Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › Business › Energy

Xcel plant lightning rod for conflict

Proposed Denver facility would run on natural gas

Gargi Chakrabarty

Published June 20, 2008 at midnight

Text size  

Related Links

More Energy

More stories »

Xcel Energy's proposal to build a power plant in Denver has become a poster child for conflict as Colorado moves toward a new-energy economy based on renewable energy and conservation.

Xcel, which serves 1.3 million electric customers in the state, says the proposed plant fired by natural gas - a clean-burning fuel - would emit fewer pollutants and supply power by 2013. It would replace two older, coal-fired plants that Xcel wants to shut down.

But that hasn't satisfied critics. They question the need for the plant, whose estimated cost today is more than $600 million, up from the initial estimate of $436 million in November, due in part to escalating costs for labor, steel and equipment.

Opponents argue that renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, or energy conservation can substitute for an expensive new plant.

Faced with mounting opposition, Xcel says it will wait until later this year to resubmit a detailed proposal.

Beginning Monday, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission will hold hearings at 550 15th St. to take comments from 80 people about Xcel's plans to supply power, including the proposed plant. The hearings are expected to last three weeks.

"When you have a utility who's willing to go from coal, a significant carbon dioxide emitter, to natural gas, the cleanest form of conventional energy available, we should be applauding," said Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp.

"We have to realize that renewables are where everybody is going. Most companies are involved with energy conservation," he said. "But in the midst of that, we still have a rising need for electricity, and electricity delivered by an inexpensive and clean resource such as natural gas is the obvious and irrevocable choice."

Clark said delaying the plant not only will hike its cost but also hurt customers who ultimately will pay for it.

Xcel wants to build the plant at 2601 S. Platte River Drive, where it owns the Arapahoe Generating Station, a coal- fired power plant.

In November, Xcel offered to shut down two coal-fired plants, the Arapahoe site and the Cameo in Grand Junction, to reduce carbon emissions. To replace the 229 megawatts the plants provide, Xcel said it would build the 480-megawatt natural gas-fired plant.

One megawatt serves roughly 1,000 electric customers.

"We have strong questions about going from coal to natural gas (for power generation)," said Leslie Glustrom, an environmental activist. "It's a bit like going from the frying pan to the fire.

"We are at a pivotal point for our planet, country and state, and the good news is, we have magnificent solar and wind resources in Colorado."

The Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel in April had raised doubts about the plant in view of the skyrocketing price of natural gas, asking Xcel to defer a decision for a couple of years. The price of natural gas today is about $12 per million British thermal unit, compared with $7 in January.

Jim Greenwood, the OCC director, praised Xcel for deferring its decision until later this year and also for promising to compare alternatives to the plant.

"I appreciate them for waiting until what the final modeling shows before jumping into that larger expenditure," he said.

John Nielsen of the Boulder- based Western Resources Advocates, an environmental group, said the natural gas plant was a "reasonable proposal," given Xcel's wide portfolio of energy supplies.

"Xcel is the first utility in the West to retire coal, replacing it with other resources," Nielsen said. "They really are taking positive steps, and beginning to address pressing problems of carbon emissions, and their plan makes a lot of sense."

In the upcoming hearing, the PUC also will consider Xcel's broader resource plan to meet the power demands of its customers. In total, the utility has proposed adding more than 2,300 megawatts of new generation, including 1,050 megawatts of renewable energy and nearly 700 megawatts in energy-efficiency programs.

"When talking about a resource plan, we have a mixture of energy efficiency, renewable energy, natural gas and other resources," Xcel spokesman Tom Henley said. "We cannot rely upon any one resource too heavily, or we could find ourself in a corner.

"Unfortunately, unlike telephone companies, we cannot give you a busy signal when you want power."

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976

Some specifics

* What: Xcel Energy's proposed natural gas power plant

* Where: 2601 S. Platte River Drive

* How much: Between $608 million and $646 million, up from the original estimate of $436 million in November

* When: Originally scheduled to be operating by 2013

* Capacity: 480 megawatts

Comments

  • June 21, 2008

    7:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pak writes:

    Renewables work only 33% of the time and need to be backed up by dispachable gas plants. China has built 150 coal plants since 2005 so Excel's plans will do absolutely nothing for the environment but will raise our gas bills We import 20% of this nation's gas as LNG at 50% higher price so get ready for a huge spike in electricity bills. You think gasoline is high, wait for your gas and electricity bills. The answer is cheap, available coal.

  • June 21, 2008

    8:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RJS07 writes:

    As usual, the enviros are not going to be happy with anything less then all of us living in caves. They have such a poor grasp of reality, they don't understand that NONE of this can happen overnite. What a bunch of idiots.

  • June 21, 2008

    8:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    help help, I'm surrounded by fools in dressed in green....Once again the town idiots are out in mass blowing hot air to keep yet another power plant from being built, What was that the hallowed democrats chant, "there is no evidence that environmentalists have ever stopped energy growth? Until these green jerks are put in their place and challenged with MATH, we face a never ending stonewall of energy growth, higher prices on everything.

  • June 21, 2008

    9:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pwern writes:

    Perhaps the author of this propaganda piece (disguised as a news story) would be kind enough to the 70% of us Coloradoans who don't buy into this renewable energy nonsense to at least acknowledge we exist.
    If truthful and unbiased, the first line of the story, "As Colorado moves toward a new-energy economy based on renewable resources" should be rewritten as "As Democrats and liberals attempt to subvert our economy by forcing inefficient and ineffective sources of energy on the state."
    Does anyone with basic literacy (and who lives outside of Boulder) really believe that we can meet the energy needs of this state with wind and solar?

  • June 21, 2008

    9:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Try clean coal, cheaper for the consumer and will meet the LT needs of all those electric cars coming on line.

    I am stunned that Xcel has a coal fired plant in Denver - drive by it every day and never noticed it was coal. They must be doing a great job with emmissions.

  • June 21, 2008

    10:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SockRayBlue writes:

    Ever been in the mountains? Ever notice how easy it is to get sunburned?

    Focused solar energy converted to steam. The two plants could easily be built above Denver on Green Mountain and the other outside of Grand Junction. Natural gas to be used as back up only.

    Why do companies trying to act progressive constantly fall back on old technology?

    I hope the PUC reads the riot act to these Excel idiots. They just want to use the pipeline to/from Texas to funnel money back home. When will anyone wake up and realize just what kind of game is going on? Self sufficient? No. I think the Texans are counting on the majority of Coloradans to be affected by the later stages of hypoxia.

  • June 21, 2008

    11:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SockRayBlue writes:

    Hakj

    The coal comes from Gillette, Wyoming. There is no state income tax there. Wanna guess why?
    The newer modes of energy are priced so high because of greed and the expectations of investors. The best idea would be a Co-op that would center the communities focus on success not tax write-offs.

    I'll go on record that I'd work for building a solar powered steam plant for Xcel at an hourly wage less than the going rate. If for any reason other than proving an individuals commitment to society.