|
Coloradans are in the midst of a high-stakes battle for energy independence. While our state’s Clean Energy Plan aims to retire or convert all six remaining coal-fired plants by 2031, a new push from Washington is threatening to stall our progress and hike our rates.
In late 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued emergency orders to keep Craig Unit 1 operational—despite the coal plant being scheduled for retirement. The federal government cites "grid reliability," but the reality on the ground tells a different story. Just days before the order, Craig Unit 1 suffered an unexpected shutdown due to mechanical failure.
Tri-State Generation and Transmission, the non-profit utility that owns the plant along with Platte River Power Authority and others, has been vocal in its opposition to continued operation. They argue that keeping this obsolete, frequently breaking plant online isn't just bad for the air—it’s a massive financial drain for the power supplier to Colorado's rural electric co-ops.
- The Cost: Keeping Craig open will cost an estimated $85 million per year.
- The Victim: These costs will be passed directly to Colorado families.
- The Opportunity Cost: This order forces Tri-State to ignore cheaper, cleaner power already waiting in the wings, like the existing Axial Basin Solar farm.
In an appeal to the DOE, Tri-State argued that being forced to run an unprofitable plant is an unconstitutional "taking" of their property and that keeping Craig 1 running is not the best solution. Tri-State's appeal was denied in March and the agency is considering its options. Meanwhile, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed suit against the federal order.
Craig was ordered to remain available by the federal government. It was ordered to resume operations April 10 by the Southwest Power Pool, which is a multi-state agency that ensures reliability. SPP cited resource outages and intermittent resource uncertainty.
Other coal plants are problematic. The state's newest, Xcel Energy's Comanche 3, has proved to be completely unreliable. It ended up costing 15% more than projected to build and at 45% higher cost for electricity. The plant has been out of service for nearly two of its 16 years, including since last August.
Colorado customers pay for all these cost overruns and repairs, and the downtime impacts grid stability and electricity costs. Many of the Comanche costs have been kept confidential by Xcel. But after advocates waged a pressure campaign, Xcel has finally agreed to make public most of the costs to repair the coal plants.
Meanwhile, Colorado lawmakers are considering HB26-1226 (Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units).
This bill is a direct counter-strike against federal interference. If passed, it will:
- Enforce Cost Transparency: Show exactly how much federal mandates are costing ratepayers.
- Stiffen Emission Standards: Ensure that if a plant stays open, it doesn't get a "free pass" to pollute our air with mercury and sulfur.
- Shield Consumers: Protect us from paying for "stranded assets"—expensive coal plants that the market no longer wants or needs.
Read more:
Contested Craig unit to burn coal again - Big Pivots
Colorado Sun, “Tri-State says no thanks to federal orders to keep Craig coal power plant open”, https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/30/craig-tri-state-petition-coal-closure/
Denver Post: Xcel Energy's troubled Comanche 3 coal plant may be offline for months
Too much Magic Marker? - Big Pivots
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Allowing Balcony Solar Nears Final Approval
Colorado is on the verge of allowing residents to plug solar panels right into existing electric outlets to provide easy access to clean renewable power.
A bill allowing so- called “Balcony Solar’’ has made its way through both houses of the legislature, and Colorado is expected to join one of the hottest trends in renewable energy this year by making solar more affordable and accessible for more people. About half the states in the nation are considering such measures to address the high cost of electricity.
HB 26-1007 would prohibit utilities or homeowner associations from restricting the installation or use of portable-scale solar generators. The measure requires that the devices be installed to meet fire and building code requirements.
The systems are designed to work for residents of small apartments or homes and could be used on a balcony or small patio. The bill requires the units supply not more than 1,920 watts to the grid, be labeled and listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory and be limited to one device per address.
In addition to offsetting energy costs, the bill addresses increasing concern for power outages as climate change takes hold. “With weather-related power outages on the rise, distributed generation systems, such as residential solar energy systems, create a clean, reliable energy source that, especially when paired with an energy storage system, is less vulnerable to natural disasters and grid failures,’’ the bill states.
Read more:
Balcony solar is taking state legislatures by storm | Grist
Where does balcony solar stand in your state? | Canary Media
| 
