As many of you may know, the PRPA (Platte River Power Authority) is planning on building a 200 MWatt gas turbine plant over the objections of the local environmental community. We protested this strongly to the City Council of Fort Collins, and the Commissioners for Larimer County over the past two years.
I, for one, thought this was a done deal; but it turns out the PRPA must get one last permit before they are allowed to erect this testament to their folly; and this is a permit from the APCD (Air Pollution Control Division), the highest echelon in the air emissions permitting business in Colorado.
This issue may be a bit too “into the weeds” for most folks; but what is certainly of concern to anyone who breathes in northern Colorado, is whether the PRPA will build the gas plant. This hinges on some rather arcane technicalities, but fortunately the issue has been explained at length by Ethan Augreen, who is a City of Longmont Sustainability Advisory Board Member.
See his excellent article on his Substack post (Feb 2026): FAQ: Clean Air Act Violations by PRPA’s New Rawhide Gas Project
If you don’t have time to wade through that, here is the short ‘Cliff Notes’ version of the essential questions (supplied by Ethan):
- what is the difference in a “major” and “minor” air permit w/r/t the EPA?
At an existing large power plant like Rawhide (already a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) major source, the key question is whether a new project counts as a “major modification.”
- If it’s classified as minor, the state handles it under a simpler construction permit process without full PSD review.
- If it’s classified as a major modification, it triggers the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the Clean Air Act.
PSD review requires:
- Stricter emissions analysis
- Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review
- More extensive modeling
- Mandatory public hearing rights
- Direct federal oversight authority (including potential EPA objection)
So the classification determines whether the full federal framework applies.
- why would having the PRPA permit reclassified as “major” matter so much?
- Is this classification tied into Colorado’s statewide GHG reduction program somehow?
Indirectly — but not directly.
PSD classification is based on federal Clean Air Act criteria (primarily criteria pollutants like NOx), not directly on Colorado’s statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets.
However, Colorado’s broader decarbonization planning — including the anticipated retirement of the coal unit — interacts with how emissions are calculated for netting and applicability.
So while the classification isn’t technically a GHG compliance decision, the retirement assumptions and emissions accounting intersect with Colorado’s climate policy framework.
- Will there be repercussions to PRPA if this reclassification occurs? If so, how? When?
Yes — procedural and practical, not punitive.
If reclassified as major:
- PRPA would need to undergo full PSD review for this project.
- The permit process would likely be delayed, possibly for as long as 9 to 12 months.
- Additional technical demonstrations would be required.
- There might be greater litigation exposure.
It would not impose fines or penalties — but it would change the regulatory pathway and timeline.
PRPA could take a financial hit on the project, but it might be much less bad for ratepayers than letting the project continue on its current path.
What really matters to the public is not wasting money (if the project can be stopped) and getting stronger controls on pollution.