Colorado Clean Energy: Liability of coal plants and renewable energy alternatives

From: Shelly Colwell
To: Denver Post
Sent: December 1, 2006
Subject: Xcel's plan for a coal-based energy plant

I am outraged after finding out that Xcel expects the citizens to fund another dirty coal plant in Pueblo through rate increases. We will be forced to start paying Jan. 1, 2007, even though the plant will not be producing electricity. We do not need another air-polluting, water-guzzling power plant. Coal plants are one of the biggest polluters of our air, lakes and rivers. Coal plants contribute to global warming, too. This plant would emit thousands of tons of pollutants and would require millions of gallons of water a day to run.

In Minnesota, Xcel is planning a combination of hydro and wind energy instead of a coal plant. Colorado has more sun and wind than Minnesota, so why can't we get our energy from clean and renewable resources? Both of these are clean, energy-efficient ways Colorado could get its power. I would much rather pay an additional fee for clean, renewable energy than a polluting coal plant.

Editor's note: Xcel is currently planning to build a clean-coal plant near Brush and a solar plant in the San Luis Valley.

From: Eric Tussey
To: Boulder Daily Camera
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2006
Subject: Commanche III Plant

From: Tom McKinnon
To: letters@coloradodaily.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:05 PM MDT
Subject: Reply to Paul Danish "Go Nuclear" column in Colorado Daily

I would like to applaud Paul Danish for suggesting that Boulder take the bold step of generating all its electricity from non-carbon sources. His “modest proposal” is to “go nuclear.” The idea would have been even better if Mr. Danish hadn't strayed so far from his libertarian roots.

Rather than flogging a set technology, libertarians would instead set the desired outcome (no greenhouse gases) and then seek the least-cost option to get there. If nukes want to compete to be least cost, quoting W, “bring ‘em on.” We will find that solar power starts to look pretty good relative to splitting atoms.

But before we let nukes and solar duke it out, we need to level the playing field. The radioactive corner must (a) pay for the environmental damage from uranium mining, (b) account for the cost of decommissioning plants, (c) pay the true cost of safe waste disposal, and (d) pay for risk management.

Few people are aware that the Price-Anderson Act lets the nuclear industry get off virtually Scott free if a plant goes boom. Guess who pays the damages?

Once we account for the costs, we'd find that nukes are no bargain. Do we have any other options? Concentrating solar power (CSP), electricity from sunlight, mirrors, and steam, can pump juice into the grid at competitive rates - now! Looking west to California we see over 1,000 megawatts of CSP purchase power agreements signed by major utilities. And unlike waiting the 20 years that Mr. Danish tells us it will take for nuke power to arrive, we could begin seeing results from CSP in just two or three.

So, if Mr. Danish is truly interested in helping Boulder make major cuts in greenhouse gases, I suggest he hook up with Clean Energy Action

(www.cleanenergyaction.org) and work to implement solutions that will actually succeed.

Thank you for addressing Xcel's proposed ratepayer-financed coal-fired plant, Comanche 3. Three very important points were omitted in the story: 1) the air permit for the proposed plant is being litigated, now, because regulators in the past punted on their responsibilities to uphhold the law. The matter has been taken up by interested parties (that alone deserves coverage); 2) financing power projects through ratepayers is unprecedented in the industry, and it transfers financial risks from Xcel and its shareholders to ratepayers (that also, alone, merits coverage); 3) this plant, per Xcel's filings, is being proposed because of Xcel's own mismanagement, subsidiary bankruptcy and resulting poor credit rating. Wall Street instructed Xcel to add assets to its portfolio and Xcel, happy to comply, opted for a coal-fired plant. It could have chosen myriad other solutions such as clean solar and wind combined with energy efficient, demand-side management programs all of which provide the utility a rate of return. These solutions would have benefited ratepayers (aka, people) and utility alike.

From: Heather Rae
To: Westward
Sent: November 1, 2005
Subject: Carbon Loading. Thanks for the Coverage!

I'm just back from a jaunt through the Yampa Valley where I took a pictures of the ubiquitous coal trains. (I've contemplated writing a story called, "Stuck Behind A Coal Train," for all the times I've sat in my car at railroad intersections in Colorado watching tons and tons of coal slide along the rails.) In September, I took pictures of the Hayden and Craig coal-fired power plants in northwest Colorado.

"Steamboat Today" ran a story this past Saturday about Xcel's coal delivery plans. The problem is how to deliver coal by train to Hayden Station once the Seneca Coal Mine -- an important source of coal for the plant -- closes by the end of 2005. "The Hayden Station uses about 1.8 million tons of coal annually. About half that amount is hauled by truck on Routt County Road 27 from the Twentymile Coal Mine, which will be the station's primary coal source when Xcel [sic] closes."

