The Sierra Club threw a fake “retirement party” for the Ray Nixon power plant in Colorado Springs a few weeks back. The media stunt came complete with balloons, signs, retirement cards and speeches. But maybe it’s the Sierra-Clubbers who should retire, given how hopelessly disconnected they are from energy realities not just in Colorado Springs but in Colorado at large — where reliable old coal power is still far from dead and the “green energy revolution” they’ve been touting for 20 years is being exposed as a costly and risky blunder.   

Clubbers descended on the Springs claiming a popular mandate to close a coal plant that still has a lot of life in it, and still dependably generates at least 20% of the city’s energy needs. But the climate crusaders had only 1,000 names on the petition, although the plant reliably produces power for roughly half a million El Paso County residents. That sounds like a resounding rejection of their radical thinking to this former Colorado Springs Utilities Board member.   

These groups are angry, frustrated, and redoubling their lobbying efforts now because coal power refuses to die on the schedule they laid out, not just in Colorado Springs but across Colorado at large. Despite two decades of aggressive efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewables, coal remains a stubborn workhorse in the state’s electricity portfolio. In 2025, according to the latest EIA data, coal still generated 23.7% of Colorado’s in-state power, making it the third-largest source behind natural gas and wind.  

Overall, fossil fuels (coal plus gas) delivered 54.4% of the state’s electricity last year, while all renewables combined hit just 45.6%. And the gains enjoyed by renewables, although real, disguise their dirty little secret, which is that they only deliver a fraction of the power this 45.6% figure would suggest. They can’t and don’t deliver power instantaneously and reliably, which is what the grid needs to function properly, making these apples to oranges comparisons.   

Coal’s reliable, “dispatchable output” keeps the lights on when wind and solar inevitably falter. The real energy story In Colorado is how coal and natural gas (since that fossil fuel is also in the climate lobby’s crosshairs) refuse to die on schedule, despite the deck being stacked against them since Barack Obama was president. Multiple planned coal plant retirements have been delayed because utilities and grid operators admit that finicky renewables can’t replace coal’s firm capacity amid rising demand. In short, coal continues to play a critical, baseload role in Colorado’s energy mix because it works when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.  

Coal’s stay of execution is bad news for professional climate crusaders, but it’s extremely good news for beleaguered utility customers, who would have been confronting a reliable energy crunch right now (if not a full-blown crisis) if the coal plant closures hadn’t been delayed.   

The fight over the fate of the Ray Nixon facility mirrors a battle happening across Colorado. Practical realities are tossing a monkey wrench into the best laid plans of the Sierra Club and other cogs in the Big Green Machine. And who wins that battle has implications far beyond El Paso County.   

The Sierra Club’s snarky publicity stunt wasn’t really designed to win hearts and minds, or to sway the masses. The feeble response to its petition indicates that there’s zero chance of that. The campaign’s real aim isn’t to sway Springs Utilities customers; it’s to sway legislators – and to derail a bill before the legislature that would give municipally owned Colorado Springs Utilities and other Colorado power providers a little more leeway in meeting Draconian state climate mandates that have blown utility bills through the roof and dangerously destabilized the grid.  

The specific target for their torpedo is Senate Bill 26-022, titled “Challenges Meeting 2030 Emissions Reduction Goals,” which would grant Springs Utilities (and other utilities) more time to initiate coal plant closures if they meet certain reasonable conditions, show continuing progress toward “green energy” benchmarks, and demonstrate that the delays won’t result in unreasonable rate hikes.  

SB 26-022 is sponsored by a bipartisan group of Pikes Peak-area lawmakers, including Sens. Marc Snyder (D) and Cleave Simpson (R) and Reps Jarvis Caldwell (R) and Amy Paschal (D), but that doesn’t mean it will cruise to passage. Far from it, given this body’s long history of approving virtually every war-on-coal declaration that’s come before it.  

We’re more than midway through the session and the bill hasn’t even had a hearing yet.  It was assigned to the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee, but no hearing has been scheduled, no testimony has been taken, and no debate or votes have occurred.   

According to some reports, there’s backroom dickering over how much delay would be permitted.  Another possibility, which should infuriate every Springs Utilities customer, is that the bill was doomed from the start and it will never see the light of day. It had an uphill climb to begin with, under the formerly golden but now green dome. The climate lobby is hoping 1,000 signatures on the petition will sway enough “D” votes to doom it.   

It’s perceived by some, wrongly, as a Springs-specific bill, but it would apply to other municipal utilities that need more latitude in meeting green energy benchmarks in a more measured, thoughtful, cost-conscience manner.  

More specifically:  

• The bill extends the deadline for notifying the state of challenges in meeting that 80% renewables goal to May 31, which is fast approaching, making it imperative that supporters of the bill push it forward quickly. Covered energy providers can also file an updated clean energy plan, with their proposed adjustments, by Dec. 31. 

• The updated plan must specify the earliest year, no later than 2040, by which the entity can achieve the 80% reduction without impairing electric reliability standards or causing average annual electric rate increases greater than 1.5%. 

