This month, Xcel Energy asked state regulators in Colorado to extend the operating life of the coal-fired Comanche Unit 2 for another year. Xcel Energy seems to understand the importance of coal in Colorado. What will it take for Xcel to recognize the same in Minnesota?
Comanche Unit 2, sited in Pueblo, Colorado, with a nameplate capacity of 335 MW, is scheduled to close at the end of 2025. Comanche Unit 3, with a nameplate capacity of 750 MW, is the largest coal unit in the state and will be offline likely until June 2026 at the earliest.
Xcel Energy was joined by the Colorado Energy Office, the state’s Public Utilities Commission, and the Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate in making the request. The parties conclude jointly that operating Comanche 2 longer is necessary because of 1) rising peak demand, 2) the unplanned outages at Comanche Unit 3, 3) supply chain impacts and 4) reassessment of resource accreditation and planning reserve margin methodologies. Xcel’s new methods “revealed additional energy and capacity needs compared to prior modeling approaches.”
The petition clearly states that “continued operation of Comanche Unit 2 in 2026 is the most cost-effective approach to providing needed electricity.” Xcel Energy promises a report to Colorado’s Public Service Commission before March 1, 2026, to assess the costs of repairing Comanche 3 and its timeline to return to service.
Colorado Representative Jeff Hurd, a Republican, had asked President Trump on October 30 to extend the life of the Comanche station under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. This section has been used to extend the operation of the J.H. Campbell plant in Michigan for several 90-day terms over the summer of 2025.
By the way, this is the same Xcel Energy that shut down Sherburne County Generating Plant Unit 2, or Sherco, and plans to do the same for Sherco 1 in 2026 and Sherco 3 in 2030. If Xcel can tell Colorado regulators that coal provides the cost-effective capacity that they need, why can’t it admit the same here?
