Xcel, Public Clash Over Proposal ; Firm Says Plant in Pueblo Needed for Growing Front Range

Oct 01 - Rocky Mountain News

About 150 people turned up at a downtown Denver hotel Monday afternoon to voice their concerns and learn more about Xcel Energy's proposed $1.4 billion coal-fired power plant in Pueblo.

If approved, the plant would increase electric rates for Xcel's residential, business and wholesale customers in Colorado. Xcel says the power plant is needed to serve the Front Range's growing demand for electricity.

"This plant places too much economic risk on customers," said Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, during a public hearing before state regulators at the Adam's Mark Hotel. "Electric rates will go up if this plant is approved. And there is a fiscal liability on ratepayers if there is any future litigation.

"Besides, the plant will use our precious water resources," Madden told regulators.

Madden also voiced similar concerns during a news conference organized by the Sierra Club just before the public hearing. The club and other environmental groups, including some Pueblo residents, oppose Xcel's plan to build a 750-megawatt power plant in the southern Colorado town.

One megawatt serves the needs of 400 to 900 average households.

Before starting the hearing at 4 p.m., Public Utilities Commission Chairman Gregory Sopkins asked the audience to maintain a friendly atmosphere and not to intimidate the speakers with signs and banners.

About 45 people signed up to speak, both for and against the plant, although Sopkins warned that not everybody would get a chance given the three-hour time constraint.

The PUC had organized a similar hearing in Pueblo last Thursday when about 50 people testified before regulators.

"We would like to hear from the public what they think of the various proposals, specifically the coal-fired power plant," PUC spokeswoman Barbara Fernandez had said. "Whether or not ratepayers should pay for the plant upfront, and whether or not there should be a waiver of the competitive bidding process."

If the plant is approved, electric rates for residential customers will increase 8 cents per month as early as next year and will jump 89 cents per month in five years. The rate for business customers will increase 15 cents per month next year and $1.89 per month in five years.

Also, Xcel - which wants to own a two-thirds stake in the plant - does not want to put it out for competitive bids. The utility argues it would be more economical for it to build and own the plant rather than contract it out to private producers. To prove it is not shutting out private producers, Xcel has said it will seek bids on 2,800 megawatts of power from any source, including coal or natural gas or energy savings, and bids on another 500 megawatts of power from wind in the coming months.

But that is not enough, say those opposing Xcel's proposed plant.

"Xcel is not considering demand side management or energy savings as an alternative to building the coal-fired plant," said Bill LeBlanc, president of the Boulder Energy Group, who spoke against the proposed plant on Monday.

LeBlanc pointed out that in Minnesota, Xcel has saved more than 2,000 megawatts over 15 years through various programs such as customer rebates for energy efficient light bulbs, air-conditioners and refrigerators. He said similar programs in Colorado would offset the need for a new plant.

Mark Detsky of Environment Colorado said a new power plant would cause a lot of air pollution. For instance, Pueblo County has 3 percent of Colorado's population although it accounts for 46 percent of the state's mercury emissions, according to federal data. "If the plant is built, Pueblo will account for 61 to 81 percent of the total mercury emissions in the state," Detsky said.

But Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz called it a false argument, noting "there is no relevance between the number of people living in a county and the amount of mercury each resident absorbs in a year."

Stutz also said there is no current regulation regarding mercury emission, although Xcel has its own internal standards.

"We need a 24-hours-a-day, seven- days-a-week, coal-fired generation to serve the needs of our customers now and in the future," Stutz said. "And we are here to listen to the views of people who have an interest in the proposed plant."

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit: http://www.energycentral.com .