The Colorado Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments today in a case aimed at stopping construction of Xcel Energy’s controversial Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant in Pueblo.
A pair of environmental-activist groups have raised several issues in appealing a district court’s ruling against their 2005 lawsuit that sought to overturn an air permit granted to Xcel for the $1.3 billion plant.
Among them is an allegation that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment failed to investigate an Environmental Protection Agency violation notice issued in 2002 against two existing Xcel coal-fired units in Pueblo before granting the permit for Comanche 3.
Xcel won the permit in 2005 after agreeing to improve sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions at the existing units, said Leslie Glustrom, a spokeswoman for Clean Energy Action, a plaintiff in the suit.
“The big problem there is that they should’ve cleaned out units 1 and 2 without building unit 3,” Glustrom said. “It’s a little bit like stealing money to pay your bills.”
Construction on the 750-megawatt Comanche 3 generator began in December 2005 and is expected to be completed in fall 2009.
The plant is being built with the approval of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates and several others, said Ethnie Groves, a spokeswoman for Xcel.
Groves also noted that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission approved the plant after extensive hearings and deliberations. Comanche 3 will roughly double Xcel’s capacity at the plant, which already includes a 325-megawatt unit and a 335-megawatt unit.
“We believe we followed all the procedures and properly issued the permit,” said Mark Salley, a spokesman for the Department of Public Health and Environment. “We were pleased that the district court initially had that same finding.”
The district court upheld the permit in a 2006 ruling.
Clean Energy Action and Citizens for Clean Air in Pueblo also contend in their appeal that the department failed to study the new plant’s effects on visibility in areas such as Rocky Mountain National Park and the Great Sand Dunes.
“The law says here’s what should have happened, and those things did not happen,” Glustrom said.
Glustrom said Xcel is required to file a so-called state implementation plan revision with the EPA to use the reduction of emissions at existing plants to win a permit for the new plant.
The appeal also states the department failed to adequately consider alternatives to the coal plant.
“We really shouldn’t be building this coal plant,” Glustrom said. “We don’t need it.”
An appellate ruling is expected in one to two months, Glustrom said.
The Comanche 3 unit is also a target in a probe by the New York attorney general’s office. The office said in September it is investigating whether Xcel and other utilities have adequately informed investors about possible financial risks of carbon emissions from power plants that burn coal.
The office has issued subpoenas to Xcel and four other U.S. utility and energy companies.
Andy Vuong: 303-954-1209 or avuong@denverpost.com
