By Jared Jacang Maher, FACE THE STATE

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Thursday approved a $1.3 billion plan that requires Xcel Energy to significantly reduce the use coal-burning power plants in favor of natural gas. The conversion will enable the utility to meet clean-air requirements while increasing ratepayer costs an estimated 2.4 percent to pay for it. It’s a big win for environmentalists and natural-gas interests. The loser is the state’s coal mining industry, which stands to lose significant revenue and jobs under the plan.

The Colorado Mining Association made an unsuccessful attempt to have PUC Commissioners Ron Binz and Matt Baker disqualified from ruling on the deal after e-mails were released that showed the pair had been heavily involved in negotiations with Excel Energy and lawmakers.

Now, Affordable Reliable Energy Colorado, a political nonprofit whose membership includes coal and other energy businesses, is raising questions about the hefty out-of-state travel schedules of the PUC commissioners and whether certain all-expenses-paid trips taken by Binz and Baker violated state law. Though nonprofit organizations are allowed to pick up the tab for travel expenses under Colorado law, rules established by the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission under voter-enacted Amendment 41 prohibits state officials from accepting free travel offers from corporations, lobbyists, and private individuals.

Kelly Weist, spokeswoman for Affordable Reliable Energy Colorado, points out that Evergreen-based Bentek Energy reimbursed Binz $832 for expenses he incurred traveling to Houston for a speech to a natural gas industry event in June. Additionally, Spanish utility corporation Extenda paid $2,845 to fly Baker to Seville, Spain, to speak at a five-day conference for renewable energy businesses.

Information culled from over 3,600 pages of travel records that Weist’s group obtained through an open-records request shows that Binz has taken 55 out-of-state trips since he was appointed PUC chairman by Gov. Bill Ritter in 2007. He’s spent 30 percent more time on out-of-state work trips than his two PUC counterparts this year, racking up an $18,426 travel bill, $15,908 of which was paid for by outside groups.

In an e-mail to Face the State, Binz acknowledges that, “it’s probably true that I’m more active than some recent PUC commissioners have been.” But he says this is largely due to the fact that his 32 years of experience as a public policy researcher, consultant and consumer advocate, “means that I am invited very frequently to speak at conferences, join advisory boards, participate in think tanks, etc.” He argues that these activities improve his skills as a regulator by keeping him up-to-date with developments in the utility sector. “I rub elbows with executives from every possible orientation on the major issues when I attend these meetings,” Binz writes.

Just because Binz is out of state the most doesn’t mean that his peers are staying home. Commissioner Jim Tarpey, whose name has not been included in any of the coal industry complaints, has taken 11 out-of-state trips in 2010 to various energy conferences, including a week in Amman, Jordan as part of a utilities commissioner exchange partnership funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. What one doesn’t see in Tarpey’s travel schedule, however, are the kinds of events or conferences that cross the line from middle-of-the-road regulatory themes into more activist territory, where the purpose is to push a specific energy-policy agenda.

For example:

· Binz made two trips to Washington, D.C., this year on the dime of the Keystone Center, a Colorado-based environmental think tank. Binz sits on the group’s Energy Board, which includes a range of energy company executives, environmental activists and government regulators (although Binz is the only member who is an active utilities commissioner).

· In April, Rutgers University paid $528 for Binz to travel to Newark, N.J., to speak on a panel on dynamic pricing for a conference organized by the university’s Climate and Social Policy Initiative, which conducts, education and public service “to address the challenges posed by global warming, greenhouse gasses and the reduction of carbon emissions.”

· In May, the National Association for Public Utilities Commissioners (NARUC) paid $1,073 for Binz to travel to Washington, D.C., for a meeting with the White House’s Environmental Director. Binz chairs NARUC’S Climate Policy Task Force.

· In late May, the Electric Policy Research Institute paid $1,013 for Binz to tour the Electric Vehicle Research Center facility in Pasadena, Calif., to learn how electric vehicles can plug into smart grids and lower carbon emissions. The group met with the facility’s owner, Ted Craver, CEO of Edison International, a California electric utility that also has significant corporate holdings in wind and solar power companies.

· Extenda, a Spanish public utility company, covered Baker’s $2,845 in travel costs last month to Seville, Spain. Extenda is a public company founded by the Spanish government.

