Tri-State Generation and Transmission's proposal for a new gas plant has sparked significant debate among stakeholders during a recent government meeting in Colorado. The discussions centered on the necessity and economic viability of the proposed facility, which is slated for construction in 2029 but deemed unnecessary until at least 2031.

Critics, including the Conservation Coalition and the Western Resource Advocates (WRA), have raised concerns about the assumptions underlying Tri-State's economic modeling. They argue that the projected benefits of the gas plant rely on questionable data, particularly regarding the heat rate of the proposed facility, which they claim is overly optimistic compared to industry standards. The Conservation Coalition urged the commission to approach Tri-State's economic claims with skepticism, suggesting that the modeling lacks verification and could mislead decision-making.

WRA echoed these sentiments, advocating for an alternative portfolio that promises lower capital costs and better alignment with renewable energy goals. They highlighted that the current plans only meet the minimum statutory requirements for emission reductions, without pushing for more ambitious targets. Furthermore, WRA pointed out inconsistencies in Tri-State's modeling between different phases of the planning process, raising questions about the reliability of the projected energy sales and carbon intensity.

Public sentiment also reflected a strong preference for renewable energy solutions over new gas resources. Numerous comments from retail co-op members and local government officials expressed support for renewable acquisitions while opposing the gas plant. A petition signed by over 200 co-op members reinforced this stance, advocating for a transition to 100% clean energy.

In defense of its proposal, Tri-State argued that its preferred portfolio is essential for maintaining grid reliability, particularly during peak demand periods. They emphasized the economic benefits of their plan, claiming it would save members $88 million compared to alternatives and provide stable tax revenue for local communities. Tri-State also acknowledged the concerns regarding the heat rate but maintained that the need for dispatchable capacity justified their selection.

As the commission prepares to make a decision, the ongoing debate highlights the tension between traditional energy sources and the push for a cleaner, more sustainable energy future in Colorado. Stakeholders await the commission's ruling, which could significantly impact the state's energy landscape and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.