By Julie Dunn, Denver Post Staff Writer
Special to the Post / Matthew Staver
Opponents of Xcel Energy's proposed coal-fired power plant near Pueblo blasted
the project at a hearing Monday in Denver, citing environmental, health and
financial concerns.
Jane Greenfield, who has
lived in Colorado for 26 years but comes from a Pennsylvania coal-mining family,
said she has seen the adverse health effects of coal pollution firsthand.
"What good does it
do to have a cheaper energy bill if you're paying higher medical premiums?"
she asked. "Coal is a dead horse. It is not a fuel for the 21st century."
Greenfield, of Boulder,
was one of more than 100 people who gathered at the Adam's Mark Hotel in downtown
Denver for a second Public Utilities Commission hearing on the proposed plant.
A similar hearing was held in Pueblo last week.
Xcel wants to have the power
plant operational by 2009. The commission is expected to rule on a request by
Xcel to build the plant without going through a state-mandated bidding process
by November.
Protesters at the Monday
meeting included the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, Aspen Skiing Co.,
the Sierra Club, the Boulder Energy Group and the American Lung Association
of Colorado.
Minneapolis-based Xcel has
said it needs to build the $1.3 billion, 750-megawatt coal-fired plant to keep
up with Colorado's burgeoning Front Range. The project will add a third unit
to the existing two-unit Comanche generating station.
State law requires competitive
bids for the construction of any power station of more than 250 megawatts.
But Xcel wants an exemption
because it says it can build the plant cheaper and faster than anyone else.
Several independent energy
producers want a chance to build the plant and are protesting Xcel's request
for an exemption.
"Xcel should be more
than ready to enter into the competitive bidding process and prove their plan
is the best plan for ratepayers," said Ben Davis, a consumer advocate with
the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. "They don't want their plan
vetted by the state, yet at the same time they are asking ratepayers to pay
upfront."
Xcel residential customers
would be charged 89 cents a month starting in January to pay for the plant.
Businesses would be charged $1.89.
Wayne Burnetti, Xcel's chief executive, said earlier this month the company
would drop the Pueblo proposal if the PUC doesn't grant it an exemption from
state bidding rules.
Colorado consumer advocate
Ken Reif recently came out in favor of allowing Xcel to build the Pueblo plant
without opening the process up to competitive bids.
More than 40 people testified
at the three-hour hearing, with many opponents citing long-term economic concerns.
"This is too much economic
risk on the consumer. It's going to hurt ratepayers," said Rep. Alice Madden,
a Democrat from Boulder. "The worst part of it to me is there are so many
other renewable-energy options that aren't being considered."
Only one person stood in
support of the coal-fired plant.
"My primary concern
is from a financial standpoint, and coal is the most economical," said
Ted Beckley, a retired engineer from Littleton and an Xcel shareholder.
The PUC moved the meeting from the commission's chambers to the Adam's Mark
meeting room to accommodate the larger-than-usual crowd.