Such trips have given Binz’s adversaries ammo in their assertions that the PUC’s traditional quasi-judicial role has been hijacked by the green-energy ideology and industry. But Binz disputes the suggestion. He says that the position of the organizations in which he is heavily involved are largely “technology-neutral” and, in the case of the Electric Power Research Institute, “decidedly pro-nuke, pro-coal and pro-gas.”

And as for some of the other groups that have a clear agenda on the energy front? “I am careful to ensure that any outside engagements do not interfere with my duties as chairman,” he says. “In the four years of my term, I don’t think I’ve ever missed a hearing other than for illness or personal vacation.”

Considering his out-of-state travel schedule, that’s pretty impressive.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission yesterday approved a $1.3 billion plan to retire, retrofit or repower coal-burning power plants along the Front Range, expected to cost ratepayers an additional 2.4 percent annually.

The PUC’s unanimous decision ends more than a year’s worth of negotiations over what became the Colorado Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act. House Bill 1365 requires Xcel Energy to retire, retrofit or repower northern Front Range coal-fired power plants by the end of 2017, replacing them with facilities fueled by natural gas and other low- or non-emitting energy sources.

A formal written decision from the PUC is expected Dec. 15.

The plan approved by the PUC is not identical to Xcel’s recommended plan, but costs the same $1.3 billion in capital costs. But because the plan approved by the PUC relies more heavily on natural gas — at an increased cost of about $41 million per year — Xcel expects ratepayers to see an increase of about 2.4 percent, instead of the originally estimated 1.7 percent.

In all, the plan calls for Xcel to retire four Denver-area coal-fired power plants and switch the remaining unit to natural gas. The plan also calls for the accelerated phase out of coal-fired electricity at Arapahoe Units 3 and 4 in Denver.

Xcel had recommended that instead of retiring all of the units at the Cherokee Generating Station near Boulder, the utility should retrofit the fourth unit at the plant with state-of-the-art emission control equipment, allowing it to continue to operate on coal. Xcel said this was the best way to reach a 2017 deadline.

The PUC, however, approved a plan that requires a straight fuel switch from coal to natural gas on the Cherokee Generating Station Unit 4, which is a 352-megawatt plant. Xcel says the plant will cease to be coal-fired by Dec. 21st, 2017, instead burning solely on natural gas.

“We’re worried about the efficiencies of burning gas at Cherokee 4. But all of the options that they were considering this week will work for the ultimate goal, which is to reduce our oxides and nitrogen,” said Mark Stutz, spokesman for Xcel Energy.

The plan is expected to achieve reductions in nitrogen oxides of 85 percent by 2017, and additional reductions in sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, said Xcel.

A spokesman for the PUC said yesterday following the decision that the plan will allow the PUC more time to evaluate other options beyond just natural gas.

“It’s not the commission’s intention that this will run on natural gas indefinitely, or even to the end of its life,” said Terry Bote, a spokesman for the PUC. “The commission essentially took this option because, one, it provides additional emissions reductions over putting a scrubber on it, and two, it provides flexibility by affording the commission additional time to look at other possibilities, other alternatives …”

But coal advocates called the PUC decision “shameful,” lashing out at Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter for having supported and pushed the legislation.

The rulemaking process was filled with controversy after the Colorado Mining Association filed a motion with the PUC to disqualify two of its members — Chairmen Ron Binz and Matt Baker — over concerns that the two chairmen engaged in negotiations over HB 1365. The PUC denied the motion.

Several Republican lawmakers also asked the PUC to disqualify Binz specifically after e-mails surfaced indicating that he had been involved in negotiations over HB 1365.

Critics say the plan comes at the wrong time for Colorado ratepayers, especially low-income families and individuals already facing difficult utility bills. They also point out that Colorado coal miners are likely to lose jobs as a result of the ruling.

“This is Gov. Ritter’s energy poverty legacy for Colorado,” said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association. “It’s a sad day for Colorado energy consumers, and for obviously the workers in the coal and related industries who will be displaced. Ultimately time will tell, but these entire proceedings were a sham …”

Environmentalists yesterday were generally happy with the decision, but asked the PUC to set a definitive retirement date for the Cherokee station Unit 4.