"This is Xcel's second attempt to find a viable long-term solution for getting coal to Hayden Station...Routt County commissioners in April denied a special-use permit to build a spur from the Union Pacific mainline on the Carpenter Ranch south to the station. The spur would have run through part of the ranch, other private properties and under U.S. 40. Xcel had settled on the plan after studying various options and gathering feedback from landowners potentially affected by the options. County commissioners did not like the plan because the spur would have run through a conservation easement -- jointly owned by the county and Yampa Valley Land Trust -- on the ranch. The outcome may have been better had the Planning Commission been part of the entire process, said Chad Phillips, assistant director of the planning department. He noted that the Routt County Planning Commission also denied the original proposal and requested Xcel come back with more information on the other options. 'This is what they should have done to begin with,' he said...'Looking at all the considerations, including topography and the location of Yampa Valley Regional Airport, there doesn't seem to be a best-case scenario,' Phillips said."

"Carbon huggers" antagonistic towards the clean energy alternative, wind, like to say that wind turbines are too far from the grid and therefore, too costly to access. So I wonder, which came first, the coal-fired plants constructed on prime agricultural land -- removed from urban centers and the major demands for electricity -- and their supporting railroad/trucking systems, or the grid? I don't have to wonder which a farmer would prefer on his property, a coal train or wind turbines (or solar photovoltaics) producing electricity and a source of farming income -- electricity generators around which cattle can graze and crops can grow.

From: Eric Johnson
To: Westward
Sent: October 31, 2005
Subject: Pueblo Coal Plant

Thanks for covering the sordid saga of the proposed new Pueblo coal plant. The details of the approval process for this facility, in front of the Public Utilities Commission and in the state Department of Public Health and Environment are nothing short of shocking.

The shame of the matter is that if the plant is built, our state government's failure to do it's job will cost citizens hundreds of millions of dollars more than programs of aggressive energy efficiency measures combined with cost-competitive renewables.

I enjoyed the article "Carbon Loading". Great coverage! I hope that it gets a lot of notice from readers. I have been against this plant ever since I heard about it last year. It really makes me mad that Excel Energy can
sidestep the public review process the way the have. However, I don't consider myself a "critic on the fringe" as we are described in the article. I think a concerned "steward" of the planet is more in line with our motives.

The problems with coal burning are obvious. But it gets worse when we look at it from a bigger perspective. The Proposed Pueblo Comanche III plant is only one plant out of dozens that are under consideration in the Western United States. If we allow these plants to be built the carbon emission increases will be tremendous. For more information on other proposed coal plants see www.westernresourceadvocates.org. Follow the link
to "energy" and then "coal plant issues" to get a state by state listing of proposed plants.

Thanks again for your excellent article. We "air breathers" can use all the help we can get to prevent these environmental disasters.

Dear Rocky Mountain News editor,

No matter how many times the fossil fuel pushers say a new coal plant is a good idea, I think it's crazy to build yet another huge resource-intensive coal-fired power plant - in my "backyard", or in Pueblo's - that will, of
course, increase air pollution and contribute to global warning. Even with some permits in hand and the promise of union jobs, it does not legitimise a bad idea; breaking ground with legal challenges on the books seems foolish at best, especially if you and I are paying.
We must soon learn to reduce our energy demand, and we must support sustainable and renewable energy sources, like wind and solar. I can't imagine that the people who supported Amendement 37 would support this coal plant project. It seems Xcel and the PUC don't get it (certainly this White House doesn't) but the people get it; old-century fossil-burning fuel, especially with costs growing daily, won't work any more. How many wind turbines and solar PV panels could Xcel buy for $1.35 billion?

With Xcel's unsustainable vision, it seems Denver folks could think about the terms of their next franchise with Xcel (the current one expires in December 2006), or if a transition to municipal power might be worth considering.

Especially with the recent news that WindSource customers will be paying less than other customers, signing up for this program is one way to tell Xcel wind is clearly part of the new vision - for the environment, and for our wallets.

If Xcel expects me and every other power customer to cough up $1125 for new infrastructure costs, it most certainly should be used for sensible and sustainable power, not for a coal plant. Maybe I'll apply my share
towards solar panels instead; with energy credits and rebates, it's looking better every day.

