes, cash flow modeling. It was essential to the analysis, to the conclusion the City reached, that it could meet the Charter requirements. It's proud of its analysis, justifiably so. It's extraordinary sophisticated. But having put it at issue, and having publicized it repeatedly, it can't now say, I'm sorry, you're not allowed to see what's inside of it. 22

23. 23 Spreadsheet

24. 24 Google Earth