Local officials’ sentiment that Xcel Energy’s Mountain Energy Project proposal could have some adverse impacts on Summit County constituents is continuing to fuel intervention efforts amid the project’s review by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.

The county and municipal governments formed the Mountain Community Coalition in February to formally intervene in the process, and now the group is working on another agreement to solidify cost sharing responsibilities.

Xcel Energy’s Mountain Energy Project seeks to introduce non-pipeline alternatives to the area to, in part, address gas supply constraints at the Marshall Compressor Station’s gas supply in Boulder County, which supplies natural gas to Summit County. According to Xcel Energy’s website, the project also aims to support the provider’s goal of delivering net-zero energy by 2050.

The proposal still calls for the use of natural gas, including the possible construction of a compressed natural gas site in Keystone and a liquified natural gas site in Breckenridge. Xcel Energy officials said the usage of natural gas is mostly to have a “stop-gap solution” as it works toward being a net-zero energy provider.

Keystone mayor Ken Riley said while some were wary about the compressed natural gas site proposed, the town has larger concerns with the proposal. 

“One issue was that the mountain communities that are impacted (by the project) would have to pay for (much of the project’s) impact. … That would have a huge impact in our community and could have a very significant increase in natural gas bills,” he said.

He said there were more safety concerns around the gas site proposed in Breckenridge compared to the one proposed for Keystone because of the nature of liquified natural gas, which some experts say has the potential to impact human health negatively.

He added that many officials also felt the project, as currently presented, didn’t significantly help the overall reduction of natural gas usage.

Overwhelmed by headlines? Let us help.

Sign up for daily and weekly newsletters at SummitDaily.com/newsletter

Keystone Town Council showed approval for an intergovernmental agreement presented to them at a July 22 meeting. Breckenridge officials did the same at their July 22 meeting alongside Dillon Town Council, which showed support for the agreement at its July 22 meeting. Silverthorne officials approved the agreement at a July 23 meeting, and Frisco officials will review the agreement at an Aug. 12 meeting. The Blue River Board of Trustees approved the agreement at a July 15 meeting. 

Breckenridge and Summit County signed up to shoulder a bulk of the costs associated with the intervention, and Breckenridge engaged consultant Synapse Energy Economics Inc. to provide expert analysis and testimony in the proceeding. 

The estimated costs to municipalities is $61,248 for Breckenridge, $79,031 for Summit County, $21,515 for Silverthorne, $18,507 for Frisco, $6,881 for Dillon, $1,645 for Blue River and $14,713 for Keystone.

Breckenridge town attorney Keely Ambrose said proceedings for the Mountain Energy Project have not yet concluded, adding “there’s sort of discussions happening right now about potential settlement, (but) there’s no actual resolution as of yet” during the July 22 meeting. 

Mayor Kelly Owens wondered when council could be updated on the possibility of a settlement, and Ambrose said the update would be given in an executive session. 

At a July 23 meeting, Silverthorne officials discussed a letter of opposition written by a member of the public asking the town to seek more community input before approving the intergovernmental agreement. 

Mayor Ann-Marie Sandquist said interim town manager Mark Leidal reached out to the resident to address their concerns, but the resident still asked him to explain the town’s participation at the meeting. 

Leidal said much of the intervention efforts focus on the natural gas supply that could come to the county as a result of the project. He said the Colorado Public Utility Commission asked Xcel Energy to find alternatives. 

He said Breckenridge and the county government are doing the “heavy lifting” on intervention efforts. He said Silverthorne particularly needs to have a seat at the table in the project’s review.

“The other issue that I certainly have brought up is reliability, and reliability in the electrical supply. …We’ve seen impacts to both residents and the business owners when the power gets disrupted,” he said. 

Silverthorne residents have lost power in the past when Xcel Energy has entered into the enhanced power line safety settings, a measure the energy provider said was meant to reduce wildfire risk at times when risk is high. Last August, Xcel Energy implemented the new protocol, and it led to power outages across Silverthorne. Many business owners said it interrupted their operations, particularly the Silverthorne Veterinary Hospital, which dealt with an outage amid a surgery procedure. 

Council member Tim Applegate asked what type of stake Silverthorne would have in the process. 

“Some of the major electrical issues seem to hit us more than it hits anybody else,” he said. “I know we have a larger population than Breckenridge. I just hate to think that our voice is less.”

Leidal said Silverthorne’s voice will not be lessened. It will be jointly represented through the Mountain Community Coalition and its consultant’s works. 

According to the intergovernmental agreement, the coalition seeks to require Xcel Energy to broaden its efforts to reduce user reliance on natural gas and encourage electrification. It also seeks to reduce the costs of Xcel Energy’s planned improvements to citizens in Summit County and ensure costs are equitably allocated.

Introduced mid-January, Xcel Energy’s Mountain Energy Project applies to its Eastern Mountain Gas System that runs through Grand, Lake, Eagle and Summit counties. According to the Jan. 16 project application, Breckenridge’s proposed gas facility could cost $55.8 million, and Keystone’s facility could cost $22.8 million. Preliminary cost estimates put the project at-large at $155 million.