Bill Could Make Pueblo Pay for Comanche 3
- Colorado lawmakers are advancing HB26-1326, a Public Utilities Commission sunset bill that would let regulators order Xcel-style securitization for utility costs. - The bill’s energy sections would let the commission require long-term bonds backed by customer bill charges, potentially shifting Comanche 3 costs far into future bills. - The fight lands as Comanche 3 remains a reliability and cost problem in Pueblo’s coal transition debate. (leg.colorado.gov)
Colorado lawmakers are moving a bill that could let regulators push some Comanche 3 costs onto utility bills for years through state-backed bonds. (leg.colorado.gov) The vehicle is House Bill 26-1326, a sunset bill for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission that also adds new energy financing powers. The bill was in the Senate on second reading after being laid over to May 1 on April 27. (leg.colorado.gov 1) (leg.colorado.gov 2) Sections 14 through 19 would let the commission direct investor-owned electric utilities to use securitization under the Colorado Energy Impact Bond Act. In plain terms, that means costs can be refinanced with bonds repaid through dedicated charges on customer bills. (leg.colorado.gov) That matters in Pueblo because Xcel Energy’s Comanche 3 has become both a reliability problem and a cost problem. The 750-megawatt coal unit opened in 2010 and cost about $1.3 billion, but it has logged repeated outages over the years. (cpr.org) State regulators were still grappling with Comanche costs late last year when they approved keeping neighboring Comanche 2 open through December 2026. Commissioner Megan Gilman said at the time, “We are in the dark for what any of this costs.” (cpr.org) Colorado Public Radio reported in September 2025 that Pueblo County receives at least $31 million a year in property taxes tied to the Comanche complex. Xcel’s just-transition filings also proposed replacement generation and payments tied to lost local tax revenue as coal units retire. (cpr.org) Supporters of securitization generally argue that low-interest bonds can spread unavoidable costs more cheaply than traditional utility recovery. Critics argue the same structure can lock customers into paying for failed or retired assets long after the plants stop delivering power. (leg.colorado.gov) (scottkjames.com) The immediate issue is not a final Comanche 3 charge on bills yet. The bill would first give the commission clearer authority to order securitization as an alternative financing tool in future utility cases. (leg.colorado.gov) So the fight at the Capitol is really about who carries the risk when Colorado retires troubled coal assets: shareholders up front, or ratepayers over time. For Pueblo, that question sits next to jobs, tax base losses and the future of the Comanche site itself. (cpr.org) (leg.colorado.gov)
