Xcel Energy has petitioned the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to push back the retirement of the Pueblo-based Comanche Unit 2, one of the three coal-fired electrical generating units at the Pueblo-based Comanche Generating Station from December 2025 to the end of 2026.

The reason cited is an extended outage at the adjacent Unit 3, surging peak demand, and supply chain hurdles.

The petition underscores admissions from both Xcel and state officials about a generating resource shortfall exacerbated by a failure at the Comanche Unit 3 taking it off-line for the next 11 months and delays in bringing new renewable resources online.

Xcel, joined by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission staff, the Colorado Energy Office, and the Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, filed the petition on Nov. 10.

It seeks a variance from a 2018 commission decision that set the original shutdown date as the year-end of 2025. It emphasizes keeping the 335-megawatt unit online to maintain grid reliability amid Colorado’s rapid energy transition, while avoiding expensive, volatile market purchases during high-demand periods such as winter cold spells.

Conservative-leaning think tank Independence Institute Policy Director Jake Fogleman said the situation highlights the inadequacy of current clean energy deployments to fully meet peak loads without sufficient firm baseload capacity from coal as a near-term bridge.

Key factors driving the petition include an unplanned outage at the 750-megawatt Comanche Unit 3 — the state’s largest coal plant — starting August 12. It has been offline since then and is not expected back until June 2026, stripping 415 MW of accredited capacity from the system. The cause, repair steps, and costs of the outage remain unknown, according to an Xcel spokesperson.

Xcel said that peak demand forecasts for summer 2026 have climbed steadily, from about 6,500 MW in 2022 projections to over 7,100 MW this fall, as shown in the petition’s chart tracking year-over-year updates.

Supply chain delays, tariff uncertainties, and federal policy shifts have slowed the deployment of new resources approved in the company’s 2021 Clean Energy Plan.

The petition states the extension “keeps the unit available to Public Service system operators in 2026” and is “the most cost-effective approach to providing needed electricity for the system” — electricity now not available from Xcel’s troubled Unit 3. It came online in 2010 and was expected to run until 2070, but has faced troubles for years, amplifying the current crisis.

A 2021 commission report highlighted the plant’s unreliability, averaging 91.5 outage days annually over its first decade. Construction costs ballooned from $680 million to $784 million, with an additional $72 million in repairs since 2010. Specific incidents include boiler tube leaks in 2009, a $4.8 million turbine damage in January 2020 plus $1.7 million in replacement power, and a June 2020 lubrication failure costing $20.4 million, including $14 million for backup energy.

In 2023, CORE Electric Cooperative, a 25% owner, filed a lawsuit seeking $253 million over alleged mismanagement. The suit cited more than 700 offline days since 2010, blaming poor practices such as skipped maintenance, turbine damage from impure water, employee errors that shut off oil flow or mishandled circuit breakers.

CORE claimed $35 million in damages from alternative power buys and repairs. Xcel disputed the claims, confident in prevailing, but the case underscored the plant’s “troubled asset” status, with early closure by 2031 seen as dodging future costs rather than solely for emissions goals, said Fogleman.

In a recent interview, Fogleman linked the shortfall to renewable integration issues, saying: “With the delays in getting renewables online, replacement power online and then Comanche 3 going down for unplanned outage reasons, there was pretty much no other choice for them but to keep this coal plan online.”

He added anecdotal reports that settlement agreements limiting Comanche 3’s runtime to cut emissions forced it into ramping cycles unsuited for coal-fired generators, stressing the plant.

“I’m hearing that because of previous settlement agreements related to how often they can run Comanche 3 in order to reduce its carbon output, they’re running it much more like a ramping resource or a peaking resource when obviously coal is not really meant to run that way and it’s really hard on the plant,” said Fogleman.

The proposal has sparked sharp divisions among Colorado stakeholders, as they balance reliability concerns with costs and environmental impacts.

Supporters call it pragmatic.

Fogleman said the request reflects “a welcome dose of energy realism,” prioritizing “reliability and affordability” to shield families from blackouts and high bills.

Critics, however, decry it as a setback.

In discussing the Unit 2 petition, Jacob Smith, executive director of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, alluded to the idea of repairing Unit 3 as unreasonable, saying: “The Comanche 3 coal plant has long been an expensive, dirty, and unreliable boondoggle that Xcel customers around the state have been forced to pay for. Will Xcel shareholders finally cover the bill for their own broken power plant, or will they try to make Colorado families and businesses pay for yet another extended and costly plant outage?”

Portia Prescott, president of the Rocky Mountain NAACP, lambasted Xcel executives for “making bad decisions” while “getting rich” off ratepayers, especially in disproportionately affected communities of color.

Renée Chacon, co-founder of Womxn from the Mountain, called the delay “shameful,” risking health and wasting money on outdated coal rather than renewables.

Dr. Sara Carpenter, pediatrician and board chair of Healthy Air and Water Colorado, warned of public health threats from extra emissions like soot and carcinogens.

Heidi Leathwood, a climate policy analyst for 350 Colorado, deemed it “absurd” to charge customers for more coal amid Xcel’s reliance on fossil fuels.

Erin Overturf, clean energy director at Western Resource Advocates, noted Comanche 3’s history of outages as an “albatross” that drives up costs, potentially adding $35 million annually, per a Grid Strategies analysis.

The petition acknowledges emissions trade-offs: Unit 2’s operation adds green house gases (GHG) in 2026, but Unit 3’s downtime reduces them in late 2025 and early 2026. This offset addresses complaints from environmental groups about continued emissions from Comanche Unit 2 beyond its planned shutdown, as Unit 3 remains offline for at least half the one-year extension period, potentially resulting in net lower emissions during that time, according to the petition.

Petitioners outline a two-phase review: First, commission approval of the extension, expected within about 30 days. Then, a March 1, 2026, report on Unit 3 repairs, resource options, and operational tweaks for Unit 2, followed by a June 1 application for further variances or approvals, including updated load forecasts.

Petitioners seek expedited handling, with interventions by November 20, replies by November 26, deliberation on December 3, and action on December 10 — with no hearing requested.