• The measure prohibits the Air Quality Control Commission and CDPHE from taking any action that would impair reliability or raise rates more than 1.5% for these entities.  

If approved and signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis, the legislation could delay the Nixon plant’s closure from 2029 to 2040 — giving ratepayers a reprieve. Springs Utilities CEO Travas Deal probably explained it best when he said, “A mandatory power plant retirement, without reliable, affordable sources of replacement power, will threaten electric reliability and drive already high electric rates even higher.”  

It’s a reasonable, measured, cost-conscience piece of legislation — which is why extremists hate it and hope to sink it. It doesn’t negate existing clean energy benchmarks but simply establishes a process and protocol for adjusting currently hard closure schedules that could adversely impact ratepayers or grid reliability.  

And delaying the closure won’t make Colorado Springs an outlier, a renegade, or an environmental scofflaw, when you take into account what’s happening elsewhere in Colorado, where a refreshing wave of energy realism seems to be sweeping the landscape, following several decades in which energy fantasy reigned supreme.    

The Trump White House has twice intervened to delay the planned 2025 closure of the Craig Unit 1 coal plant in northwest Colorado, citing a national energy emergency and the urgent need for affordable, reliable power.  The Department of Energy basically laid down a marker, by declaring that grid stability and reliability outweigh state climate benchmarks when supply can’t keep up with demand.  

That margin for error has been narrowing not just in Colorado but across the country, as an overinvestment in intermittent energy sources, like wind and solar, combined with an underinvestment in dispatchable power, including reliable old coal plants, dangerously destabilize the system.  

Meanwhile, a similar kind of coal power pragmatism is creeping in — albeit quietly and grudgingly — at the state level as well.  

Although Polis took shots at President Donald Trump for keeping Craig Unit 1 open, the governor is quietly (and hypocritically) doing the same thing, by lobbying, through his Colorado Energy Office and the handpicked Public Utilities Commission, to delay the retirement of Comanche Unit 2 in Pueblo by a year. The reason? Without that extension, Colorado faced immediate summer capacity shortfalls, increasing the risk of power outages when heatwaves boost demand. The PUC approved the rollback without hesitation, signaling at least a temporary shift away from its normal anti-coal crusading.  

Another major Colorado power provider, Xcel Energy, also recently indicated that it might need to slow retirements of additional coal units at Comanche and Hayden stations, because of surging demand, supply-chain delays, and transmission bottlenecks.  

Let’s be clear. Colorado’s shifting position on coal doesn’t mark a change of heart, an admission of error, or a pledge by Polis and Co. to sober up and stop gulping the Kool-Aid on climate hysteria.  No one would call this a “comeback” for coal. It’s a tactical retreat, undertaken reluctantly, because shuttering reliable energy producers on schedule could, under certain circumstances, result in grid failures that would alert average Coloradans to the serious situation they’re in.      

When viewed in that context, SB 26-022 isn’t asking for special treatment, or for leeway other power providers aren’t seeking for themselves, or being granted, in light of emerging energy realities. If other reprieves and delays are being granted, in a bid to keep the grid functioning, denying Springs Utilities that same flexibility would be inconsistent – not to mention grossly unfair to Pikes Peak-area families, businesses, hospitals, and military installations.  

This bill isn’t “walking back progress.” It’s a long overdue act of recognition that the green energy fantasies we’ve been fed for nearly 20 years aren’t panning out as promised, and that the extreme and arbitrary emissions benchmarks set by Denver central planners aren’t achievable, at least on the timeline they drew up.  

Hardline groups like the Sierra Club, Conservation Colorado, and 350 Colorado Springs continue to push an energy agenda that is dangerously disconnected from reality. Their opposition to SB 26-022 isn’t rooted in concern for ratepayers; it’s about claiming another scalp in an ideological war against coal, no matter the costs, consequences, or collateral damage to Colorado families, businesses, and military installations.  

These groups wrap themselves in the language of consumer protection, claiming they have ratepayers’ interests at heart.  But the record shows otherwise.  Ratepayers have already shouldered massive costs to accelerate the retirement of dependable baseload assets across the state, including the Martin Drake Plant in downtown Colorado Springs. Now these organizations insist that Springs Utilities customers must bear even more pain — even higher bills, even greater blackout risks — just to placate the climate fears of their out-of-touch donor base. Each premature closure they celebrate as a “win” is, in truth, a direct loss for the very people they claim to champion: working families and small businesses already being slammed by rising energy prices.  

SB 26-022 isn’t a retreat from clean energy — it’s a sensible recognition of energy reality, and a rejection of the reckless ideology that has already cost ratepayers dearly and now threatens to cost them even more. Lawmakers should stand with Colorado families, not with the organized extremists, by supporting SB 26-022. 

Sean Paige is a former Warren T. Brooks Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, and served on the Colorado Springs City Council and Colorado Springs Utility Board. He has written extensively on energy issues as a journalist.