Tell Denver City Council – No Dirty Backdoor Deal with Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy originally hoped to run their highest polluting electric plant, the Comanche Coal Plant, until 2040. Then hundreds of people wrote in and spoke out at public hearings demanding that they close the plant as soon as possible – 2030 at the latest.

In response, Xcel struck a backdoor deal with the City of Denver to keep running the coal plant until 2035, along with some nasty strings attached.

Luckily the Public Utility Commission is likely to amend or even reject this proposed settlement. We’re co-organizing a rally on Friday April 8th and a phone/email campaign telling Denver City Council to refuse any future agreement with Xcel and instead demand the Comanche 3 Coal Plant close by 2030 or sooner.

Attend the Coal Free Colorado Rally on Friday April 8th

Call or email your city council representative and tell them No Dirty Backdoor Deal for Xcel.

Denver is Turning its Back on its Climate Commitments by Signing the Xcel Settlement


Denver’s electricity provider, Xcel Energy, is trying to lock Colorado into 13 more years of coal while forcing customers to foot the bill… And the City of Denver supported it!

Here’s what’s wrong with the proposed settlement:

  1. It agrees that Comanche 3, the largest single source of climate pollution in Colorado, should operate until 2035.

    The settlement would require the Comanche 3 coal plant to burn coal until 2035– five years longer than any other coal plant in Colorado. This is the most unreliable power plant in the state, including being offline for nearly all of 2020 because of poor maintenance practices.

    The coal plant is the largest source of climate pollution in the state and is located in Pueblo, a low-income, Latino community. This community doesn’t even get the electricity from the plant — just the pollution. When the PUC held a hearing in Pueblo in October 2021, residents expressed overwhelming support for retiring the coal plant by 2030 at the latest.
  2. It prevents Comanche 3 from ever being closed earlier than 2035.

    The settlement would lock in a retirement date for Comanche 3 of December 31, 2034 that could never be changed, even as the plant continues to suffer malfunctions and more and more cheaper, cleaner alternatives become available. The single largest source of CO2 emissions will run for the next 14 years.
  3. It makes Xcel’s shareholders rich on the backs of Denver ratepayers.

    The settlement forces us ratepayers to pay Xcel $658 million to recover costs lost because of their mismanagement. We shouldn’t be on the hook to pay millions to Xcel’s Wall Street investment for their bad business decisions.

    The settlement also guarantees Xcel at least $626 million in new company-owned electric generation resources to replace the Comanche 3 coal plant after 2035. The more resources Xcel builds and owns, such as new wind turbines, solar panels, or gas plants, the more money their shareholders make. Typically, Xcel has to allow other companies to bid on new electric projects. For example, instead of setting up community-owned solar farms we would have to get our new electricity through Xcel, feeding their extractive monopoly.
  4. It assumes new gas plants would operate for at least 40 years.

    The settlement allows Xcel to assume that new gas plants would operate for 40 years – long after 2050, the date by which Xcel says it is aiming to be carbon-free. This violates Denver’s plan for 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, and Colorado’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2040.
  5. It will massively increase pollution from gas-fired power plants.

    The settlement says that the social cost of carbon will be used in dispatch starting in the summer of 2022. This means that gas generation will increase dramatically, to make up for the lost coal generation–because it is impossible for Xcel to acquire new renewables by next summer.


    Tell your City Council member and the Mayor that the City of Denver to protect people and the climate, rather than corporate profits!

Comments (

0

)