A power company plans for life after coal
This commentary originally appeared in Big Pivots.
Oh, what a difference 20 years has made in how Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association views energy. An organization that in 2005 wanted to build a giant new coal plant now sees a future almost entirely devoid of coal. It expects to be at 70% renewables by 2030.
Perhaps Tri-State failed to get the executive order from President Donald Trump, 'Reinvigorating America's Beautiful, Clean Coal Industry.' It's an echo of the past. During a campaign stop in Grand Junction, Trump in 2016 promised to bring it back. It was an empty promise. Prices of, first, wind and then solar had slid downhill on trajectories steeper than Interstate 70 descending from the Eisenhower Tunnel. Reduced emissions were a bonus argument for renewables.
In an April 11 filing with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Tri-State proposes adding 700 megawatts of new renewable resources, the majority on the windy, sun-drenched and sparsely populated plains of eastern Colorado, and also 650 megawatts of short-term battery storage.
'That's a lot of steel in the ground,' said a member of an electrical cooperative on the Western Slope.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Natural gas is also part of the mix. Tri-State proposes a 307-megawatt plant somewhere near Craig. There, in little more than three years, it will close all three coal-fired power units it now operates. It also proposes to replace five aging combustion turbines near Fort Lupton at the J.M. Shafer Generating Station, boosting capacity modestly to 281 megawatts.
This proposal fits in with a broad theme in Colorado. More than 2,300 megawatts of new natural gas capacity is being built, has been approved, or is proposed by Colorado's major electrical utilities. In a sense, we're swapping coal for gas. That represents a net reduction in emissions.
Will these very expensive gas plants be stranded by new technologies during our journey to a mid-century goal of net-zero emissions? The answer is complicated. Utility resource planners given responsibility for keeping lights on today think we need gas, at least if we want to avoid giant price increases in electricity. A study released by the Colorado Energy Office in early 2024 reached a similar conclusion.
In 2005, our utilities thought our future was in coal. Xcel Energy had started building Colorado's largest coal unit ever, the 750-megawatt Comanche 3 in Pueblo. It was expected to operate until 2070. Now, it is to close in 2030.
Tri-State was also dreaming big coal in 2005. It wanted to build 1,400 megawatts of new coal-burning generation in southwest Kansas. A partnering utility, Sunflower Electric, was to get another 700 megawatts.
In 2007, the two utilities suffered a setback. Kansas denied a permit for these coal-burning castles because of greenhouse gas emissions. The denial, shocking then, became a blessing. When the utilities finally got their permit in 2017, the economics of electricity had turned upside down. Imagine the financial albatross hanging around Tri-State's neck had it succeeded. As it was, Tri-State spent $100 million or more on this errant path.
By 2018, Tri-State was imagining a different future. A new chief executive, Duane Highley, was given a mandate to explore the new economic terrain. In November, Jared Polis won election as Colorado governor after running on a platform of 100% renewables by 2040. That December, Xcel executives announced their plans to leave coal.
Beginning this year, Tri-State will close its three coal units by September 2028. In 2031 it plans to close its coal unit at Springerville, Arizone. In this transition, Tri-State hopes to get federal assistance promised it under the Inflation Reduction Act for stranded assets. It will then have coal-burning ownership only in Wyoming's Laramie River Station, a short railroad trip from the Powder River coal fields.
'Just transition' is also part of Tri-State's pivot. State legislators in 2019 said that coal-dependent communities should be given aid as they made their career shifts. In a 2024 agreement, Tri-State pledged to pay Craig and Moffat County $22 million between 2026 and 2029 and committed to support investments with $48 million in additional benefits between 2029 and 2038. Tri-State payments can be reduced if taxable property is added. A gas plant in Moffat County will do just that.
Tri-State still has challenges. For example, it is still losing members. And questions remain for it and other utilities about where to hedge bets. Natural gas is a conservative bet, the way coal was 20 years ago. At that time, few among us were carrying a smartphone. We were mostly beholden to land lines. Will a still nascent technology fully emerge to replace gas, too?
