From: Leslie Glustrom
To: Rocky Mountain News

I am quite shocked at your story from Thursday October 13, 2005 claiming that Xcel is "Good to Go" for building a proposed coal plant in Pueblo that they expect ratepayers to finance while they send all the profits on to their shareholders.

Xcel is most certainly NOT good to go with respect to the proposed coal plant. Coal plants emit massive amounts of pollution and require an air permit from the state before beginning construction. The permit that was issued this summer by the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment has been taken to court by two groups--one from the Denver-Boulder area and one from the Pueblo area. The lawsuit was filed in Pueblo District Court on August 4, 2005 ( Court Number 05 CV 1111). Several reporters from the Rocky Mountain News received the press release on the filing of the lawsuit which was covered by other papers in Denver, Boulder and Pueblo. Ignoring a story does not make it disappear...

The lawsuit against the air permit for Xcel's proposed coal plant is based on numerous violations of law and regulation by the CDPHE. Anyone wanting to read the complaint filed in the lawsuit can do so at http://www.coloradocleanenergy.org/ under "PUC/Legal Issues." Moreover, your story claims that building the plant will reduce pollution. While Xcel has finally agreed to reduce its massive emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the existing coal plants in Pueblo--emissions that should have been reduced years ago--emissions of particulates, volatile organic compounds, hazardous pollutants like mercury, lead and arsenic and, of course, carbon dioxide will be greatly increased by building this huge new coal plant in a town that has already borne too much pollution.

Xcel's credit rating is so poor that they are planning on having their ratepayers finance the plant while having shareholders reap all the profits. It is a great business plan as long as you are a monopoly!

In addition, Xcel ratepayers will be expected to pay whatever the cost of coal will be for the next 50 years--to say nothing of the liabilities for climate-induced disasters. Like all fossil fuels, the price of coal has been going up for the last couple of years. Your readers should also know that the electric rate increase that Xcel is presently asking for  was brought on partly because they couldn't get coal out of Wyoming's Powder River Basin, driving up their costs. (Read their SEC 8-K Report of July 11, 2005 to confirm this.)

What will future rate increases look like if Xcel adds yet another Pueblo coal plant to its ratebase? No one knows what the price of coal will be in 2030 or 2050, but whatever it is, Xcel intends for its ratepayers to pay it. There are a lot of ratepayers out here who have no such intention. Hopefully next time you will work a bit harder to get this information to your readers.