From: Jack Twombly
To: Rocky Mountain News
Cc: boardofdirectors@xcelenergy.com
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005
Subject: Xcel's Proposed Plant Is Not "Good to Go" With This Colorado Voter

Climate change is real and accelerating. This is no longer an issue warranting debate. Therefore Xcel should not expect me to finance a coal plant that will emit massive amounts of carbon dioxide for another 50+ years!

For the record, I am a retired professor of electrical engineering and, of greater pertinence, a grandfather. My grandchildren deserve better than a new centralized source of electrical energy in their state that is projected to emit 6 million tons of carbon dioxide and 100 pounds of mercury annually.

From: Leslie Glustrom
To: Rocky Mountain News
Sent: October 14, 2005
RE: NOT "Good to Go"

I am quite shocked at your story from Thursday October 13, 2005 claiming that Xcel is "Good to Go" for building a proposed coal plant in Pueblo that they expect ratepayers to finance while they send all the profits on to their shareholders.

Xcel is most certainly NOT good to go with respect to the proposed coal plant. Coal plants emit massive amounts of pollution and require an air permit from the state before beginning construction. The permit that was issued this summer by the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment has been taken to court by two groups--one from the Denver-Boulder area and one from the Pueblo area. The lawsuit was filed in Pueblo District Court on August 4, 2005 ( Court Number 05 CV 1111). Several reporters from the Rocky Mountain News received the press release on the filing of the lawsuit which was covered by other papers in Denver, Boulder and Pueblo. Ignoring a story does not make it disappear...

The lawsuit against the air permit for Xcel's proposed coal plant is based on numerous violations of law and regulation by the CDPHE. Anyone wanting to read the complaint filed in the lawsuit can do so at www.coloradocleanenergy.org under "PUC/Legal Issues." Moreover, your story claims that building the plant will reduce pollution. While Xcel has finally agreed to reduce its massive emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the existing coal plants in Pueblo--emissions that should have been reduced years ago--emissions of particulates, volatile organic compounds, hazardous pollutants like mercury, lead and arsenic and, of course, carbon dioxide will be greatly increased by building this huge new coal plant in a town that has already borne too much pollution.

Xcel's credit rating is so poor that they are planning on having their ratepayers finance the plant while having shareholders reap all the profits. It is a great business plan as long as you are a monopoly!

In addition, Xcel ratepayers will be expected to pay whatever the cost of coal will be for the next 50 years--to say nothing of the liabilities for climate-induced disasters. Like all fossil fuels, the price of coal has been going up for the last couple of years. Your readers should also know that the electric rate increase that Xcel is presently asking for was brought on partly because they couldn't get coal out of Wyoming's Powder River Basin, driving up their costs. (Read their SEC 8-K Report of July 11, 2005 to confirm this.)

What will future rate increases look like if Xcel adds yet another Pueblo coal plant to its ratebase? No one knows what the price of coal will be in 2030 or 2050, but whatever it is, Xcel intends for its ratepayers to pay it. There are a lot of ratepayers out here who have no such intention. Hopefully next time you will work a bit harder to get this information to your readers.

From: Heather Rae
To: Rocky Mountain News
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005
Subject: Xcel power plant NOT good to go

Dear Editor:

Again, your paper has published misinformation regarding Xcel Energy's proposed coal plant for Pueblo. Xcel's air permit for this power plant is in court and the plant could be held up for at least a year or two...that's hardly "good to go."

For Xcel's ratepayers, this plant is a bad deal: 1) Xcel is an investor-owned monopoly utility with obligations to its shareholders, not to the homeowners and businesses that will be stuck with rising fossil fuel prices -- and pollution; 2) Xcel, saddled with a self-inflicted bad credit rating, wants ratepayers pay up front for the power plant; 3) polluting power plants transfer their burdens to taxpayers via higher health care and insurance costs and, of particular concern to Colorado, compromised tourism. With backing from the PUC, we pay and Xcel profits.

I'm surprised The Rocky Mountain News, with its bias towards 'free markets,' puts the interests of this utility monopoly over other businesses operating in the state. An out-of-stater mused at one of Xcel's least-cost planning sessions, "who are the coal companies paying off?" It does make one wonder.

Dear Editor:

I was stunned by your story from Thursday October 13, 2005 claiming that Xcel is "Good to Go" for building the proposed coal plant in Pueblo that they expect ratepayers to finance while they send all the profits on to their shareholders.

