News Sheet

PRPA Turbine Permit Fight Tests Northern Colorado Grid

Gas turbines and courthouse columns symbolize the PRPA turbine permit fight in Colorado
Energy policy found the courthouse again.
Written by Scott K. James

A lawsuit over PRPA’s Rawhide gas turbine permit puts reliability, Clean Air Act review, and ratepayer risk in one Northern Colorado fight.

The Loveland Reporter-Herald reports that two Northern Colorado residents, Fred Kirsch of Fort Collins and Ethan Augreen of Longmont, have sued in Larimer County District Court over a state construction permit for Platte River Power Authority’s planned natural gas combustion turbines at Rawhide Energy Station in Wellington. The permit was issued in April by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division for five turbines meant to help replace the coal-fired Rawhide Unit 1 as PRPA transitions away from coal.

PRPA provides wholesale power to Loveland, Longmont, Fort Collins, and Estes Park. The turbines are expected to begin operating before Rawhide Unit 1 is retired at the end of 2029, and PRPA says they are essential for system reliability and financial sustainability as the utility moves toward a noncarbon energy future. The lawsuit argues the state improperly let PRPA avoid a stricter federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration review under the Clean Air Act.

So here we are again: Northern Colorado getting another reminder that energy policy now runs through courtrooms, not engineering departments. People want reliable power, affordable bills, and clean air. That is not a contradiction unless activists, regulators, or utility brass work very hard to make it one.

The Bullet Point Brief

  • The lawsuit challenges a permit for five new natural gas combustion turbines at Rawhide. Translation: the coal plant is supposed to wind down, but the replacement bridge now has lawyers standing in the lane with clipboards.
  • The petitioners say they are not trying to block lawful energy development or stop PRPA from transitioning away from coal. Fine. That is the right disclaimer. Now the court gets to decide whether this is a serious Clean Air Act claim or delay tactics wearing a Patagonia vest.
  • The core argument is that Colorado credited the future retirement of Rawhide Unit 1 as an emissions reduction, even though the permit allows the coal unit and new turbines to operate at the same time during a testing period of up to six months. That is not a frivolous question. It is exactly the kind of permitting math that should survive daylight.
  • The petitioners want the permit set aside and sent through the more rigorous PSD review process, plus a stay while the case plays out. That could mean delay, more analysis, more legal expense, and eventually, one way or another, ratepayers checking their wallets.
  • PRPA has not filed its official response yet and declined to comment directly on the litigation, but said the turbines are essential to reliability and financial sustainability. Utilities do love public-interest language right up until the invoice arrives in the mail.

My Bottom Line

This is the local energy trap in one neat package. Northern Colorado is growing. The grid needs reliability. Coal is being phased down. Cleaner air matters. And every piece of infrastructure needed to make that transition work now risks getting dragged into court before the concrete has a chance to dry.

To be clear, lawful permitting and serious environmental review matter. If Colorado regulators misapplied federal law, skipped required analysis, or played games with emissions accounting, that should be fixed. Clean air rules are not decorative. They exist for a reason, especially in a region already fighting ozone problems.

But there is a difference between stewardship and obstruction. If every project becomes a courtroom hostage crisis, then the same people demanding a cleaner grid will act shocked when the grid becomes more expensive, more fragile, and less capable of handling real-world demand. You cannot sue every bridge and then complain there is no way across the river.

PRPA does not get a halo just because it says “reliability.” The petitioners do not get a halo just because they say “Clean Air Act.” The question is practical and local: can Northern Colorado build and permit the energy infrastructure it needs under rules that are lawful, clear, and timely, or are we going to litigate ourselves into brownouts while everyone claps for their own virtue?


Source: Loveland Reporter-Herald

About the author

Scott K. James

A 4th generation Northern Colorado native, Scott K. James is a veteran broadcaster, professional communicator, and principled leader. Widely recognized for his thoughtful, common-sense approach to addressing issues that affect families, businesses, and communities, Scott, his wife, Julie, and son, Jack, call Johnstown, Colorado, home. A former mayor of Johnstown, James is a staunch defender of the Constitution and the rule of law, the free market, and the power of the individual. Scott has delighted in a lifetime of public service and continues that service as a Weld County Commissioner representing District 2.

Share your thoughts...