Here we go again: Retiring coal plant forced to stay open by Trump Admin
So, here’s something that’s become all too familiar — another coal plant being kept alive by government order. This time, it’s Craig Station in Colorado. On Tuesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued a federal directive, claiming an energy emergency required the plant to stay open, even though it was set to close. Now, here’s the twist — this order doesn’t even make the plant run. It just has to be available if there’s a grid shortfall. According to John Timmer writing in Technology, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission already said Craig Unit 1 isn’t needed for reliable power. But the Trump-era order bypasses those assessments, citing emergency needs. And get this — maintaining the plant could actually violate Colorado’s pollution laws, since operating it would bump into greenhouse gas limits. So, who’s really paying? Local ratepayers, who’d already adjusted to the closure plans, will likely cover the costs. As Timmer points out, this isn’t just about energy — it’s politics, pollution, and climate all tangled up.
On Tuesday, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued a now familiar order: because of a supposed energy emergency, a coal plant scheduled for closure would be forced to remain open. This time, the order targeted one of the three units present at Craig Station in Colorado, which was scheduled to close at the end of this year. The remaining two units were expected to shut in 2028.
The supposed reason for this order is an emergency caused by a shortage of generating capacity. "The reliable supply of power from the coal plant is essential for keeping the region’s electric grid stable," according to a statement issued by the Department of Energy. Yet the Colorado Sun notes that Colorado's Public Utilities Commission had already analyzed the impact of its potential closure, and determined, "Craig Unit 1 is not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes."
The order does not require the plant to actually produce electricity; instead, it is ordered to be available in case a shortfall in production occurs. As noted in the Colorado Sun article, actual operation of the plant would potentially violate Colorado laws, which regulate airborne pollution and set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of maintaining the plant is likely to fall on the local ratepayers, who had already adjusted to the closure plans.