The coal-fired Martin Drake Power Plant nestled in the heart of Colorado Springs could be shuttered a decade earlier than its scheduled 2035 closure, but it would come at a higher price.

The Colorado Springs Utilities Board is considering three options for Drake and the possibility of closing it by 2025 or 2030. One of the plant’s three power-generating units already has been shut down.

Prices for each option will be presented to the board Tuesday, said John Romero, Utilities’ general manager of energy acquisition, engineering and planning. Board members are expected to offer direction on the closure next month.

Board member and City Council President Richard Skorman said he wants to close Drake by 2025 and shut down another of its two operating units by 2023. This route would be more costly but would benefit ratepayers in the long run, he said.

“We’re going to have to pay for this one way or the other,” Skorman said. “It’s just when ratepayers are going to pay for this.”

The board must provide more guidance before it’s clear how soon the second unit can be closed, said Utilities spokeswoman Amy Trinidad.

Utilities also will have to consider how to transition employees at Drake to other jobs with Utilities, she said.

Board members Andy Pico and Don Knight, however, said they’d rather wait longer to keep down expenses – which are passed down to ratepayers – and to allow more time to reliably replace the electricity Drake generates.

Drake now generates about 203 megawatts of electricity, Romero said. When it closes, the Front Range Power Plant and other generators will pick up some of the slack, but Utilities will need to replace 128 megawatts.

One megawatt of electricity generated by fossil fuels can power up to 950 homes for a year, said Trinidad. Utilities’ peak electricity demand is about 906 megawatts, Romero said.

Also at Drake’s location is the substation that transmits electricity through Utilities’ grid, Romero said. Although the plant will be closed, the substation will remain.

“Otherwise lights go out,” Pico said. “That’s reality.”

Romero said the first option to replace electricity generated by Drake is to build a natural gas plant on the site or at the Birdsall Power Plant off North Nevada Avenue.

“Essentially, you’re just taking one generation facility and replacing it with another,” he said. “It’s the least intrusive, I would say. And likely it’s the least costly.”

Building a new plant at Drake’s site would free 27 to 31 acres that could be sold or repurposed, Romero said.

Clean-air advocates and downtown developers and business owners still might be opposed to that, he said.

Skorman, Pico and Knight aren’t in favor of keeping a power plant downtown.

“If we’re going to close down Drake, let’s do it right,” Knight said.

The second option is to build a natural gas plant outside of the city, Romero said.

“It’s still relatively close, but it’s an opportunity for us to build a new generation facility ourselves,” he said.

Such a project would require a $26 million investment in transmission infrastructure linking the new facility to the downtown substation, Romero said. Utilities also could buy power from nearby utilities, supplementing that with renewable sources such as solar or wind.

But renewables aren’t reliable enough to completely replace Drake’s generation, Romero said. The sun’s rays and wind are never guaranteed, and their peak hours don’t line up perfectly with electricity demand.

Knight also cautioned against buying too much from other utilities. It’s far more reliable for Colorado Springs Utilities to generate its own electricity than to depend on other organizations, he said.

Also, Pico and Knight said, buying electricity subjects ratepayers to price increases out of Utilities’ control

But Skorman said working with different utilities diversifies how the electricity is generated.

“Many of those other sources these days are renewable, and the sooner we get to the point where we have that ability, the sooner we’ll save ratepayers money for fuel in the future,” he said.

Eliminating generation at Drake would free 35 to 41 acres, Romero said.

The third option is a hybrid of the first two, Romero said.

Utilities could generate about 48 megawatts on Drake’s site, which would not require an investment in transmission lines, and either build a new plant to generate the remaining 80 megawatts or buy the electricity from outside, Romero said. Or Utilities could eliminate generation at Drake’s site and the Birdsall Power Plant, which would require the transmission investment and a total of 192 megawatts either from new plants or outside utilities.

This option might free 27 to 41 acres at the Drake site, Romero said.

The sooner Drake closes, the more expensive the work will be, he said.

Skorman said he prefers 2025, as it allows Utilities to explore partnering with outside organizations and using new technologies and renewable energy sources sooner.

“We can build a new gas plant, and we probably should as a part of our reliability,” he said. “But if we’re relying completely on natural gas, then what happens when the market shifts and you’re paying for fuel that is more expensive?”

He also said he wants to repurpose whatever land is freed to mitigate higher costs from an earlier closure.

Pico said he’s less confident in the developing technologies and is “holding out” for 2035 because it represents a lower cost for Utilities and ratepayers.

Knight said he could support closing Drake by 2030 or 2035, depending on the other projects Utilities is planning.

Utilities is holding two public meetings in the next few weeks to get more input on Drake’s closure.

The first will be by phone from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Nov. 29. Participants who register at csu.org will receive a call that night.

The second will be at 6 p.m. Dec. 5 at City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave.