A committee of Pueblo community members has recommended that Xcel Energy-Colorado replace a coal plant, beset by longstanding mechanical and operational problems, with modular nuclear units or a gas plant that would capture the carbon dioxide emissions.
However, a report released Friday by the Pueblo Innovative Energy Solutions Advisory Committee made clear that the group’s top choice is what it calls advanced nuclear technology. A nuclear facility will create more jobs and tax revenue for local governments, the report said.
Xcel Energy will consider the recommendations as it develops a new plan to provide a transition for the community leading up to the closure by the start of 2031 of the Comanche 3 coal plant in Pueblo, said Robert Kenney, president of Xcel Energy-Colorado. He said Xcel generally supports nuclear power, which generates some of the utility’s electricity in Minnesota.
Xcel Energy’s Fort St Vrain power plant in Platteville was nuclear. It was decommissioned in 1989 because of operational problems and later converted to natural gas.
Nuclear power doesn’t release greenhouse gasses, Kenney said. “It’s safe. It’s zero-emitting and it’s absolutely something that should be on the table.”
Members of coalitions working on climate change and opposed to nuclear power disagreed that nuclear plants are safe.
“Accidents are infrequent (with nuclear power), but the consequences can be catastrophic rather than an everyday risk with low consequences,” said Velma Campbell, a Pueblo resident and member of Nuclear-Free Colorado and Mothers Out Front Colorado.
Calling nuclear power zero-emitting ignores the impacts of mining uranium, the fuel used, as well as shipping the uranium, said Jamie Valdez, who also lives in Pueblo and is a member of the anti-nuclear and climate justice groups.
Campbell and Valdez criticized the process leading to the committee’s recommendations. They said the public didn’t have opportunities for input during the advisory committee meetings and grassroots organizations were excluded as members.
Sara Blackhurst, executive director of Action 22, a public policy group for 22 southern Colorado counties, is a member of the advisory committee. She said some nuclear power opponents didn’t want to discuss certain topics and “hijacked” early conversations.
“This is the most important conversation that’s going to happen in Pueblo or in southern Colorado in the next five years,” Blackhurst said.
When some people won’t allow the conversation to happen, the process can’t continue, Blackhurst said.
In its report, the committee said the goal over 10 months of meeting and analysis was to “make Pueblo whole” from the losses it will experience when the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant closes. Xcel Energy will close the plant by the start of 2031 as part of its efforts to meet state goals for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.
But it’s not just the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions that have riled critics. Built in 2010, the plant was originally expected to run until 2070. A 2021 report by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission painted a picture of a chronically malfunctioning facility, averaging 91.5 days per year of outages over a decade.
Comanche 3’s pending closure hasn’t been celebrated by everyone. The Pueblo advisory committee’s report said the plant’s shutdown “will have devastating impacts on the economy of Pueblo” unless the community and Xcel begin planning the replacement of “the highly paid and highly skilled jobs and tax payments.”
Building small nuclear modular units at the site would provide 200 to 300 jobs with a salary range of $60,000 to $200,000 and tax revenue for local governments of $95.29 million a year, according to the report.
Kenney said Xcel Energy will explore the option of nuclear power when it writes its next resource energy plan in 2026. He said there are questions about whether the new technology supported by the advisory committee will be far enough along to include it as an option by then.
The Department of Energy has supported work by companies to develop small modular reactors and has said some could be deployed in the late 2020s to early 2030s.
Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.
A committee of Pueblo community members has recommended that Xcel Energy-Colorado replace a coal plant, beset by longstanding mechanical and operational problems, with modular nuclear units or a gas plant that would capture the carbon dioxide emissions.
However, a report released Friday by the Pueblo Innovative Energy Solutions Advisory Committee made clear that the group’s top choice is what it calls advanced nuclear technology. A nuclear facility will create more jobs and tax revenue for local governments, the report said.
Xcel Energy will consider the recommendations as it develops a new plan to provide a transition for the community leading up to the closure by the start of 2031 of the Comanche 3 coal plant in Pueblo, said Robert Kenney, president of Xcel Energy-Colorado. He said Xcel generally supports nuclear power, which generates some of the utility’s electricity in Minnesota.
Xcel Energy’s Fort St Vrain power plant in Platteville was nuclear. It was decommissioned in 1989 because of operational problems and later converted to natural gas.
Nuclear power doesn’t release greenhouse gasses, Kenney said. “It’s safe. It’s zero-emitting and it’s absolutely something that should be on the table.”
Members of coalitions working on climate change and opposed to nuclear power disagreed that nuclear plants are safe.
“Accidents are infrequent (with nuclear power), but the consequences can be catastrophic rather than an everyday risk with low consequences,” said Velma Campbell, a Pueblo resident and member of Nuclear-Free Colorado and Mothers Out Front Colorado.
Calling nuclear power zero-emitting ignores the impacts of mining uranium, the fuel used, as well as shipping the uranium, said Jamie Valdez, who also lives in Pueblo and is a member of the anti-nuclear and climate justice groups.
Campbell and Valdez criticized the process leading to the committee’s recommendations. They said the public didn’t have opportunities for input during the advisory committee meetings and grassroots organizations were excluded as members.
Sara Blackhurst, executive director of Action 22, a public policy group for 22 southern Colorado counties, is a member of the advisory committee. She said some nuclear power opponents didn’t want to discuss certain topics and “hijacked” early conversations.
“This is the most important conversation that’s going to happen in Pueblo or in southern Colorado in the next five years,” Blackhurst said.
When some people won’t allow the conversation to happen, the process can’t continue, Blackhurst said.
In its report, the committee said the goal over 10 months of meeting and analysis was to “make Pueblo whole” from the losses it will experience when the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant closes. Xcel Energy will close the plant by the start of 2031 as part of its efforts to meet state goals for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.
But it’s not just the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions that have riled critics. Built in 2010, the plant was originally expected to run until 2070. A 2021 report by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission painted a picture of a chronically malfunctioning facility, averaging 91.5 days per year of outages over a decade.
Comanche 3’s pending closure hasn’t been celebrated by everyone. The Pueblo advisory committee’s report said the plant’s shutdown “will have devastating impacts on the economy of Pueblo” unless the community and Xcel begin planning the replacement of “the highly paid and highly skilled jobs and tax payments.”
Building small nuclear modular units at the site would provide 200 to 300 jobs with a salary range of $60,000 to $200,000 and tax revenue for local governments of $95.29 million a year, according to the report.
Kenney said Xcel Energy will explore the option of nuclear power when it writes its next resource energy plan in 2026. He said there are questions about whether the new technology supported by the advisory committee will be far enough along to include it as an option by then.
The Department of Energy has supported work by companies to develop small modular reactors and has said some could be deployed in the late 2020s to early 2030s.
Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.