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Trump's 2028 heir apparent is a 'jump ball,' Republican senator says
WASHINGTON ― The race to be President Donald Trump's Republican successor as the party's 2028 nominee is wide open, and Vice President JD Vance shouldn't be considered the automatic MAGA heir apparent, Sen. Thom Tillis said. The outgoing North Carolina U.S. senator, who opted against running for reelection in 2026, said it's a "jump ball" in 2028 when asked in an Aug. 20 interview on CBS News whether there's a "natural heir apparent" to Trump. "Absolutely, jump ball," Tillis said. "I think we're going to probably see one of the most diverse fields for the Republican primary that we've seen in modern times. I don't see any heir apparent." More: MAGA's next leader? Trump says Vance is 'most likely' to lead in 2028
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why the Federal Reserve's independence matters
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump this week called on a Federal Reserve governor to resign over an accusation of mortgage fraud, the latest effort by his administration to exert greater control over one of the few remaining independent agencies in Washington. Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook says she won't leave her post. Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed's chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him. Powell, who will speak Friday at an economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, says the Fed wants to see how the economy responds to Trump's sweeping tariffs on imports, which Powell says could push up inflation. Powell's caution has infuriated Trump, who has demanded the Fed cut borrowing costs to spur the economy and reduce the interest rates the federal government pays on its debt. Trump has also accused Powell of mismanaging the U.S. central bank's $2.5 billion building renovation project. Firing the Fed chair or forcing out a governor would threaten the Fed's venerated independence, which has long been supported by most economists and Wall Street investors. Here's what to know about the Fed: Why the Fed's independence matters The Fed wields extensive power over the U.S. economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls — which it typically does when the economy falters — the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, accelerating growth and hiring. When it raises the rate — which it does to cool the economy and combat inflation — it can weaken the economy and cause job losses. Economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can more easily take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy a home, car, or appliance more expensive. The importance of an independent Fed was cemented for most economists after the extended inflation spike of the 1970s and early 1980s. Former Fed Chair Arthur Burns has been widely blamed for allowing the painful inflation of that era to accelerate by succumbing to pressure from President Richard Nixon to keep rates low heading into the 1972 election. Nixon feared higher rates would cost him the election, which he won in a landslide. Paul Volcker was eventually appointed chair of the Fed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and he pushed the Fed's short-term rate to the stunningly high level of nearly 20%. (It is currently 4.3%). The eye-popping rates triggered a sharp recession, pushed unemployment to nearly 11%, and spurred widespread protests. Yet Volcker didn't flinch. By the mid-1980s, inflation had fallen back into the low single digits. Volcker's willingness to inflict pain on the economy to throttle inflation is seen by most economists as a key example of the value of an independent Fed. Investors are watching closely An effort to fire Powell would almost certainly cause stock prices to fall and bond yields to spike higher, pushing up interest rates on government debt and raising borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit card debt. The interest rate on the 10-year Treasury is a benchmark for mortgage rates. Most investors prefer an independent Fed, partly because it typically manages inflation better without being influenced by politics but also because its decisions are more predictable. Fed officials often publicly discuss how they would alter interest rate policies if economic conditions changed. If the Fed was more swayed by politics, it would be harder for financial markets to anticipate — or understand — its decisions. The Fed's independence doesn't mean it's unaccountable Fed chairs like Powell are appointed by the president to serve four-year terms, and have to be confirmed by the Senate. The president also appoints the six other members of the Fed's governing board, who can serve staggered terms of up to 14 years. Those appointments can allow a president over time to significantly alter the Fed's policies. Former president Joe Biden appointed four of the current seven members: Powell, Cook, Philip Jefferson, and Michael Barr. A fifth Biden appointee, Adriana Kugler, stepped down unexpectedly on Aug. 1, about five months before the end of her term. Trump has already nominated his top economist, Stephen Miran, as a potential replacement, though he will require Senate approval. Cook's term ends in 2038, so forcing her out would allow Trump to appoint a loyalist sooner. Trump will be able to replace Powell as Fed chair in May 2026, when Powell's term expires. Yet 12 members of the Fed's interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the Chair doesn't guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants. Congress, meanwhile, can set the Fed's goals through legislation. In 1977, for example, Congress gave the Fed a 'dual mandate' to keep prices stable and seek maximum employment. The Fed defines stable prices as inflation at 2%. The 1977 law also requires the Fed chair to testify before the House and Senate twice every year about the economy and interest rate policy. Could the president fire Powell before his term ends? The Supreme Court earlier this year suggested in a ruling on other independent agencies that a president can't fire the chair of the Fed just because he doesn't like the chair's policy choices. But he may be able to remove him 'for cause,' typically interpreted to mean some kind of wrongdoing or negligence. It's a likely reason the Trump administration has zeroed in on the building renovation, in hopes it could provide a 'for cause' pretext. Still, Powell would likely fight any attempt to remove him, and the case could wind up at the Supreme Court. Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
NEW YORK (AP) — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Donald Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. He's also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at
