"When asked for comment, Heather Bailey, Boulder's energy director, threw a pile of money into the air exclaiming, 'Wheeeeee!', before speeding off in her new sportscar."

The city of Boulder should give up this fiasco now, before it costs the taxpayers any more money But then how would City Council, Carr, and Heather Bailey justify their bank rolls?

This fiasco isn't going anywhere but to further litigation.

It has to do with how the DailyCamera links articles differently on the main page compared to the "Hot Topics" bar. Here's the link to the comments page you're probably talking about: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_257021...

Steve, just out of curiosity on my part - have you heard anyone else's thoughts over at the NREL/NWTC in general regarding Boulder municipalization - or is it something not really talked about at the workplace?

To continue the talk about Joseph's points:

1) This idea exists as energy markets, or even proposed energy imbalance markets. There are a lot of concepts tied into this, (constrained optimal power flow and economic dispatch, congestion, contingency planning, firm and non-firm services, transfer capability, etc.) - but in the end, all it is, is like you suggest Joseph: different regions sharing with each other to cover deficits or avoid curtailing generation. Like Steve points out, what's nice about Xcel's area is that it's large enough that it makes it easier for them to do redirect many resources internally.

2) Energy storage is swell, but wind is somewhat limited in its range of storage options - pretty much only concentrated solar power has it "easy", where by expanding the facility, excess heat can be stored for use later on, giving CSP its high "capacity value" compared to other renewable types. The addition of another generation facility takes wind out of the economically competitive region for generation. That is, a pumped hydro facility added to the costs of a wind site can roundabout double the levelized cost of the project (re: energy).

And there's a reason in there for why most major pumped hydro projects were built in the late 60s through the 70s.

Cabin Creek is a cool site. You should go if you ever get the chance - we got to take a tour for a class once. But again, there's a reason utilities specializing in renewables (such as Xcel) aren't lining up to build new pumped hydro sites.

Related to the first point - again, the idea of energy (imbalance) markets is to reduce the risk in variable generation by aggregating pools of participants to smooth out those large variations - lowering the need for generation reserves (including energy storage).

Xcel, as a balancing authority, is in a better position to manage its assets over its transmission grid than a municipal utility the size of Boulder would be.

3) You'd have to be more specific on this. Do you mean incentives for demand-side participation in load management (Xcel does this for customers over 300kW), or promoting energy-reduction programs and rebates (Xcel has been doing that for a while, too)?

Just to clarify, I don't think this has much to do with the Boulder DA, Stan Garnett, who has been on the rational side of legalization for quite a while now (including recently dropping most small cannabis possession cases). I think you're referring to the City Attorney, Tom I-Got-Fired-From-Seattle-And-Got-A-Raise-In-Boulder Carr.

When it comes to representing the will of the voter base, there is a world of difference between these two guys; that difference being that Carr is just out to protect his overlords at the council (at the expense of citizens if need be).

It has to do with how the Camera (for whatever reason) creates two separate article pages - one for the news stories you see on the actual front page, and the other for the "Most Viewed" box on the right.

Here's the link to the original with three pages of comments:
Boulder officials: Ban non-medical pot shops...

This letter is in response to all the outcry's regarding Jon Embree's firing.

Who is "outcry", and what of his are we talking about?

I often take most of the comments around here with a dash of salt, since they tend to be a bit slanted one way or another, but one thing that's been made abundantly clear by citizens in the past is the refusal to shop around town when faced with the imposition of overzealous fees that the town tends to place on would-be shoppers. That is to say, shopping online is cheaper, faster, and less hassle.

Boulder officials say they need to find a way to capture some of that lost sales tax revenue.

Well, it's called speeding vans, red-light cameras, bag fees, hiking-at-night ticketing, open space sales tax, etc. - and it already goes on. The city leaders don't seem to have a problem in raking in the revenue; it's the not-spending-it-all-and-more part that maybe evades reasonable comprehension.

What shoulder, friend?

It's (for some weird reason) just how the DC sets up the site - the same article might appear twice, but with a slightly different web address, depending on if it's clicked from the front page or from the "Most Viewed" links on the side of the page.

As for "why?", I couldn't say. Just seems like doubling-down on the required web space for articles...but what do I know.