“By not setting a firm retirement date for the last unit at Cherokee, the Commission’s deliberations today fell short,” said John Nielsen, energy program director with Western Resource Advocates. “Until there is certainty as to when that plant will be shutdown there are risks that the largest source of pollution in the heart of Denver could be switched back to coal or that we will operate this inefficient unit too long and postpone the transition to a more modern power system.”

Pam Kiely, program director with Environment Colorado, said Colorado received an early holiday present.

“Colorado is getting cleaner air and a stronger economy this holiday season,” said Kiely. “This is a victory for the thousands of Coloradans that weighed-in, from doctors to small business owners to local officials …”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is going to end up with coal in its stocking this year, that’s for sure.

The question is whether it comes from environmentalists, ratepayers, or the industry itself that produces the coal.

The PUC yesterday began discussing whether to adopt a $1.3 billion proposal by Xcel Energy to retire, retrofit or repower six coal-burning power plants along the Front Range.

The alternative proposal is being attacked by coal industry insiders and advocates for the low-income community, who say the aimed switch to natural gas will come with a hefty price tag to ratepayers and cost coal miners their jobs.

The so-called Colorado Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, House Bill 1365, requires Xcel to retire, retrofit or repower northern Front Range coal-fired power plants by the end of 2017, replacing them with facilities fueled by natural gas and other low- or non-emitting energy sources.

Following concerns that Xcel’s original August plan did not meet the 2017 deadline, the utility in October released an alternative plan that differs from its August preferred plan in that instead of retiring all of the units at the Cherokee Generating Station near Boulder, the new recommended plan would retrofit the fourth unit at the plant with state-of-the-art emission control equipment, and it would continue to operate on coal.

The plan would achieve targeted reductions of nitrogen oxides of 85 percent by 2017 — also through a combination of retirements, replacements and retrofits, said the utility in a news release. The company would continue to see additional reductions in sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, it said.

The cost of the new recommended plan would have an average annual rate increase of 1.7 percent over the next 10 years, said Xcel.

“Our proposal today, while not our original choice, still helps Colorado make dramatic improvements in its air quality, and moves the state significantly closer to meeting the pending requirements of federal regional haze and ozone regulations,” David Eves, president and chief executive of Public Service Company of Colorado, said in an October news release.

Xcel expects that its recommended plan will result in savings of approximately $243 million when compared to the traditional approach of retrofitting all of the plants with emissions controls.

Critics of the plan, including the Colorado Mining Association, not only oppose the plan itself, but filed a motion with the PUC to disqualify two of its members — Chairmen Ron Binz and Matt Baker — over concerns that the two chairmen engaged in negotiations over HB 1365. The PUC denied the motion.

Several Republican lawmakers also asked the PUC to disqualify Binz specifically after e-mails surfaced indicating that he had been involved in negotiations over HB 1365.

Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association, said he does not believe Xcel’s alternative plan is any better for consumers than their earlier plan.

“The recent actions only underscore the circus-like nature of these proceedings; first the flawed and rushed process that was involved in the enactment of House Bill 1365 and now the introduction by Xcel, at the last minute, of a new preferred plan and new scenarios,” said Sanderson. “The future of Colorado’s economy — its miners and ratepayers — meanwhile hangs in the balance.”

The PUC is expected to reach a decision on which plan to adopt by Dec. 15.

Meanwhile, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has given Colorado and 36 other states a Jan. 15 deadline to develop plans for reducing “regional haze” by cutting pollution levels at power plants and large, industrial-sized boilers.

Environmentalists and their children gathered Sunday at the Denver Pavilions Mall, asking Santa to ensure that the coal-fired power plants along the Front Range are replaced. Santa delivered to the Mining Association a lump of coal.

“The key question is whether these aging coal plants will be fully replaced by cleaner resources or if at least one major unit will be put on life support and kept operating,” Dana Hoffman of Environment Colorado said referring to the Cherokee plant. “And hanging in the balance is the air quality and quality of life for 3 million Coloradans for decades to come.”

One child who attended the event on Sunday, 10-year-old Noah, said he doesn’t want the North Pole to melt away.

“When I was six, I got really worried that if we let the globe get hot and didn’t stop it, the North Pole was going to melt and then where would Santa live?” asked Noah in a statement e-mailed by Environment Colorado. “Now I know that it’s not just the North Pole that’s in danger — it’s everywhere. It’s up to us to fix it.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

The Colorado State Capitol is on its way to having the distinction of being a trendsetter—in the world of alternative energy—albeit with a $6 million price tag that at least one lawmaker is calling into question.

Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter is praising the new energy project, begun last week at the Capitol building, which will provide cheaper geothermal heating and cooling for years to come once it’s completed next spring.

“This is a great project to highlight the significant potential that geothermal energy has here in Colorado, and it serves as a shining example of how the New Energy Economy creates jobs, diversifies our energy resources and bolsters energy security,” said Ritter.

The total cost of the project is an estimated $6 million, with $4.6 million coming from a U.S. Department of Energy grant under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and the remainder, $1.4 million, picked up by the state through certificates of participation and a lease-purchase agreement with Chevron. Estimated energy savings are $95,000 annually.

Yet, Republican state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, of Berthoud, said today the project won’t reach the point of breaking even for decades, and the price is too high to make sense. Lundberg also said that, in any event, the governor’s boast of creating jobs through geothermal energy and other alternative fuels is incongruous with his policies regarding other sectors of the state’s economy.

“The governor’s green energy program sounds hollow to me when he at the same time has been such a problem to the oil and gas industry, where there are thousands of jobs at risk,” said Lundberg.

Lundberg said he and his wife have been living “off the grid” for over a dozen years in a home that they built with energy conservation in mind. The home is completely solar and is built partially underground to take advantage of the earth’s natural warmth.

“It’s a great way to live. I love the fact that my house is totally self-sustaining, and it’s a technology that I’ve been intrigued with ever since I was in college,” said Lundberg.

Yet, Lundberg said he doesn’t think the government should be involved in artificially propping up the alternative-energy industry prematurely through stimulus dollars and other subsidies on a project such as the geothermal conversion at the Capitol.

“I’m a real skeptic when it comes to government subsidies and tax credits and mandates,” said Lundberg, who says he built his home without any help from the government. He said energy policy be guided by the marketplace.

Lundberg maintains he is a fan of the science behind the project and is confident in the future of viable energy technologies—if the industry is allowed to flourish on a more market-driven timetable.

“I’m a strong believer in the potential of alternative energy. I just don’t want to do it on the backs of the taxpayer,” said Lundberg. “It’s a good step forward, but it’s better for the market to decide when it makes sense.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Jobs could be coming to Colorado in the coming year if predictions by a solar energy group come to fruition, say Senate Democratic lawmakers.

The anticipated jobs, slated for the solar energy industry, are predicated on a study by Environment Colorado and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association that claims a 23 percent increase in solar-industry jobs for Colorado based on national trends and Colorado’s current position as sixth in the nation for providing solar-related jobs.

Senate Democrats suggested last week in a news release that the findings indicate that “Colorado’s aggressive renewable energy standard and many other of the state’s clean energy policies are working.”

The report entitled “National Solar Jobs Census 2010: A Review of the U.S. Solar Workforce,” is a departure from standard formats that depend on economic forecasts, and instead based its findings on employment history and projections from the industry.

Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, credits both the sun, and Democratic-sponsored legislation, for the estimated 5,300 new jobs predicted for Colorado in 2011.

“With 300 days of sunshine and an innovative workforce, it just made sense to sponsor strong renewable energy legislation. It’s exciting to see the fruits of that labor right in my district with people getting hired on to work in this blossoming industry,” said Tyler, who sponsored House Bill 1001 which mandates a 30 percent renewable-energy standard for public utilities to generate power by 2020.

Yet, Republican Rep. Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, dismisses the Democratic enthusiasm over the study’s findings in light of legislation that Republican lawmakers have denounced as “job killing,” passed by majority Democrats during a session that some members of the business community labeled “the worst session ever” for businesses.

“This is a typical argument from the Democrat side where they kill tens of thousands of jobs throughout Colorado and then claim a small increase of jobs. It just doesn’t make sense,” said McNulty.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

As the Colorado Public Utilities Commission considers a controversial $1.3 billion plan by Xcel Energy to retire, retrofit or repower six Front Range coal-burning power plants, environmentalists yesterday released a report stating that Colorado solar companies expect to increase hiring 23 percent next year.

Solar companies in Colorado are expanding, and the state has the sixth most solar-related jobs nationwide, according to the report released by Environment Colorado and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.

State solar providers are expected to increase their employment by 23 percent next year, according to the report, which was compiled by the Washington, D.C.-based Solar Foundation.

