Xcel plans for new gas plant to meet “carbon-free” state electric mandate

You read that headline correctly. To meet the state’s mandate for 100 percent “carbon-free” electricity by the year 2040, the state’s largest electric utility is planning to build at least one new natural gas-fired power plant in the coming years.

I’ve been writing about Xcel Energy’s carbon-free 2040 plan and previously reprinted the figure below from a recent regulatory filing (right bar, in orange),

To meet the law’s mandate (and to keep the lights on) Xcel is proposing to retain a 20 percent natural gas capacity in its generating fleet. Walker Orenstein reports in the Minnesota Star Tribune,

Minnesota wants carbon-free power by 2040. Xcel wants at least one new gas plant.

Xcel says the gas is needed for reliable power. 

In what sense will the system be “carbon-free” in 2040? The Star Tribune explains,

[T]he Minneapolis-based company also has proposed one natural gas plant—and suggested it could soon build more—that it would fire up in times of extreme need, like the coldest winter nights.

That idea has been a sticking point before the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as the board reviews a critical blueprint for Xcel’s next 15 years of energy supply. 

So, it’s mostly “carbon-free.” The state attorney general, Keith Ellison, and environmental groups are opposing Xcel’s almost carbon-free plan. It turns out that physics, engineering, and economics are conspiring against the green energy desires of state politicians,

As it maps out the path to a carbon-free grid, one of Xcel’s biggest challenges is replacing the power lost when its two large coal plants retire by 2030. Contracts with several gas plants that supply significant power to Xcel will expire soon, too.

Then, Xcel needs even more electricity for the increasing number of electric cars, home heaters and stoves — plus new energy-hungry data centers.

Orenstein reports that the new gas plant, if built, would likely be placed in Lyon County. Xcel continues negotiating with Ellison and the environmentalists. But it seems that both sides agree that some level of fossil-fuel power will be needed, going forward. They are just negotiating over how much.

Neither the monopoly utility nor the nonprofit environmental groups have any real skin in the game.

Whatever they decide among themselves, the consumer will pay. And who represents the consumer?