Utilities Join Legal Battle Against Trump Administration's Coal Plant Revival
The Trump administration's assertive attempts to revive aging coal-fired power plants through emergency executive orders are now facing a significant challenge from an unexpected ally: the utilities themselves. A growing coalition of states, environmental groups, and now, cooperative utilities, are mounting legal challenges against the administration's use of emergency powers to compel these facilities to remain operational. This escalating legal battle highlights the profound economic and environmental consequences of attempting to prolong the lifespan of outdated and increasingly costly power generation technologies.
The latest development in this ongoing dispute involves a petition filed by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and the Platte River Power Authority, two cooperative utilities, urging the Department of Energy (DOE) to reconsider its December order. This order demanded that the utilities keep operating the Craig Generating Station's Unit 1, a jointly owned coal plant in Colorado, for an additional 90 days. These utilities, along with their co-owners, had already been preparing to decommission the plant since 2016. This plan was driven by both Colorado's commitment to phasing out all coal-fired power generation by 2030 and the need to replace an aging and increasingly expensive power source.
The core of the utilities' legal argument centers on the concept of an "uncompensated taking" of property. Forcing them to operate the plant beyond its planned retirement date would impose unnecessary costs on their member-customers – the very people the cooperative utilities serve. Unlike for-profit utilities, which can pass on operational costs to a wider regional transmission network, cooperative utilities are obligated to absorb these expenses themselves. This places a significant financial burden on their customers, effectively forcing them to subsidize the continued operation of a failing energy source.
Independent estimates paint a grim picture of the financial implications. Grid Strategies, a consultancy specializing in energy economics, has projected that keeping Craig Unit 1 running for just 90 days could cost at least $20 million, with a year-long extension potentially adding between $85 million and $150 million to the utilities' expenses. These costs are compounded by recent operational issues, such as a valve failure in December that forced the plant offline, necessitating costly repairs.
Furthermore, the continued operation of Craig Unit 1 is hindering the planned deployment of more efficient and sustainable energy resources. The Axial Basin solar farm, a 145-megawatt project, may be forced to curtail its electricity generation due to grid congestion caused by the coal plant's extended operation. This underscores the counterproductive nature of the administration's efforts, which are intended to preserve a dying industry but are instead impeding the transition to cleaner energy sources.
The utilities' challenge marks a significant escalation in the legal opposition to the Trump administration's emergency orders. Michael Lenoff, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, a non-profit law firm representing environmental groups and other challengers, emphasized the unique financial vulnerability of cooperative utilities. "We do not take this request for a rehearing lightly," he stated. "But as not-for-profit entities, we face issues that other utilities do not, because it is our members that ultimately are going to pay for the cost of this order."
The Department of Energy has defended its orders by citing concerns about an imminent threat of major blackouts. However, energy experts widely refute this claim, arguing that the administration is misusing its emergency authority to prop up the coal industry. They contend that the true motivation is to force ratepayers to continue paying for power plants that are economically uncompetitive compared to the rapidly declining costs of renewable energy, battery storage, and natural gas.
State attorneys general and environmental groups have already filed multiple requests for rehearing with the DOE, but these have been rejected. This has paved the way for legal challenges, including the lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental groups with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This legal action seeks to halt the DOE's "continued abuse of its authority," which has already imposed millions of dollars in unnecessary costs and pollution on residents of Michigan and the Midwest.
The financial burden on utility customers is a particularly pressing concern, as electricity bills are already rising at a pace exceeding inflation. The Sierra Club, which has been tracking the costs of keeping coal plants operational under the DOE's emergency orders, estimates that the total cost to date exceeds $202 million, up from over $158 million in early February.
Projections from a 2025 study by Grid Strategies suggest that if the DOE successfully forces the continued operation of all fossil-fueled power plants scheduled for retirement between now and the end of 2028, the costs could balloon to $4.8 billion. Extending the analysis to include plants 60 years or older could push the total cost to nearly $6 billion. These costs encompass expenses related to retaining workers, securing new coal supplies, and undertaking maintenance and repairs that had previously been deferred. Crucially, utility customers are also footing the bill for resources the utilities have already secured to replace the retiring coal plants.
Platte River's CEO, Jason Frisbie, succinctly captured the essence of the issue, stating that the administration's actions mean customers will "end up paying twice" – once for the retirement of the coal plant and again to keep it operating beyond its planned closure. The ongoing legal battle represents a crucial test of the administration's authority and a significant step towards ensuring that the costs of the energy transition are not unfairly borne by consumers. It underscores the growing consensus that investing in clean energy is not just environmentally sound but also economically responsible.
Source:
