US cities pushing to take over electricity generation
Boulder, Colorado, for instance, could take an important step towards creating its own municipal utility, among the nation's first in years, as soon as next month. A scheduled vote by the City Council comes after a study process that residents, impatient with the private electric company's pace in reaching the city's environmental goals, helped pay for by raising their own taxes.
While Boulder's level of activism may be unusual, the desire to take control of the electricity business is not. Officials in Minneapolis and Santa Fe are considering splitting from their private utilities, while lawmakers in Massachusetts are trying to make it easier for towns and counties to make the break.
Over the years, many localities have considered creating municipal utilities, usually about the time their franchise agreements with private electric companies are to expire. But they are now examining municipal utilities as concerns rise over carbon emissions and as the ability to use renewable energy sources increases.
"Right now, a lot of the communities are looking at it for climate reasons," said Ursula Schryver, director of education and customer programs at the American Public Power Association. "The biggest benefit about public power is the local control."
But private utilities often resist giving up control - and customers - to new, public competitors, arguing that it leaves them unable to recoup investments. In addition, the power industry cites its experience in keeping the lights on while meeting environmental goals.
"This is our business. It's what we do," said David Eves, chief executive of the Public Service Company of Colorado, the division of Xcel Energy operating in Boulder. And because its parent company operates in eight states, the utility can focus on being more efficient. "We don't run other parts of the city operation and deal with those kind of things. It's our specialty."
Roughly 70 per cent of the nation's homes are powered through private, investor-owned utilities, which are allowed to earn a set profit on their investments, usually through the rates they charge customers. But government-owned utilities are non-profit entities that do not answer to shareholders. They have access to tax-exempt financing for their projects, they do not pay federal income tax and they tend to pay their executives salaries that are on a par with government levels rather than higher corporate rates.
In addition, they can plough more of their revenue back into maintenance, which can result in more reliable service.
But supporters of investor-owned utilities say restoration speeds vary among government-owned and private utilities. The large electric companies, they say, are often in a better position to muster resources because they can call on extra staff from other companies and regions.
"Very few utilities can really maintain the full complement of crews and equipment that they may need - it's not economic," said James Fama, vice president of energy delivery at the Edison Electric Institute, which represents private utilities.
The road to a new utility is a long and expensive journey.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Cities are increasingly exploring municipal utilities to gain local control over energy choices, speed up renewable energy adoption and address concerns about climate change and power disruptions. The article says residents frustrated with the pace of private utilities on environmental goals are driving renewed interest in public power.
The article highlights Boulder, Colorado as a leading example (with a City Council vote possible as soon as next month). It also notes officials in Minneapolis and Santa Fe are considering splits from private utilities, and Massachusetts lawmakers are working to make it easier for towns and counties to pursue municipal utilities.
A municipal utility is a government‑owned, non‑profit electric utility that answers to local officials rather than shareholders. Unlike investor‑owned utilities, public power entities generally have access to tax‑exempt financing, do not pay federal income tax, pay executive salaries more in line with government levels, and can reinvest revenue back into maintenance and local services.
According to the article, roughly 70% of U.S. homes are served by private, investor‑owned utilities. These companies are allowed to earn a set profit on their investments, typically recovered through customer rates.
Supporters cited in the article say municipal utilities provide stronger local control to meet climate goals, the ability to prioritize renewable energy, tax‑advantaged financing, and the option to reinvest more revenue into maintenance — which can lead to more reliable service.
Private utilities and industry groups argue that splitting off customers can leave companies unable to recoup past investments. They also say investor‑owned utilities may restore service faster after outages by calling on extra staff and resources from other regions, drawing on broad operational experience.
The article notes that if cities take customers away from investor‑owned utilities, those companies could face challenges recouping investments recovered through rates. Private utilities warn this shift could complicate their ability to earn allowed returns, though specifics would depend on each case and regulatory decisions.
Forming a new public utility is described as a long and expensive process. Localities often consider it when franchise agreements with private utilities expire, but they must navigate studies, financing, potential legal resistance from incumbent utilities and the logistical challenges of building and operating power systems.

