SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                      Washington, D.C.   20549



                              FORM 8-K


                              CURRENT REPORT
                   PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) of the 
                       SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


           Date of Report (date of earliest event reported) January 18, 1996

                   PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
                 ________________________________________
               (exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


                                Colorado
                          ____________________
                      (State or other jurisdiction 
                             of incorporation)


                     1-3280                               84-0296600
                ________________                      _________________
               (Commission File No.)                    (IRS Employer
                                                      Identification No.)


               1225 Seventeenth Street, Denver,  Colorado          80202
               __________________________________________________________
               (Address of principal executive offices)         (Zip Code)


     Registrant's telephone number, including area code    (303)  571-7511
     



   ITEM 5.     Other Events

               In  April  1992, the  Company  acquired  interests in  the  two
   generating  units at  the Hayden Steam Electric  Generating Station located
   near  Hayden,  Colorado.   The  Company currently  is  the operator  of the
   Hayden  station  and  owns  an  undivided  interest  in  each  of  the  two
   generating units at the station which in total average approximately 53%.

               On  August  18,  1993,  a  conservation  organization  filed  a
   complaint  in the U.S.  District Court for the  District of Colorado ("U.S.
   District Court"), pursuant  to Section  304 of the  Federal Clean Air  Act,
   against the Company and the other joint owners of the Hayden station.   The
   plaintiff   alleges  that:   1)  the  station  exceeded   the  20%  opacity
   limitations  in excess  of  19,000 six-minute  intervals during  the period
   extending from the last quarter of 1988 through  mid-1993 based on the data
   and  reports  obtained  from  the  station's  continuous  opacity  monitors
   ("COMs"),  which measure  average  emission stream  opacity  in  six-minute
   intervals on a continuous basis, 2) the station  was operated for over  two
   weeks in late 1992  without a functioning  electrostatic precipitator which
   constituted a "modification"  of the station  without the  requisite permit
   from  the Colorado Department of  Public Health and Environment, and 3) the
   owners failed to operate  the station in a  manner consistent with good air
   pollution  control practices.    The complaint  seeks, among  other things,
   civil monetary penalties  and injunctive relief.   The joint owners  of the
   station contest  all  of  these claims  and  contend  that  there  were  no
   violations  of the  opacity limitation,  because pursuant  to the  Colorado
   state implementation plan ("SIP"), visual emissions  are to be measured  by
   qualified personnel  using  the Environmental  Protection Agency's  ("EPA")
   visual  test known  as "Method  9" and  not by  any measurements  from  the
   station's COMs as alleged by the plaintiff.

               Discovery was completed and  oral arguments on summary judgment
   motions  were heard in  mid-May 1995.  On July  21, 1995, the U.S. District
   Court entered partial summary judgment  on liability issues in favor of the
   plaintiff in regards  to the claims described in items 1) and  3) above and
   denied  the plaintiff's motion in  regards to the claims  described in item
   2) above.   On July  31, 1995, the  joint owners  filed a  petition for  an
   interlocutory appeal  with the  10th Circuit Court  of Appeals.   On August
   21, 1995, the joint  owners' petition for permission  to appeal was denied.
   Subsequent to the denial of the  joint owners' petition, the  U.S. District
   Court  dismissed the plaintiffs  claims described  in item  2) above.   The
   joint owners are pursuing a  settlement with the conservation organization,
   the Colorado Department of  Public Health and Environment  and the EPA.  If
   settlement is not reached, court hearings for injunctive relief,  scheduled
   for May  1996, and the  determination of  penalties in connection  with the
   litigation, not yet  scheduled, will  be held.   Further  appeals could  be
   pursued by the joint owners if settlement is not achieved.

               In December 1995, the  conservation organization filed a motion
   for summary  judgment  which would  require the joint  owners to come  into
   compliance  with the  opacity requirements  identified  in the  August 1993
   complaint within  60  days  or  submit  a  plan  for  the  installation  of

    1



   additional  pollution control equipment.   On  January 26,  1996, the joint
   owners and  the conservation  organization reached  an agreement  providing
   for  a  stay  of such  litigation  for  30  days to  allow  the  parties to
   concentrate their efforts on settlement.

               Additionally,  the  Company had  received  and  responded to  a
   request from the EPA  for information related to  the plant and, on January
   18,  1996, the  EPA issued  a notice  of violation  stating the  plant  had
   exceeded the  20% opacity limitations in  excess of  10,000 additional six-
   minute intervals  during the  period extending  from mid-1993  to mid-1995.
   It  is expected that the  joint owners will  be able  to resolve the issues
   related to this notice of  violation as part of  the settlement discussions
   previously mentioned.  

               At this time,  the Company is not able to  estimate the amount,
   if  any,  of  its potential  liability for  penalties.   The  plaintiff has
   requested, among  other things, that the  joint owners "pay  to the EPA  to
   finance air  compliance and enforcement activities,  as provided  for by 42
   U.S.C. section 7604(g) (1), a penalty of $25,000 per  day for each of their
   violations of the Clean Air Act." The statute provides for penalties of  up
   to $25,000  per day per  violation, but the  level of  penalties imposed in
   any particular instance  is discretionary.  In setting penalties in its own
   enforcement actions,  the EPA  relies,  in  part, on  such factors  as  the
   economic  benefit  of  noncompliance,  the   actual  or  possible  harm  of
   noncompliance, the size of the violator,  the willfulness or negligence  of
   the violator and  its degree of cooperation in  resolving the matter.   The
   Company cannot  predict the  level of  penalties, if any,  or the  remedies
   that the  court or  the EPA may impose  if settlement is not  reached or if
   the joint owners are unsuccessful in a subsequent appeal.

               It  is  expected  additional pollution  control  equipment  and
   practices will  be  required at the station.  The additional equipment  and
   practices would be designed to  address particulate matter,  sulfur dioxide
   and nitrogen oxide emission concerns  raised by this litigation  and by the
   Mt.  Zirkel   Wilderness  Area  Reasonable   Attribution  Study  previously
   reported,  which  is not  yet  complete.   The  Company  is  evaluating the
   economic  impact of adding  such pollution  control equipment and practices
   on future plant operations.

               The Company believes that, consistent with historical
   regulatory treatment, any costs for pollution control equipment to comply
   with pollution control regulations would be recovered from its customers. 
   However, no assurance can be given that this practice will continue in the
   future.
   
   2


  

                                    SIGNATURE


   Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
   registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
   undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.




                                       PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO

                                             /s/ R. C. Kelly
                                       _____________________________________
                                                  R. C. Kelly
                                       Senior Vice President, Finance, 
                                      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


   Dated:       January 29, 1996
   
  
  
   3