If coal is the abundant, cheap energy source that the president keeps telling us it is, then it stands to reason that ordering coal-fired generating stations to remain open would mean lower electricity rates.
It would also mean more pollution, but we couldn’t blame Americans if they welcomed cheaper utility bills amid an ongoing affordability crisis.
But that’s not the tradeoff that the Trump administration is forcing onto consumers – at least not those served by the rural electric co-ops that make up the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association.
An executive order preventing the retirement of a coal-fired power plant in Craig is for the benefit of the coal industry at the expense of everyday ratepayers who get nothing out of the deal except higher bills and more carbon pollution.
And it’s happening under the questionable proposition that the nation is in the midst of an energy emergency. If there is an emergency, this isn’t the way out – as the owners and operators of the Craig Unit 1 coal-fired plant made abundantly clear in a petition to the U.S. Department of Energy on Jan. 29.
They joined the Colorado attorney general and a coalition of environmental groups opposing an order to keep the Craig plant open beyond its planned 2025 retirement date.
It would be one thing for the government to provide money to reboot the plant. But that’s not the case. The owners note they let important maintenance lapse knowing the plant was to be shuttered at the end of the year. Fixing those issues will be even more costly and the expense falls on the shoulders of rural electric co-op members who pay the bills through electric rates.
As part of Colorado’s transition to renewable energy, the Craig plant’s owners planned for the retirement of the facility for more than a decade and “proactively” replaced the electrical generation capacity from new sources, including the 145MW Axial Basin solar farm in Moffat County.
But, as the Colorado Sun’s Michael Booth noted, if the Craig station has to force coal power onto transmission lines, it can’t use the solar power it’s built. There’s only so much transmission capacity in northwest Colorado.
These are the kinds of nonsensical directives that energy experts criticize as resembling “central planning” or a “Soviet-style system” by interfering with competitive electricity markets.
But Tri-State Generation and partner Platte River Power Authority say the order is more than unwise – it’s unconstitutional.
It “effectuates a taking of petitioners’ property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution without an adequate process to obtain constitutionally required compensation,” they argue. Neither does it meet the DOE requirement for a reasoned finding that compels operation of Craig Unit 1 as the “best solution” to the “identified emergency.”
This isn’t the only pushback coming from Colorado in response to Trump directives. As the Sentinel’s Sam Klomhaus reported, Colorado has joined a lawsuit brought by several states against President Donald Trump’s administration alleging Trump declared an “energy emergency” in order to bypass or shorten environmental reviews for projects when no such emergency exists.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the directive illegal and stop agencies from issuing permits under the executive order.
This administration is fond of taking emergency action. Last fall, Trump started preparing for an emergency bailout for struggling farmers impacted by tariffs. Isn’t that an emergency he created?
Farmers would prefer open markets and a level playing field over handouts. And utility customers would prefer to pay for the cheapest form of electricity.
Congress can inject some much-needed rationality by limiting the kinds of actions the president can take to respond to emergencies – or by more clearly defining what constitutes one.
Guest commentary courtesy of Andy Smith, Opinion Editor at the Grand Junction Sentinel. Ellen Stein returns Feb. 27.
