Summit County officials say a sprawling Xcel Energy proposal could have direct impacts on many of their residents. They took action to formally intervene in the review process in an effort to protect constituents' interests.
On Feb. 18, Breckenridge, Frisco, Dillon, Silverthorne, Keystone, Blue River and Summit County government joined forces under the name "Mountain Community Coalition" to request participation in Colorado Public Utilities Commission proceedings for Xcel Energy's Mountain Energy Project.
This comes over a month after the energy provider submitted a project aimed at quelling natural gas supply constraints in the Eastern Mountain Gas System serving Grand, Lake, Eagle and Summit counties. Xcel representatives said the proposal was propelled by the Marshall Compressor Station's gas supply in Boulder County being insufficient to reliably serve gas customers in that system. The plan also looks to bolster electrification through "non-pipeline" alternatives to help meet the company's goal of being a net-zero energy provider by 2050 and aid it in gearing up for increased demand for energy with growing populations.
The proposal calls for tens of millions of dollars worth of projects in Summit County.
The coalition's motion to intervene reportedly seeks to protect "residents' environmental, health, and economic interests that may be affected by the outcome of this proceeding." They are being represented by Denver-based environmental law firm Kaplan Kirsch.
Breckenridge's sustainability manager Jessie Burley said the motion to intervene is an "unique opportunity for our regional governments to get involved in helping shape what the future of non-pipeline alternatives looks like."
Documents filed with the utilities commission highlight shortfalls at the transmission system tail ends in Breckenridge, Keystone and Grand Lake. Xcel's plan proposes two gas injection sites near Breckenridge and Keystone, and officials say concerns regarding these plans helped push their motion to intervene forward.
Breckenridge's site will be for liquid natural gas, and Keystone's project will be a compressed natural gas site. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the difference between the two is compressed natural gas is produced by compressing natural gas, and liquid natural gas is produced by purifying natural gas.
According to the Jan. 16 project application, Breckenridge's facility could cost $55.8 million, and Keystone's facility could cost $22.8 million. Breckenridge's facility is expected to be operational by the 2025-26 heating season. Keystone's facility is estimated to be operational by the 2026-27 heating season. The supplement supply both will provide will likely be needed at least through the 2033-2034 heating season, filings to the commission show.
"There's obvious concern about not just the visual impact of something like that, but certainly the ensuring that they are safe and protected, and our residents are safe being near these industrial sites," Keystone's town manage John Crone said.
Local officials say the exact location of either site has not been communicated to them, and filings detail the sites with be "near" the municipalities.
Xcel representatives say this usage of natural gas is a "stop-gap" solution as the company works toward becoming a net-zero energy provider by 2050. An implementation timeline included in the filings show Dillon could be getting an electric feeder system in 2028, and Breckenridge's substation could get transformer upgrades in 2029.
Making these electric system upgrades and incentivizing customers to move toward electrification by swapping appliances that rely on natural gas for electric ones is a pillar of the Mountain Energy Project. Concerns related to incentivizes also propelled the Mountain Community Coalition's request to have more of a role in the review process.
"We want to make sure that any related incentives are economically equitable and that the cost of the energy transition is not placed squarely on the backs of working families," communications director for Summit County government Adrienne Isaac said via email.
Frisco's town manager Tom Fischer said the coalition would like "more aggressive approach" than what is currently proposed under Mountain Energy Project and would like to see more consideration of communities' climate action goals.
Breckenridge, Frisco, Dillon, Silverthorne and the county adopted goals related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2030, 80% by 2050 and/or reaching 100% renewable electricity by 2035.
A staff memo for a Feb. 25 Breckenridge Town Council meeting stated that filing the motion to intervene is the first step in what will likely be a six- to 12-month process.
In a Feb. 26 statement provided by Xcel representatives said the company looks forward to working with Summit County and other intervenors throughout this process. The Sierra Club, a national environmental nonprofit, also filed a motion to convene, citing concerns over economic impact to the club's members who are also Xcel customers. This is not uncommon for the advocacy group. It has filed similar motions across the nation, its filing with the commission stated.
Another intervenor, the Colorado Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, estimated the cost of the $155 million project would costs around $4,600 per customer in the Eastern Mountain Gas System.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission electronic docket shows the last filing made in relation to the project's review process was by the commission itself Feb. 21. The filing states the commission's staff plan to vet the effectiveness numerous aspects of the project and data provided by Xcel.
This story was made available via the Colorado 暗黑爆料 Collaborative. Learn more at