Economic and Health Implications of Closing Comanche 3 and the Case for Renewable Energy
Download the Economic and Health Implications of Closing Comanche 3 and the Case for Renewable Energy Report
The retirement of the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, Colorado by 2031 presents both challenges and opportunities for the local community and the state’s energy future. While the closure will result in significant economic impacts, including the loss of 77 direct jobs and an estimated $31 million in annual tax payments, it also offers substantial health and environmental benefits. Comanche 3 is currently a major source of pollution, emitting over 4.2 million tons of CO2 and over 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals annually. These emissions contribute to higher rates of respiratory diseases and cancer in nearby communities, particularly affecting communities of color.
The social cost of carbon for Comanche 3’s emissions is approximately $285.6 million per year, representing the economic benefit of closing the plant. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) tool estimates that the closure of Comanche 3 would result in avoided health costs benefiting Colorado between $52 million and $67 million annually, with Pueblo County specifically benefiting between $4.6 million and $5.6 million from avoided health costs.
While advanced nuclear energy has been proposed as a replacement option, it presents significant risks and challenges:
- Economic challenges: Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build and maintain, with costs potentially reaching billions of dollars.
- Environmental and safety risks: Nuclear power produces radioactive waste requiring secure storage for thousands of years and carries the risk of severe accidents.
- Operational and technical issues: Current nuclear technologies remain largely experimental and unproven at a commercial scale.
- Community and regulatory concerns: Previous attempts to build nuclear plants in Pueblo have faced strong community opposition.
In contrast, renewable energy alternatives such as solar and wind offer safer, more immediate, and often cheaper solutions to meet energy needs while providing economic benefits. Studies suggest that investing in solar energy on a small percentage of agricultural land could meet all electricity demands while providing additional income for farmers.
Given these factors, prioritizing investments in renewable energy sources presents a more viable path forward for Pueblo and Colorado. This approach can address both energy demands and economic stability while ensuring a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable energy future for the community and the environment.
