The Denver Gazette reports that Colorado is asking a federal appeals court to overturn the EPA’s rejection of the state’s regional haze plan, a fight centered on whether federal air-quality rules can be used to force a coal plant to shut down against the owner’s wishes. The dispute involves Colorado’s plan to reduce haze at national parks and wilderness areas, the planned retirement of Colorado Springs Utilities’ Nixon coal plant, EPA’s rejection of the state plan, and a coming review by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That is the polite version. The plain-English version is that this lawsuit rips the mask off the regulatory theater. This is not just about postcard views in national parks. It is about whether visibility rules can be used like a crowbar to force a coal plant off the grid while everyone pretends it is simply science wearing hiking boots.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Colorado’s haze plan, formally called a State Implementation Plan, included the planned retirement of the Nixon coal plant by the end of 2029. EPA rejected the entire plan after Colorado Springs Utilities later said it could no longer meet that date.
- EPA’s concern was that turning the shutdown date into a federally enforceable requirement could violate the Fifth Amendment by effectively taking the utility’s property without just compensation. That is not a tiny paperwork issue. That is the Constitution tapping the regulator on the shoulder.
- Colorado argues EPA went too far and created a legal barrier that does not exist in the Clean Air Act. Translation: the state wants the court to say EPA cannot toss the whole plan just because the plant-closure piece got constitutionally spicy.
- The Gazette notes Colorado was already on track to meet required visibility improvements even without additional coal retirements, according to state officials and EPA’s own analysis. That raises the obvious question: were haze rules being used for haze, or as a climate-policy side door?
- Colorado Springs Utilities CEO Travas Deal said forcing an early Nixon shutdown would mean rushed, expensive decisions instead of a smart long-term plan. He called the state deadlines arbitrary and argued utilities should retire plants at the end of their useful life, not on political timelines.
My Bottom Line
Coloradans are tired of energy policy being laundered through bureaucratic side doors and then sold back to them as science, compassion, scenic preservation, or whatever phrase tested best with the regulatory priesthood.
If the state wants to close coal plants, then say so plainly. Make the case. Show the replacement power. Show the reliability plan. Show the cost. Show the community impact. Let ratepayers, workers, local governments, and utility customers see the bill before the ribbon gets cut on another “transition” press release.
But do not smuggle major energy decisions through acronyms and litigation like a raccoon stealing cat food.
The EPA deserves scrutiny here, but Colorado officials do not get a free pass. The state cannot cheer shutdown politics when convenient, use federal haze rules as a crutch for climate policy, and then act shocked when Washington grabs the steering wheel. That is what happens when politicians outsource hard decisions to agencies and lawyers.
Visibility matters. Clean air matters. National parks matter. So does honest government. So does electricity. So do utility bills. So do communities like Craig and other places that get treated like disposable props in Denver’s green-energy morality play.
Using haze rules like a hitman in a Patagonia vest is not serious energy policy. It is regulatory power dressed up for a nature hike. Colorado needs open decisions, not side-door shutdowns. If a coal plant is going to close, let that debate happen in daylight, not inside a federal acronym fog bank thick enough to hide the bill from the people who will pay it.
Source: The Denver Gazette
Share your thoughts...