On September 2, 2025, the debate over America’s energy future reached a new pitch, as local governments, federal agencies, and state legislatures wrestled with the trade-offs between economic stability, energy reliability, and the transition to cleaner power. In Colorado, Pueblo County made headlines by formally requesting that President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright issue an emergency order to keep Xcel Energy’s coal-fired Comanche Station running indefinitely. The county’s plea comes amid broader national conversations about the risks and rewards of shifting away from fossil fuels—conversations that are playing out in dramatically different ways in states like Texas and California.
The backdrop in Colorado is tense. Comanche Station, a towering symbol of the region’s industrial backbone, has already seen its Unit 1 shuttered in 2022. Unit 2 is set to close this year, and Unit 3 is slated for retirement by 2031. These closures are part of a sweeping plan to retire all six of Colorado’s remaining coal-fired plants by the end of the decade, a move driven by the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Road Map, which mandates an 80% reduction in utility sector carbon emissions by 2030. But for Pueblo County, the economic stakes couldn’t be higher.
According to filings with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the county is seeking federal intervention because it believes the loss of Comanche Station will devastate local finances and jobs. "Pueblo is in the process of requesting that President Trump and Secretary Wright order that Comanche 2 remain in operation beyond its closure date," the county wrote, "and that he orders that Comanche 3 and 2 remain open until replacement generation is constructed in Pueblo." Their argument is not just about keeping the lights on—it’s about keeping the community solvent. The plant is the county’s largest taxpayer, and its phased shutdown will slash tax payments by 21% with the first two units gone, then by another 69%—down to $7.1 million—when Unit 3 closes.
Xcel Energy, the facility’s operator, has tried to soften the blow with its "Just Transition Solicitation" plan, which the PUC approved in August. The plan includes annual payments of $15.9 million in lieu of lost taxes through 2040, along with development credits and promises to avoid layoffs and site new facilities in Pueblo County. But local officials say that’s nowhere near enough. In their view, the payments are a "pittance" compared to the $200 million in annual direct and indirect economic benefits the plant provides. "Our goal was to make Pueblo whole from the economic disaster it is facing with the early closure of Comanche 3," said Jeffrey Shaw, president of the Pueblo Economic Development Corp., in a PUC filing. "At some point just transition has to be ‘just’ for the Pueblo community. To date it has been anything but just."
The push for federal help isn’t without precedent. In May, the Trump administration issued emergency orders to keep two aging fossil fuel plants—the Eddystone oil- and gas-fired facility near Philadelphia and the J.H. Campbell coal-fired plant in Michigan—open, citing concerns about grid reliability. The administration has leaned on the Federal Power Act, which allows the Secretary of Energy to issue temporary orders during emergencies or sudden spikes in electricity demand. In April, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at reinvigorating "America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry." As Energy Secretary Chris Wright put it, "We are unabashedly pursuing a policy of more American energy production and infrastructure, not less."
But not everyone is on board with this approach. Environmental groups have mounted legal challenges to the Eddystone and Campbell orders, and utility commissions in several Midwestern states have also pushed back. In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis called Trump’s clean coal order "federal overreach," reaffirming the state’s commitment to clean energy. "We are committed to delivering less expensive, reliable electricity and protecting Colorado’s air, water and cherished landscapes, and supercharging our energy mix to meet our 100% clean energy goal," Polis said in a statement.
At the heart of Pueblo County’s frustration is a sense that their concerns are being sidelined. In its filing, the county even floated the idea that the PUC might be biased against Pueblo because of its voting record in presidential elections. "Perhaps this commission is biased against Pueblo because it voted for President Trump twice," the county wrote. "Perhaps this commission has decided that it will not even consider innovative technologies, such as advanced nuclear, for coal communities. Perhaps the commission has decided that only the voices of the environmental organizations will be considered."
The county’s preferred solution? At a minimum, a new gas-fired turbine at the Comanche site—or, ideally, a capital-intensive project like a small nuclear reactor, which a January 2024 report (supported by Xcel Energy) concluded was the only way to "make Pueblo whole." But neither option is currently on the table. Meanwhile, the reliability of the grid remains a live issue: Comanche 3, the largest of the units, has been plagued by breakdowns and was shut down again during a late July heat wave, forcing Xcel Energy to ask customers to conserve electricity. The PUC is now investigating the incident.
Colorado’s struggles echo a broader national dilemma. In Texas, the energy debate has taken on a different character but is no less contentious. Texas generated 547 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2023—more than a quarter of all US output—while California produced 217 terawatt-hours, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Texans pay an average of 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for residential electricity, compared to 35 cents in California. California’s grid, with its 57% renewable share, is often cited as fragile and prone to blackouts, while Texas’s 30% renewable share has been achieved through decades of subsidies, not pure market forces.
But Texas’s vaunted "energy freedom" is under threat, critics say, due to mounting government intervention. The 2021 Winter Storm Uri exposed the state’s vulnerabilities, as frozen wind turbines, iced-over solar panels, and poorly weatherized gas plants failed to meet demand. Since then, Texas has replaced its Chapter 313 property tax abatement program (which heavily favored wind and solar) with Chapter 403 and established a $5 billion Texas Energy Fund to offer low-interest loans for new natural gas plants. In 2025, another $5 billion in subsidized loans was approved, with nuclear subsidies possibly on the horizon. Federal production tax credits and Inflation Reduction Act incentives further distort the market, according to policy analysts.
As Secretary Wright warned, Europe’s "net zero" strategy has made energy more expensive and less reliable—a cautionary tale for the US. The consensus among market-oriented experts is that subsidies and political favoritism, regardless of the energy source, distort investment and threaten the affordability and reliability of the grid. "Conservation and market-based energy policy can coexist, but only if the government stops trying to pick winners," said Gabriella Hoffman, director at the Center for Energy and Conservation, in a recent interview.
So, what’s the path forward? In Texas, some urge lawmakers to end all tax preferences, let ERCOT’s price signals work without interference, and approve infrastructure quickly—without taxpayer guarantees. In Colorado, Pueblo County is betting that federal intervention might buy time for a more equitable solution, even as state leaders double down on clean energy goals.
The battle lines are drawn, and the stakes are high. Whether through emergency orders, state waivers, or a return to market principles, the future of American energy remains up for grabs—one power plant, one policy fight, and one community at a time.
