Xcel Energy says its latest proposal before the Public Utilities Commission will help Colorado reach it's clean energy goals - by adding more wind and solar power, more energy storage, and a new biomass facility.

But critics are crying foul over plans to construct three new gas-fired power plants, one near Alamosa and two near Longmont.

Ean Tafoya, director with GreenLatinos Colorado, said he is urging the commission to reject the plan to protect disproportionately impacted communities.

"These are the people who are defined under the state's Environmental Justice Act," said Tafoya. "Linguisitally isolated, low-income, the people who are living around these plants that are definitely disproportionately impacted, those are predominantly Latinos."

Xcel claims the new gas plants are needed to ensure grid reliability, and says its proposal will remove 740 megawatts of gas power in part by retiring contracts and some of its 14 existing gas plants.

Alternative plans that add more renewables could save customers $29 million compared to Xcel's proposal in the first year alone, according to a new study.

The PUC is expected to make a decision by year's end.

Leading global scientists have long warned that burning fossil fuels must end to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is over 85 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than coal-fired climate pollution.

Tafoya said he opposes Xcel's plan to use ratepayer money to build new fossil fuel infrastructure.

"To invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build new plants," said Tafoya, "to me is a boondoggle that is about us investing in their technology, while they profit and send money to Wall Street."

Tafoya said he also worries that ratepayers will be on the hook for the cost of new gas plants long after they become stranded assets. He added that natural gas is not a safe source of energy.

"We know that when people use it in their households, that it causes the indoor ambient air to be as bad as it could be if you were standing next to a roadway," said Tafoya. "So these fuels when they burn and when you withdraw them from the ground, they all leave toxic legacy."




get more stories like this via email

Washington D.C. residents are pushing back on a plan to build out existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Washington Gas' $12 billion Project Pipes plan called for upgrading existing infrastructure throughout the nation's capital despite the district's 2045 carbon neutrality goals. Environmentalists worry this will waste ratepayer's money and not address ongoing gas leaks.

Naomi Cohen-Shields, D.C. campaign manager for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said what Washington Gas is doing follows a wider national trend.

"We are seeing things like accelerated pipe replacement programs, that's what Project Pipes is," Cohen-Shields explained. "There are examples of that popping up across the country. Again, it's part of a playbook. Things like building out new gas plants like Dominion is trying to do or new pipelines, again part of the playbook."

Virginia's Dominion Energy is moving forward with a natural gas plant in Chesterfield despite residents' objections and state climate goals. In a statement, Washington Gas said it supports the District's climate goals and believes residents will be best served by a fuel-neutral approach to decarbonization. The company is pledging to help D.C. policymakers achieve the 2030 climate goals.

Washington Gas' parent company, Alta Gas, faced similar community resistance.

Cheryl Maloney, member of the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia and other residents pushed back when the company applied to build up its methane gas infrastructure without much notice. She said Washington Gas' aged company charter should not be considered untouchable.

"They have a 1800-and-something charter that giving them rights to sell oil and gas in perpetuity, so everyone thinks they have this everlasting right," Maloney emphasized. "But it doesn't consider, do the people that hold the money have to spend it on the oil and gas infrastructure?"

The public certainly should not have to, Maloney argued, and she feels ratepayers should have more say in what utility companies invest in. She contended Washington Gas' plan is not a great deal for ratepayers who lose out on alternative clean energy options. New methane gas pipes usually last 40 to 45 years, but she added they will have shortened life spans due to the district's climate goals.

A federal court judge in Montana blocked a large project which would have logged or clear-cut more than 10,000 acres of old-growth forest and threatened an iconic bird nesting in the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

In addition to logging 16 square miles, the project would have bulldozed 40 miles of new logging roads into the Little Belt Mountains.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the decision also protects the Northern Goshawk, an old-growth-dependent species which has declined 47% in the last few years. He pointed out the bird has been under constant threat of clear-cut, which Garrity noted allows competitor species to drive it out.

"Even though they're a fairly big bird, they can fly through very tiny openings by pulling their wings in, and they can make very sharp turns," Garrity explained. "If you accidentally come close to a goshawk nest, they are very protective of their nest and they will attack people with their talons and poke out their eyes."

Garrity emphasized the U.S. Forest Service is required by its own rules to tell the public if the goshawk population declines by 10%, and did not. The Forest Service contended the Horsefly project, as it is known, would not affect the goshawk population but its own numbers showed the drastic decline in nesting sites and population.

It is one in a series of lawsuits filed by a coalition of environmental advocates, including the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, to protect species habitat. Garrity stressed the Horsefly ruling is important for the goshawk but the threats do not stop there.

"It's also important for other mature and old growth forest-dependent species, such as pine martin, lynx and forest birds," Garrity outlined. "Which are all in decline."

The court dismissed other parts of the case, including claims roads would interfere with grizzly bear habitat and threaten the elk population.

Conservation groups are circulating a petition asking the feds to give "America the Beautiful National Parks and Recreation Lands" passes to new citizens at their naturalization ceremony. Members of the group GreenLatinos have met with multiple federal agencies to pitch the idea.

Louis Medina, communications and philanthropy director with the nonprofit Friends of the Inyo, said it would make a great "Welcome to America" gift.

"It would be a great way of giving them the best that America has to offer. It could instill greater patriotism and pride, and it could create new allies in the environmental movement," Medina contended.

The pass normally costs $80 per year and gets one car with up to four adults into all national parks and monuments. Last year, more than 878,000 people became U.S. citizens.

The group also wants to start holding naturalization ceremonies at sites on public lands. And they'd like to reverse the trend of national parks going "cashless," as they have at Yosemite and Death Valley.

Medina added parks may save money by requiring everyone to pay by card, but it risks turning people away who don't have credit cards or mobile payment apps.

"For communities of color and immigrant communities that already are having issues in accessing our national parks, because of costs, because of distance, or because of lack of familiarity, then cashless entry creates yet another barrier," he continued.

The petition currently sports more than 900 signatures and is available on the GreenLatinos website.


get more stories like this via email