State Rep. Max Tyler, D-Lakewood, said yesterday that the increase in solar-related employment is linked to clean energy legislation passed by lawmakers in Colorado over the last three years. Two controversial pieces of legislation came out of the Legislature this year, including one by Tyler.

Tyler co-sponsored legislation this year that raised the state’s renewable energy standard from 20 percent by 2020 to 30 percent by 2020.

“With 300 days of sunshine and an innovative workforce, it just made sense to sponsor strong renewable energy legislation,” Tyler said in a statement. “It’s exciting to see the fruits of that labor right in my district with people getting hired on to work in this blossoming industry.”

Another controversial piece of clean energy legislation that made its way through the Legislature this year requires Xcel Energy to retire, retrofit or repower northern Front Range coal-fired power plants by the end of 2017, replacing them with facilities fueled by natural gas and other low- or non-emitting energy sources.

Xcel has submitted a $1.3 billion plan to the PUC that the utility says would cut oxides of nitrogen by 75 percent at the end of 2017 and by 89 percent at the end of 2022. It also would reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by 84 percent, and mercury by 85 percent by 2023, according to the utility.

The utility expects that its proposal will result in savings of approximately $225 million.

Critics, mostly from the coal industry, have lined up to oppose the proposal, arguing that it would result in rate hikes and job cuts. Ratepayers will likely see an increase of at least 1 percent annually over the next decade, according to critics.

The Colorado Mining Association has filed a motion with the PUC in connection with the Xcel proposal, calling for two members of the PUC to be disqualified from ruling on Xcel’s plan, citing a conflict of interest.

The industry group says PUC Chairman Ron Binz and Commissioner Matt Baker made “private deals” with Xcel Energy before introduction of the so-called Clean Air-Clean Jobs bill.

The PUC has until the end of December to make a decision on Xcel’s proposal.

A coalition of supporters are expected to rally today at Colfax and Broadway in support of Xcel’s plan, and are expected to deliver a letter to the PUC urging the implementation of the plan.

Denver City Council President Chris Nevitt will lead the coalition today, arguing that the plan will create jobs in the Denver area, while also promoting a clean energy agenda.

“If you think in terms of the whole economy, I think this is probably a good deal from a financial perspective, not a bad one,” said Nevitt. “You can actually put a price on clean air, and I think this brings us clean air at a pretty low price.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

Jonah Fruchter saw firsthand the devastation deepwater oil spills can have on a community.

The Sierra Club regional conservation organizer traveled to New Orleans during June and July to assist with the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion cleanup effort. While he was in the Gulf, Fruchter witnessed the price of oysters jump from $1 per oyster to $5 per oyster; he watched depression jump by 25 percent; he saw demand at soup kitchens skyrocket; and he watched helplessly as dolphins swam through oil sheens and pelicans emerged covered in oil.

The devastating BP oil spill — that leaked millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf — had taken a crippling toll on the region. Given the devastation, Fruchter can’t understand why the Obama administration on Tuesday lifted its ban on deepwater drilling seven weeks ahead of schedule.

The administration says it is confident that new rules will cut the risk of a repeat of the BP oil spill, the worst ever to hit the United States. But Fruchter does not believe the rules will adequately protect against another disaster.

“It’s a sad day when we can’t realize after a spill of this magnitude that deepwater drilling isn’t a realistic way to power our country,” said Fruchter.

The government imposed the deepwater drilling freeze in late May after BP’s ruptured Macondo well began leaking. The ban was supposed to last through November.

The U.S. Interior Department has said all oil companies will need to comply with new regulations and demonstrate they can adequately respond to blowouts. Every rig must be inspected before drilling begins and company chief executives must certify each project has met all requirements.

It seems, however, that the Obama administration is having a difficult time pleasing either side of the debate. Congressman Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, said this week that he is concerned that the administration is only lifting the ban as an “election eve political stunt.”

Lamborn suggested that the administration will continue a ban by stalling the approval of drilling permits in a “maze of red tape.”

“My fear is that the administration will claim they have lifted the ban, but impose a de facto ban by holding up drilling permits in a maze of red tape,” Lamborn said in a statement. “This will mean thousands of oil workers will remain out-of-work as energy producers wait for permits.”

