Part 1 of a 6-Part Investigation
High Country Advocate Staff
In December 2023, Chaffee County Commissioner Keith Baker invited the Colorado Energy Office to present to the county commissioners about geothermal development
“We thought we could benefit from some discussion,” Baker explained, “so we have a good feel of how the chessboard is arranged before us.”
The chessboard. An unusual phrase for what commissioners described as simply gathering information. But for residents who had opposed geothermal development in their area since 2010, it confirmed what they suspected: decisions were being coordinated behind the scenes, pieces moved into position, before the community ever got a meaningful vote.
This is the story of what happens when state grant programs, appointed officials, and bureaucratic processes converge to advance energy projects—regardless of whether local communities want them.
A Decade of Opposition
The opposition to geothermal development near Mt. Princeton isn’t new or sudden.
In 2010, 240 protest letters flooded the Bureau of Land Management opposing geothermal leases in the area. A five-hour BLM meeting drew 170 angry residents. Young Life, a Christian youth camp, bought a BLM geothermal lease specifically to prevent development on that land.
In 2023, packed public meetings saw residents accuse county commissioners of being “paid off” to support the project. Commissioner Baker dismissed the accusation as “ridiculous” but told crowds the county couldn’t act because “no application has been submitted yet.” When opponents raised safety concerns about the proposed geothermal plant, Baker asked the audience to stop applauding.
By January 2024, Pine Grove Estates HOA submitted a formal letter to the Colorado Energy Office requesting that Mt. Princeton Geothermal LLC not receive grant funding. The letter cited concerns about proximity to residential areas (less than one mile from the nearest homes), lack of local benefit, inappropriate use of public funds for a private company, collaboration with non-U.S. investors, and the presence of endangered lynx in the area.
More than 1,300 Chaffee County residents signed petitions opposing the project.
Yet in 2024, Mt. Princeton Geothermal received a $500,000 grant from the Colorado Energy Office. The grant application was endorsed by Commissioner Keith Baker, Buena Vista Mayor Libby Fay, and Sangre de Cristo Electric Association—despite the decade of documented community opposition.
The Coordination Timeline
Ten months before inviting the Colorado Energy Office to discuss “the chessboard,” Commissioner Baker had attended a different meeting about geothermal development.
In January 2023, Bill Ritter—former Colorado governor, now director of Colorado State University’s Center for the New Energy Economy—organized a meeting at Mount Princeton Hot Springs. Attendees included representatives from Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Sangre de Cristo Electric, the Colorado Energy Office, and Chaffee County commissioners.
Opponents of the project say Baker treated geothermal development as a “foregone conclusion” after that meeting.
The timeline reveals a pattern:
**January 2023:** Ritter convenes meeting with utilities, state energy office, county commissioners
**Throughout 2023:** Public meetings where commissioners tell frustrated residents the county can’t act without a formal application
**December 2023:** Baker invites Colorado Energy Office to brief commissioners on “how the chessboard is arranged”
**2024:** Grant endorsements issued; Mt. Princeton Geothermal receives $500,000 despite community opposition
This is not how democratic processes are supposed to work. Coordinating with state agencies and utilities before engaging the public, then telling residents their concerns are premature because no application exists yet, creates a system where decisions are effectively made before communities can participate meaningfully.
The Planning Commission Conflict
The coordination problems weren’t limited to the county commission.
Hank Held, co-founder of Mt. Princeton Geothermal LLC, served on the Chaffee County Planning and Zoning Commission during the time his company was developing this project. The Planning Commission is the body that reviews and makes recommendations on major development proposals—including geothermal facilities.
When residents raised concerns about this obvious conflict of interest, Commissioner Baker defended the arrangement: “He’s been a full member of the planning commission for quite some time, and he’s only one member.”
A developer sitting on the commission that would review his own project. County commissioners aware of the conflict but taking no action. And residents told not to worry because “he’s only one member.”
Held has since resigned from the Planning Commission, but the conflict existed throughout the critical period when the project was being developed and grant funding secured.
Enter Nicole Rosmarino
In May 2025, Governor Jared Polis appointed Nicole Rosmarino as Director of the Colorado State Land Board. This position controls 2.8 million surface acres and 4 million mineral acres—and makes all geothermal leasing decisions on state trust lands.
Rosmarino’s appointment alarmed rural Colorado. Her background:
– Founder of Southern Plains Land Trust, which acquired 60,000 acres in southeastern Colorado specifically to end ranching, using $3.1 million in public grants
– Board member of The Rewilding Institute, which advocates ending livestock grazing across the West
– Former Wildlife Program Director for WildEarth Guardians
– Former Senior Policy Advisor to Governor Polis for Wildlife, Agriculture, and Rural Economic Development
When her appointment was announced, 17 bipartisan state legislators—including House Speaker Julie McCluskie—sent a letter of concern to Governor Polis. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association called her beliefs “radical” and “anti-ranching.”
In 2018, Rosmarino wrote: “We cannot depend on public lands in the southern Great Plains to preserve biodiversity, as they are broadly utilized for livestock grazing and energy development.”
Three months after taking office, in August 2025, the State Land Board voted not to renew Mt. Princeton Geothermal’s state land lease. The company had held the lease since 2013 and invested $2 million over 12 years.
In September 2025, the State Land Board issued a statewide Request for Information seeking “bigger developers” with higher bids for geothermal leases.
The pattern: Block local developers. Seek larger outside investors. Favor bureaucratic discretion over community knowledge.
When Grants Override Communities
Mt. Princeton Geothermal’s $500,000 grant reveals a fundamental problem with how renewable energy development is funded.
The Pine Grove Estates HOA letter identified the core issue: “Mount Princeton Geothermal is a private company (LLC) that will solely profit from this endeavor. There has been no evidence provided that the state of Colorado or Chaffee County would have any positive benefit, other than tax generation which it doesn’t need.”
The letter continued: “Since grant funds are inevitably from taxes collected from citizens, the grant should not be awarded to a private company… A utility company with Colorado ties should request such grant funding, which would in turn benefit its tax paying and rate paying customers.”
But there’s a more fundamental question: Is this even the right location?
The Pine Grove letter raised this concern directly: “There has been no evidence provided warranting that this is the best site to drill. Only that it is the only site studied to the magnitude that it has. To be responsible with funds, the test drilling location should be proven to be the best and most responsible location of a final facility’s siting in the State, which has not occurred. Zeroing in on a site that is convenient to MPG and on cheap State Trust Lands is not adequate to prove it is the best site available.”
The Colorado Geological Survey’s 1980 assessment identified four geothermal resource areas in Chaffee County: Chalk Creek Area (Mount Princeton Hot Springs), Cottonwood Creek Area, Brown’s Canyon Area, and Poncha Hot Springs. Maxwell Park—the proposed site—does not appear on that list.
A private developer wants to use state trust lands and taxpayer grant money to establish a geothermal plant in a location that geological surveys have not identified as a documented geothermal resource area. Meanwhile, actual documented resource areas exist elsewhere in Chaffee County.
When taxpayer funds subsidize private energy projects through state grants, the financial calculus changes. Developers no longer need community support because they’re not bearing the full financial risk. They also don’t need to prove they’ve selected the geologically optimal site—because state funding reduces the consequences of choosing poorly. State funding replaces local buy-in and geological rigor. Community opposition becomes an obstacle to manage rather than a signal to reconsider location.
The Pine Grove letter made another critical point: “MPG has stated publicly that it may not have to have a 1041 review, hence a thorough review at the test site stage should occur before proceeding, which has not occurred.”
If a developer can circumvent the county’s 1041 land use review process—the primary mechanism for community input on major development—what democratic check remains?
The Bigger Pattern
This story is bigger than one geothermal project in Chaffee County.
Across rural Colorado—from the eastern plains to mountain counties—the same pattern repeats: appointed state officials making decisions that transform landscapes and communities, grant programs providing leverage that bypasses local democratic processes, former governors coordinating between state agencies and private interests, and rural residents discovering that major decisions affecting their future were made before they ever got to participate meaningfully.
The Buffalo Commons investigation documented this pattern on Colorado’s eastern plains. The Land Use Code investigation shows it in mountain county planning processes. This geothermal investigation reveals it in energy development decisions.
Different mechanisms. Same result. Rural communities lose control.
The Question
Who should decide how energy projects that will permanently transform landscapes and communities are sited and approved?
Should these decisions be made through political appointments, grant programs, and bureaucratic discretion—with community input treated as an afterthought or obstacle?
Or should they be made through genuine democratic processes where local communities have meaningful say before state agencies coordinate with utilities and former governors arrange the chessboard?
Commissioner Baker’s December 2023 comment crystallizes the problem. By the time commissioners were discussing “how the chessboard is arranged before us,” the pieces were already in position. Ten months of coordination with state agencies, utilities, and the former governor had occurred. A $500,000 grant was in process. The project had momentum.
And 1,300 petition signatures, a decade of community opposition, and concerns from neighboring residents were treated as complications to manage—not as democratic signals that perhaps this wasn’t the right location for this project.
That’s not how democracy is supposed to work.
What Comes Next
This is Part 1 of a 6-part investigation into energy development and democratic process in rural Colorado.
**Coming articles will examine:**
– **Part 2:** The coordination network—mapping connections between state appointees, former officials, and local facilitators
– **Part 3:** Technical questions—geothermal geology, site selection, and why location matters
– **Part 4:** The Rosmarino factor—from ending ranching on the plains to controlling geothermal leasing in mountain counties
– **Part 5:** The risks—what communities bear when development goes forward despite opposition
– **Part 6:** Democratic breakdown—what rural Colorado has lost and what recovery requires
None of this is anti-renewable energy. But energy development—even clean energy—should happen through democratic processes, in geologically appropriate locations, with genuine community participation.
Right now, in Chaffee County and across rural Colorado, those conditions aren’t being met.
And Commissioner Baker’s “chessboard” remains a perfect metaphor for the problem: In chess, the players move the pieces. The pieces don’t get a vote.
*Part 1 of 6: “The Wrong Location” investigation into geothermal development and democratic process in Chaffee County, Colorado. Documents obtained through Colorado Open Records Act requests. Tips and corrections: editor@highcountryadvocate.com
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 