Arapahoe County planning commission recommends approval of Canyon Peak natural‑gas power station

The Arapahoe County Planning Commission on June 17 recommended approval of a special‑use review for the Canyon Peak Power Station, a proposed 156‑megawatt natural‑gas generation facility to be built on a leased portion of a 20‑acre parcel next to the Bridal Center substation near Bennett. The commission voted 5 to 0 to forward the application, UASI25‑001, to the Board of County Commissioners subject to 10 conditions.

Molly Orkin Larson, principal planner in the county's public works division, summarized the application and staff analysis and said, "Based on the findings in the staff report, staff is recommending approval for the USR." The facility applicant is Canyon Peak Power LLC; the underlying property owner is Core Electric Cooperative.

The project would occupy about 11 acres under lease from Core and include six aeroderivative gas turbines (GE LM2500‑express units) with individual stacks roughly 80 feet tall, an administration and control building, a fire suppression loop with a 185,000‑gallon fire water tank, on‑site detention, and a nearly 3.9‑mile natural‑gas lateral that would connect to the Colorado Interstate pipeline. Project engineers said each turbine produces about 26 net megawatts for a combined net output of about 156 megawatts.

Developer Tom Flexen, vice president of development for Bridal Energy, described the project as dispatchable generation that Core will purchase under a 25‑year agreement. "Canyon Peak is a 156 megawatt power generation facility and co located with the Bridal Center substation," Flexen said. Core's chief operating officer, Mark Jergemeyer, said the plant is intended to backfill periods when wind and solar are not producing and to help the cooperative meet emissions and reliability goals.

The applicant reported that permits required before construction include a minor‑source air permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in May 2025; a FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation; and standard construction permits such as stormwater, grading and erosion control, building permits and right‑of‑way approvals. Vice president for environmental affairs Lisa Carty said the project's environmental impact analysis, prepared under the county's "10‑41" review regulations for major electric facilities of private utilities, concluded the project meets the applicable criteria.

Engineers said the plant will use selective catalytic reduction and other catalysts to reduce NOx and CO emissions and will inject 19% aqueous ammonia as part of the SCR process. Michael Reed, lead engineer for Stanley Consultants, said, "It's like your car. It has a catalytic converter in it ... it needs ammonia to make that reaction occur." The applicant also noted continuous emissions monitoring will provide state reporting, and the air permit limits annual operating hours to a maximum equivalent of about a 32% capacity factor (2,803 hours per year) under the permit.

Economic impacts presented by the applicant included an estimated average of 110 construction jobs (peaking at about 140), $33 million in local labor expenditures during construction, a project capital cost estimate of about $290 million, and an estimated $725,000 in county sales tax collections. The applicant said ongoing operations would employ up to 12 full‑time workers and generate about $2.8 million a year in local spending.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on community impacts. Commissioner Miller asked about nearby residences: "There seems to be a home on each side of this project," she said. The applicant said it had mailed notices, placed signage and held a neighborhood meeting (November 12, 2024) attended by two residents; the applicant reported some follow‑up calls and some expressions of support. The project team also said they had sent notices to Hunter Solar and the Kiowa Creek Sporting Club and had committed to mitigation measures including noise‑attenuation equipment and a site‑specific wildlife and wildfire mitigation plan.

Noise, light, dust and emergency‑chemical risks were topics of discussion. The developer said equipment would include baffles and sound‑attenuation features and that noise modeling predicted levels near typical residential standards at property lines. The team said lights would be downward‑shielded, Dark‑Sky‑compliant fixtures and that FAA lighting requirements (if any) would be limited. The applicant said diesel fuel on site would be limited to an emergency backup pump and that ammonia would be stored as a 19% aqueous solution in contained systems with alarms; the project will also have an inadvertent discovery plan and biologist/archeologist monitoring during construction.

After the presentation and follow‑up questions, Commissioner Sauve moved to recommend approval "based on the findings in the staff report subject to the following conditions 1 through 10." Commissioner Latsis seconded. The commission then voted 5 to 0 to forward the recommendation; the motion passed on a roll call showing affirmative votes from Commissioner Howe, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Sauve, Chair Pro Tem Lasse and Chair Morehouse.

The Planning Commission's recommendation is advisory; final land‑use approval and any permits required for construction will be decided by the Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners and by state and federal permitting authorities. Staff noted next steps include scheduling before the Board of County Commissioners and coordination on outstanding permit applications.

The Planning Commission also approved its June 3 minutes earlier in the meeting and heard staff announcements about upcoming items on July agendas.