Although they did not effect us directly here in Colorado, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should be a wakeup call to the United States that we cannot continue business as usual. While one cannot say that a given storm is caused by global warming, one can no longer say that it was simply a natural disaster. Sea surface temperatures in the have been increasing worldwide, and the Gulf of Mexico has warmed dramatically. Prior to Katrina, sea surface temperatures in the Gulf was greater 90 degrees F, compared to about 86 F in the early 1070s. A major cause of this warming is release of greenhouse gases, particularly excess carbon dioxide due to burning of fossil fuels. Keep in mind that about half of U.S. oil refining capacity is in the Gulf states and approximately 40% of oil and gas production comes from the Gulf. If you think gasoline is expensive now, wait until there are several more such summers as 2005.

Given what we now know, building another coal-fired power plant is bordering on criminal.

From: Carl Lehrburger
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:01 PM
To: Rocky Mountain News
Subject: "Xcel 'good to go' "

Dear Editor,
Your Oct. 13th story, "Xcel 'good to go' in Pueblo", failed to mention a pending lawsuit against the Colorado agency that granted Xcel the air permit for the polluting coal-fired project. The Colorado Department of Public
Health and the Environment has been taken to Pueblo District Court on August 4, 2005. This suit could result in a delay of the Xcel project or even a revocation of the air permit. The RMN story also was misleading claiming
that "Xcel has committed to reducing pollution below existing levels", which is patently false: the project will increase air pollution levels dramatically.

If built, the ratepayers will financially underwrite a fossil fuel technology that generates particulate air pollution and greenhouse gases including over 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year for every person in Colorado. The energy conservation and renewable energy alternatives to the proposed coal plant would cost about the same, as documented by Xcel. And unlike coal fired electricity, the renewable energy and energy conservation alternatives to coal will not saddle the
ratepayers with a polluting hydrocarbon technology for the next 50 years. Wake up RMN and smell the pollution.

From: Françoise Poinsatte
To:Rocky Mountain News
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005
Subject: XCEL proposed Coal plant

Dear Editor,I was very disappointed to read the New's editorial that XCEL's proposed coal power plant in Pueblo is "good to go".

Let's look at what else might be "good to go" along with the plant. An additional 6 million tons of carbon dioxide added annually to our atmosphere will contribute to global warming. Large quantities of toxins such as mercury, volatile organic compounds, lead, arsenic and over 270,000 pounds of sulfuric acid mist will be contaminating the environment on an annual basis.

Another unmentioned item that will be "good to go" is money from ratepayers' pocketbooks, since XCEL is relying on ratepayers to finance the whole project. Even as windpower has become less expensive than conventionally generated electricity, XCEL insists on banking its future, and ours, on coal. Coloradans should be taking note that Windsource costumers will be paying less per kilowatt hour this winter for the first time.

It's time we take a good hard look at the negative health and environmental impacts of coal and include these in the financial equation, before we get stuck with these plants for years to come. Even with cleaner burning processes, as promised in the plant's Units 1 and 2, coal cannot compete with renewables for long term sustainability. It's time to make the shift now before we pour money into infrastructure that will become obsolete as climate change continues to occur.

From: Joe MacDonald
To: Rocky Mountain News
Cc: boardofdirectors@xcelenergy.com
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:03 AM
Subject: Toxic and Dirty Xcel Coal Plant for Pueblo(the People?)

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind........(with apologies to Bob Dylan)

From: CJ Cullinan
To: Rocky Mountain News
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005
Subject: Pueblo Coal Plant

Your 10/13 article referrring to the "go ahead" on the Pueblo Coal plant is misleading. Their permit is being questioned in court and may take years to be determined. Xcel has not moved ahead as quickly on the Colorado voter mandated alternative source development.

It is amazing that Xcel is giving $1 million plus matching funds to assist people with their energy bill blaming natural gas supply and pricing when they have the wonderfully available wind and sun of Colorado to harness.

I find it difficult to understand how Xcel can use the money we, as customers, pay for our monthly utilities to finance a political campaign against the clean energy bill, baulk on development and construction of alternative sources (wind being a very viable alternative with locales outside Pueblo near La Junta that would also supplement rental earnings of local farmers/ranchers as well as provide unlimited energy possibilities), and fight to build a coal-burning plant in Pueblo. What energy and costs will bring that coal to Pueblo? Who is paying? We are. And I'm not about to sit around and let Excel just increase our rates blaming the Regulatory Agency for the pricing when they ask for it each and every year!! Coal is not clean energy. It does not help with the health and well being of Colorado. Coal emissions harm. Please Xcel use your perceived generosity and compassion to develop and utilize clean energy sources especially wind turbines for today and the future. Natural gas and coal will only become more scarce and more expensive. To consider the future is to hone the long-term goals of today - clean energy!!

Letters to the Editor