Boulder voters will decide in November whether they want to put their money where their eco-friendly beliefs are.
Facing voters is a “climate tax,” which would charge businesses and homes based on how much energy they use.
The money would support the city’s Climate Action Plan, which, among other things, seeks to lower the city’s emissions of greenhouse gases by about a quarter.
Those goals are in line with the city’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for a reduction of emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
For Boulder, that means cutting out 350,000 metric tons of yearly pollution in six years.
“It’s significant,” said Mayor Mark Ruzzin, a champion of the plan. “But it’s doable.”
If approved, the tax would raise the average home bill by about $2 a month, Ruzzin said. For businesses, depending on their size and how much energy they use, the bill would increase from about $5 a month to about $35 a month.
The tax would be collected by Xcel Energy.
Much of the money would be used in public-education campaigns to make people aware of energy- efficiency rebates and other incentives.
Ruzzin said the money also would fund low-cost energy audits for businesses and homeowners and provide residents with easier access to energy-efficient products, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Electricity use accounts for about half of Boulder’s greenhouse gas emissions, Ruzzin said.
Boulder is not alone in trying to reduce greenhouse gases. To date, 319 American cities – ranging from the large, like Chicago, to the small, like Capitan, N.M. – have committed to some form of the Kyoto goals.
Portland, Ore., which first adopted the goals in 1993, claims to have already reduced its emissions to 1990 levels.
In Boulder, there is no formal opposition to the tax, though some in the business community have been skeptical.
The local chamber of commerce had concerns about whether the city would see a positive return. After several meetings with city officials, the chamber now endorses the tax.
“The board is confident that, moving forward, our concerns are going to continue to be heard,” said Dan Powers, a spokesman for the Boulder Chamber of Commerce.
But, he noted, others remain skeptical.
The pro-business group Boulder Tomorrow has posted on its website an explanation of its concerns.
“The city should be involved in educating citizens on how to save energy and take advantage of existing rebate programs,” the explanation reads. “With some tough but astute budget choices … this effort could be financed from the existing general fund without imposing a new tax.”
Earl McLaughlin, Boulder Tomorrow’s president, could not be reached for comment.
Ruzzin said the climate tax is vital to funding and expanding public-education campaigns, which he said are the most cost-effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
“It’s admittedly not as sexy as going out there and trying to buy a wind farm,” he said. “But for cost effectiveness, we’ll get much bigger bang for our buck, and, more importantly, we’ll make progress toward our goal.”
Residents in Portland, Ore., were receptive to public- education campaigns, which formed a large part of the city’s emissions-reduction strategy, said Stephanie Swanson, the spokeswoman for Portland’s Office of Sustainable Development.
“In creating all these demands for green services, we’ve been incubating an industry,” Swanson said. “There’s a whole economic development strategy that has developed.”
Ruzzin said meeting the Kyoto goals won’t come easy, and even with the tax, Boulder will need to be creative to get there.
“We need to use every tool in the toolbox to get to the Kyoto goals.”
Staff writer John Ingold can be reached at 720-929-0898 or jingold@denverpost.com.
