CEA Legal Issues

Colorado PUC: Legal issues 2009-2010

These pages link to testimony and legal documents filed in hearings related to the construction of various coal plants. Although Clean Energy Action is not officially involved in activities before the PUC, our members have been active as private citizens in bringing important energy issues before the Commission.

Xcel Reduces Rate Increase--Unit 3 Coal Plant Held Up by Steam Tube Problems

2009 was a strange year. First Xcel filed for two back-to-back rate increases driven in large part by its certainty that the new 750 MW Unit 3 coal plant in Pueblo would come on line in 2009. Finally, on December 14, 2009, after several previous delays, Xcel acknowledged that the new Unit 3 coal plant would not begin operating till 2010. As a result, the Public Utilities Commission decided not to charge rate payers until the coal plant becomes operational. Therefore, Xcel's second rate increase was reduced by $61 million annually until the Unit 3 coal plant is operational.

Clean Energy Action member Leslie Glustrom played a key role in obtaining this rate reduction. If Xcel continues to have problems with the steam tubes in the coal plant, this could delay its operation beyond the new target date of February 2010. The PUC decision  (C09-1446) delaying the collection of revenue for the Unit 3 coal plant is here. (The discussion of the coal plant begins on page 24.) Leslie Glustrom's appeal ("RRR") of this decision is here. The written Commission decision on appeal has not been issued yet.

"Prudence" Challenge of the Coal Plant Headed to Court

In early 2009, Clean Energy Action founding member Leslie Glustrom challenged the "prudence" of the new Xcel Unit 3 coal plant in Pueblo in response to Xcel's first rate increase filing. "There are dozens of studies and signs that indicated that it wasn't a prudent to move forward with a coal plant in the 21st century," says Glustrom. Issues include increasing risk of carbon charges and litigation risk related to carbon dioxide, awareness of the impacts of emissions of mercury and other pollutants as well as toxic coal ash and the availability of cheaper, cleaner alternatives that won't be reliant on uncertain supplies of coal. PUC Rule 3613 (d) allows prudence challenges of utility investments, but the PUC failed to let this prudence challenge proceed. Now the challenge will begin working its way through the court system. While Xcel was building the new coal plant in Pueblo, almost all the other proposed coal plants in the western United States were defeated, so that the new Pueblo coal plant is likely to be one of the very last coal plants to come on line in the western United States. The lawsuit filed on this issue is here. (See the 08S-520E Writ)

Mercury Permit for Pueblo Unit III Coal Plant Delays Start-up

When Xcel received its air permit for the Unit 3 coal plant, the George W. Bush administration had attempted to undermine the mercury permit requirements of the Clean Air Act. After a federal court overturned the administration's changes to the mercury permit rules, Xcel was required to get an updated mercury "Maximum Achievable Control Technology" (MACT) permit for the Unit 3 coal plant. Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division’s (APCDO is responsible for issuing the new permit. Ongoing legal challenges to Xcel brought by Wild Earth Guardians are delaying operation of the plant. More