Advocates Move to Vacate DOE Order Keeping Colorado Coal Unit Online

Environmental and consumer organizations have asked federal regulators to reconsider a late-December directive that compelled continued availability of Unit 1 at Colorado’s Craig coal plant despite plans to retire the unit. The petitioners contend the DOE exceeded its emergency authority by issuing an order that was not sought by plant owners or state regulators and that contradicted multi-year utility planning. Beyond legal questions, the groups stress operational concerns: the unit reportedly experienced mechanical problems as the order was issued, raising doubts about its reliability and the prudence of forcing it back into service. Financially, analysts estimate dispatching the plant at recent average output could cost roughly $20 million over the 90-day period the order requires; if run as a must-run asset costs could scale toward a higher annualized figure. Those costs are likely to be socialized through customer rates, opponents say, reversing state-level transitions intended to lower bills through cleaner options. The filing frames the DOE action as part of a pattern of federal intervention that has blocked planned retirements at several older coal facilities in multiple states. Technically, the rehearing raises questions about the statutory scope of short-term emergency orders—normally confined to imminent grid shortfalls—and whether market dynamics, not sudden system failures, underlie the retirements at issue. Operational risk from deferred maintenance and higher unplanned outage rates at aging coal units is central to the groups’ argument that the order creates reliability hazards rather than mitigating them. The petitioners have given the DOE thirty days to respond and indicate they will pursue judicial review if the rehearing is denied or ignored. The dispute therefore mixes regulatory law, reliability engineering assessments, and ratepayer impact projections, and could set precedents for federal intervention in state-directed resource transitions. If courts side with the challengers, the decision would reaffirm limits on emergency authority and bolster state planning; if not, utilities and regulators may face ongoing uncertainty and higher near-term costs as federal directives override retirement schedules.