“`html
DOE Orders Craig Coal Plant in Colorado to Remain Open, Despite Closure Plans
Table of Contents
Published January 26, 2024, at 08:17 AM MST
Teh U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has invoked emergency powers to compel the continued operation of the Craig Unit 1 coal-fired power plant in Colorado, even though it was slated for closure. This decision raises questions about the definition of “emergency” under the Federal Power act and potential conflicts with state environmental regulations.
Background: The Planned Closure of craig Unit 1
The Craig Station,located near Craig,Colorado,has been a meaningful source of electricity for the region for decades. However, facing economic pressures and increasing environmental concerns, PacifiCorp, the plant’s operator, announced plans to retire Unit 1 by 2025. These plans were based on assessments that the unit was no longer economically viable and that sufficient choice energy sources were available. According to a December 2023 order from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Craig Unit 1 “is not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes.”
The plant’s continued operation, even in a standby capacity, is complicated by Colorado’s environmental laws. Operating the plant would likely violate regulations concerning airborne pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The financial burden of maintaining the plant is expected to fall on Colorado ratepayers, who had already begun adjusting to the anticipated closure.
DOE Invokes Emergency Powers
On January 22, 2024, the DOE issued an order utilizing its authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal power Act. This section allows the DOE to temporarily order the connection of generation or infrastructure during times of war or when “an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy.” The DOE’s rationale for invoking these powers is the expectation of increased electricity demand in the future.
Though, legal experts question whether this anticipated future demand qualifies as the “emergency” envisioned by the Federal Power Act. The act’s language suggests a more immediate and unforeseen crisis. Furthermore, the DOE’s order doesn’t require the plant to *produce* electricity, only to remain available as a backup source. This raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of maintaining a potentially unused coal plant.
Contradictions and Concerns
The DOE’s action presents several contradictions. while the colorado Public Utilities Commission determined the plant wasn’t needed for reliability, the DOE argues its availability is crucial. Moreover, relying on coal plants appears to conflict with broader federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources. The DOE’s order also doesn’t explicitly address how compliance with Colorado’s environmental regulations will be ensured if the plant is called upon to operate.
The potential for increased demand is linked to the growth of data centers and electrification efforts, but critics argue that these developments are foreseeable and shoudl be addressed through long-term planning and investment in renewable energy infrastructure, rather than relying on aging coal plants.
Impact on ratepayers and Colorado’s Energy Transition
