Denver Politics
On My Block · Denver Politics

ElectionsBallot measures

Some of the 'Denverites' in the Yes on 2K ads work for Xcel. Here's what the franchise actually says about burying power lines

9News found that several residents featured in ads for Question 2K are Xcel Energy employees, a fact the ads don't state. One ad promises more buried power lines. Council records show how that money works and what city staff said about it.

By Denver Politics staffUpdated

Ads urging Denver voters to approve Question 2K, the 20-year franchise agreement with Xcel Energy, feature people introduced as Denver residents. Several of them are Xcel employees, and the ads don't say so, 9News reported late Friday.

The ads come from Safe and Reliable Energy Denver, the committee backing the measure, which 9News reported is funded by a $3.3 million contribution from Xcel. A committee spokesperson told the station that not everyone in the campaign works for Xcel, and that the employees who took part live in Denver, support 2K and volunteered their own time. Another post quotes former Mayor Wellington Webb and lists his title. The posts featuring employees do not list their jobs, 9News found. (We are not naming the employees, who are private residents.)

Why it matters: ballots are due Tuesday, Nov. 3, at 7 p.m. 2K decides whether Xcel keeps a franchise to run gas and electric lines in Denver's streets. It does not set rates, which the state Public Utilities Commission controls, and Xcel stays Denver's energy provider either way, 9News noted.

What our records add: the undergrounding money

One employee post says it's "time to bury more power lines." 9News pointed out that undergrounding money exists under the current, expiring agreement and continues under 2K. Here is what the Council heard about it.

  • About $10 million a year. At the June 8 Budget and Policy Committee briefing, an Xcel presenter told members the franchise is worth about $30 million a year in fees to the city's General Fund, and that Xcel puts roughly $10 million a year into a "one percent fund" for undergrounding. The presenter said the money rolls over from year to year and that cities can borrow against future years.
  • "Quite a black box." When the full Council took up the referral on July 27, a member asked how the city would be more deliberate about that fund. City staffer Cindy Patton answered that undergrounding costs about $1 million a block, so 1% a year does not go far, and acknowledged that over the past 20 years the program "has been quite a black box" in where the money went. She said the city had started posting that information online and would be more transparent (meeting).
  • If 2K fails. At a Sept. 21 budget hearing, Darrell Watson (District 9) asked how the city would cover the roughly $30 million to $32 million it expects from the franchise if voters say no. An administration official answered that Denver and Xcel would seek approval again at the next possible election, and that a provision in the current agreement allows the fee to keep being collected in the short term (meeting). Whether that provision holds up has been disputed: a former PUC chairman told Colorado Politics he did not believe Xcel could keep collecting the fee after Jan. 1.

How the Council voted. The Council sent 2K to the ballot 10-2 on July 27, with Shontel Lewis and Sarah Parady voting no and Stacie Gilmore absent. A year earlier, an earlier version failed 6-7. Our earlier story has the full roll calls for both, plus the companion Energy Partnership Agreement, 26-0973.

Campaign spending and Council votes are reported here side by side for context. Neither shows why any member voted the way they did.

What's next