| |
Rocky Mountain News (CO)
September 28, 2004
Section: Business
Edition: Final
Page Number: 1B
XCEL, PUBLIC CLASH OVER PROPOSAL
Gargi Chakrabarty, 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."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
HOME 