Analysts say it will take months or years to return activity to the pace prior to the April 20 Macondo disaster. There are 18 idled rigs in deep water that must seek drilling permits under the new safety rules.

Fruchter, however, says federal officials need to consider not just the business world, but also the communities affected by such disasters.

“We’re talking about devastation of some of the local cultures that make New Orleans such a special place, but also puts food on peoples’ tables,” he said.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

STATE BILL COLORADO
Gov. Bill Ritter signed HB10-1365 on Monday. Here’s how news organzations covered the bill signing.

The Durango Herald: Flanked by two Southwest Colorado legislators, Gov. Bill Ritter on Monday signed into law a bill that could trade coal power plants for natural gas-powered ones.
In a morning ceremony in front of the Capitol, Ritter signed House Bill 1365, by Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, and Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus. The other sponsors were Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, and Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction. Ritter’s office hatched the plan, along with Front Range utility Xcel Energy. “It’s the crescendo of all we’ve done, the capstone of all we’ve done,” said Ritter, who has made clean energy his signature issue.

The Denver Post: (Ritter) He was surrounded by the unlikely parties that had banded together to pass House Bill 1365. “This is clearly a diverse, partisan — excuse me, bipartisan group of people,” Ritter said, paused and laughed. “My one chance to say ‘bipartisan’ and I blew it.” The bill sailed through the legislature in 17 days despite stiff opposition from the coal industry and its allies. “The naysayers said there was no way environmentalists, gas companies and a giant utility company could work together,” Ritter said. “The naysayers said there was no way a Republican like Josh Penry and a Democrat like Bill Ritter could work on something so progressive.

Craig Daily Press: There was little celebration among coal miners in Craig. Michael Kirby, an electrician at Colowyo Coal Co., said if he could have been at the bill signing, he would have given Ritter “an earful.” “Not only are you going to cut out jobs instantly when you pass a bill like that, but I don’t think they actually researched what it takes to convert these power plants,” Kirby said. “The cost is going to come right down to who is going to pay for it, which is going to be the consumer. “It’s a lose-lose battle.”

KDVR: Supporters of this bill tried to lay down a plan to improve air quality standards ahead of looming federal mandates. “It lets us get ahead of the federal government before they impose a one-size-fits-all federal mandate on the state of Colorado,” Ritter said. But opponents have said that supporters made too much of the EPA threat in order to grease the rails for a heavily lobbied bill that gives natural gas an obvious and unfair over coal.

KUNC: Colorado’s natural gas industry got a boost this week when Governor Bill Ritter signed a key piece of legislation that will force the state’s largest utility to retrofit several coal plants into cleaner burning natural gas facilities. The bill is dubbed as the Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, but not everyone thinks it will lead to either.

Associated Press: Colorado is pushing its largest utility toward using more natural gas to cut power plant emissions in the Denver area under a new law backed by environmentalists and the gas industry.
Gov. Bill Ritter signed the bill into law Monday while surrounded by representatives of the unlikely alliance who now hope to persuade other states or even Congress to rely more on natural gas to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. also backed the new law, which lawmakers rushed to pass to head off expected stricter federal emissions rules and to boost natural gas drilling. The coal industry, which spent nearly $2 million opposing Colorado’s legislation, called the law a gas giveaway and said it would cost hundreds of jobs in mines, on the railroads that move the coal, and at coal-power plants, which are more labor intensive than gas-fired ones.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Gov. Bill Ritter is poised today to sign a landmark clean-air bill aimed at upgrading aging Front Range coal-fired power plants to run on natural gas, The Denver Post reports.

While sailing through the legislature in 17 days, the measure sparked a fierce fight among Senate Republicans over looming federal air-quality regulations and the impact on the state’s 2,300 coal-industry jobs.

The bill brought together, in an election year, longtime opponents and sparked what may have been one of the state’s most expensive lobbying efforts.

The Democratic governor worked closely with his biggest Republican critic, Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry of Grand Junction, and the natural-gas industry, which has publicly attacked Ritter over new oil-and-gas regulations.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

A bill that prepares Colorado for a geothermal energy boom moved a step closer to passage Friday. The House gave initial approval to Senate Bill 174, which has already passed the Senate, The Durango Herald reports.

“The potential of geothermal to heat Colorado exceeds even solar and wind. It really ultimately could be the resource we use to heat the country, and Colorado will be at the forefront,” said the sponsor, Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >