Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration has invoked an energy "emergency" to order a Colorado coal plant to postpone its scheduled retirement, which will result in increased costs for utility customers.
- The plant’s co-owner, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, warns that the costs of continuing to operate the plant will be shouldered by Colorado utility customers.
- The Department of Energy’s order cites "growing resource adequacy concerns" as justification for the move, but critics argue that it will harm the health of surrounding communities and increase costs for ratepayers.
- The order is seen as part of a series of Trump administration actions targeting Colorado, which are widely viewed as retaliation for the ongoing incarceration of Trump ally and former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.
- The estimated cost of keeping the plant open for 90 days is at least $20 million, and critics anticipate that the order will be renewed every 90 days, raising costs by $85 million to $150 million annually.
Introduction to the Energy Emergency
The Trump administration’s last-minute invocation of an energy "emergency" to order a Colorado coal plant to postpone its scheduled retirement has sparked controversy and concerns about the impact on utility customers. The Craig Generating Station’s 446-megawatt Unit 1, located in Moffat County, had been scheduled to go offline on December 31, 2025, as part of a wave of coal retirements planned across Colorado through 2030. However, an emergency order issued by the Department of Energy on December 30 requires the plant to "take all measures necessary to ensure that Craig Unit 1 is available to operate" until at least March 30, 2026.
Impact on Utility Customers
The plant’s co-owner, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, has warned that the high costs of continuing to operate the plant will be shouldered by Colorado utility customers. The company stated that the "additional investments in operations, repairs, maintenance and, potentially, fuel supply" required by the order will raise costs for the plant’s customers, which include dozens of electric utilities and rural co-ops. Tri-State CEO Duane Highley said that the company is continuing to review the order to determine its implications for Craig Station employees and operations, as well as the financial impacts. As a not-for-profit cooperative, Highley noted that the company’s membership will bear the costs of compliance with the order unless a method can be found to share costs with others in the region.
Justification for the Order
The Department of Energy’s order cites "growing resource adequacy concerns" as justification for the move, which follows similar actions in Indiana and Washington. However, critics argue that the order is unjustified and will harm the health of surrounding communities and increase costs for ratepayers. An analysis released by the Sierra Club estimates that keeping Craig’s Unit 1 open for 90 days would cost ratepayers at least $20 million. Critics anticipate that the DOE’s orders will continue to be renewed every 90 days under the authority granted to the department by the Federal Power Act, raising costs by $85 million to $150 million annually.
Political Motivations
The DOE order comes amid a series of Trump administration actions targeting Colorado, which are widely viewed as retaliation for the ongoing incarceration of Trump ally and former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. Peters was convicted on felony charges for her role in a breach of her own office’s secure election equipment in 2021. Colorado U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who voted to confirm Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former Denver oil executive, has expressed disappointment and concern about the order. Bennet stated that the order is the latest in a string of attacks against Colorado, which he believes are motivated by President Trump’s personal and political grievances.
Environmental and Health Concerns
Environmental advocates have criticized the order, arguing that it will harm the health of surrounding communities and benefit only the struggling coal industry. Michael Hiatt of Earthjustice said that keeping the dirty and outdated coal plant online will hurt all of our pocketbooks and benefit no one but the coal industry. The order has also sparked concerns about the impact on the environment and public health, as coal plants are a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As the controversy surrounding the order continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the situation will be resolved and what the long-term implications will be for utility customers and the environment.