US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has issued an order to keep one of the three units at a coal plant in Colorado on standby, citing an emergency caused by a shortage of generating capacity. The unit was scheduled to shut down at the end of this year as part of the plant's closure plan.
The order was issued under the Federal Power Act, which allows the Department of Energy to temporarily connect generation or infrastructure during wartime or when there is an emergency increase in electricity demand. However, critics argue that the use of coal plants does not comply with other limits placed on emergency orders, particularly those related to environmental regulations.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission had previously analyzed the impact of the plant's closure and determined that one unit was not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes. The order, however, requires the plant to be available in case a shortfall in production occurs, which could potentially violate state laws regulating airborne pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Maintaining the plant is likely to fall on local ratepayers who had already adjusted to the closure plans. The cost of keeping the plant open may not align with serving the public interest, particularly given that coal-fired generation is more expensive than other forms of power and has significant environmental costs.
The Trump Administration has relied heavily on declaring energy emergencies to keep coal afloat despite economic challenges. However, several states and environmental organizations are challenging this practice in court, arguing that the administration is misusing emergency declarations to perpetuate unsustainable practices.
The order was issued under the Federal Power Act, which allows the Department of Energy to temporarily connect generation or infrastructure during wartime or when there is an emergency increase in electricity demand. However, critics argue that the use of coal plants does not comply with other limits placed on emergency orders, particularly those related to environmental regulations.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission had previously analyzed the impact of the plant's closure and determined that one unit was not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes. The order, however, requires the plant to be available in case a shortfall in production occurs, which could potentially violate state laws regulating airborne pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Maintaining the plant is likely to fall on local ratepayers who had already adjusted to the closure plans. The cost of keeping the plant open may not align with serving the public interest, particularly given that coal-fired generation is more expensive than other forms of power and has significant environmental costs.
The Trump Administration has relied heavily on declaring energy emergencies to keep coal afloat despite economic challenges. However, several states and environmental organizations are challenging this practice in court, arguing that the administration is misusing emergency declarations to perpetuate unsustainable practices.
. I mean, I know they're trying to keep things running smoothly, but using coal plants during an "emergency"? That just seems like a Band-Aid solution to me 
. And what about the environment? All those greenhouse gas emissions are not good for our planet 
. Plus, it's gonna fall on local ratepayers to foot the bill... that doesn't seem right to me 
. I'm all for energy independence and whatnot, but we gotta think about the bigger picture here 
. And can someone please explain why they're using this old Federal Power Act? Didn't that get repealed like 5 years ago? 
like what's the point of keeping one unit on standby when it's not even necessary for reliability? and now local ratepayers have to foot the bill for this environmental mess...it's just not cool. btw, shouldn't they be focusing on renewable energy sources instead? 
This order seems like a PR stunt to save jobs at a plant with a closure plan that's already been announced. I mean, what's next? Keeping old nuclear reactors online just because of some emergency? It's all about avoiding economic transition and environmental regulations. And who pays for this? The ratepayers in Colorado, that's who... 
This is just another example of how the system is rigged for the big polluters. I'm all for exploring alternative energy sources, but do we really need coal plants being kept open just because some executive wants to keep them afloat? The environmental costs are clear - it's like, we're basically giving free rein to pollute and mess with people's health for the sake of keeping old industries alive.
I mean, come on, the climate crisis doesn't take a break and we need our politicians to make some actual progress on clean energy. Keeping this coal plant open is like putting lipstick on a pig 
- it's still dirty and wasteful. And who ends up paying for it? The public, that's who 
.
. I get that it's a power struggle, but shouldn't we be looking at cleaner sources of energy instead? It's like the old saying goes: "we're in this together" – or should it be "we're paying for each other's mistakes"? 
Anyway, this is definitely a thread worth pulling on 
. What do you think is going to happen next?
its just not working and ppl r gettin all upset cuz they know its wrong 
and btw has anyone else noticed how expensive electricity is getting lately? i swear my phone bill went up like 20% this year!! 
anyway back to the coal plant thing... isnt it weird that theyre just using emergency declarations to keep them open when we all know its bad for the environment?? 
. We need a more sustainable energy mix 
. The fact that they're passing on the costs to local ratepayers is just great, because who doesn't love paying more for their electricity? 
. I think we need to find alternative solutions that prioritize sustainability without leaving people high and dry 
. What do you guys think? Should we just phase out coal plants altogether or find a way to make them work with current regulations?