Why It Matters
In Colorado and across the country, federal energy policy decisions are generating significant financial benefits for the fossil fuel industry, raising questions about the relationship between campaign contributions and regulatory outcomes. The consequences for Colorado ratepayers, clean energy development, and air quality are already being felt on the ground.
One of the most direct local examples involves the Craig 1 coal-fired power plant in northwestern Colorado — a 47-year-old facility that was slated for decommissioning but has been ordered to keep operating by the federal government, over the objections of utilities, state regulators, and environmental advocates alike.
What Happened
During the 2024 presidential campaign, fossil fuel industry leaders reportedly met with then-candidate Donald Trump, with discussions centered on major financial support for his campaign and affiliated political action committees in exchange for favorable energy policy. Since taking office on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to roll back clean energy initiatives and expand protections for oil, gas, and coal interests.
On his first day in office, President Trump reversed a Biden-era executive order that had called for 50% of all vehicles sold in the United States after 2030 to be electric. The administration also moved to eliminate fuel efficiency standards for vehicles — a step that would increase gasoline consumption over time.
The administration additionally cut funds for clean energy programs, slowed the approval of wind and solar projects, and paid a French energy developer nearly $1 billion to abandon plans for offshore wind farms along the East Coast and redirect efforts toward oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Trump EPA also reversed the agency’s longstanding scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and the environment — a move that significantly limits the federal government’s legal authority to regulate pollution from fossil fuel operations.
By the Numbers
$1 billion — The reported fundraising target discussed between Trump and fossil fuel executives during the 2024 campaign cycle, directed toward his campaign and affiliated PACs.
~$1 billion — The amount the federal government paid a French energy developer to cancel East Coast offshore wind farm plans and pivot to Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production.
$80 million — The estimated annual operating cost to keep the Craig 1 coal plant running for one year, according to plant owner Tri-State Generation.
145 megawatts — The capacity of the Axial Basin solar farm in nearby Moffat County, Colorado, whose clean power output could be displaced on transmission lines by the continued operation of Craig 1.
47 years — The age of the Craig 1 coal-fired plant, which had been scheduled for decommissioning in December before federal intervention.
Zoom Out
The federal push to extend fossil fuel operations runs counter to broader energy market trends. Wind power is currently Germany’s largest single source of electricity, and global solar capacity is projected to triple by 2035 — with major investment coming even from oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia.
In Colorado, the tension between federal energy mandates and state-level clean energy planning is intensifying. Utilities and state regulators had long planned for Craig 1’s retirement, and the federal order to maintain operations has drawn criticism from across the industry. Earthjustice attorney Leslie Coleman, of the organization’s Rocky Mountain Office, told the Colorado Sun that “it is time for the administration to stand down and allow this unit to retire as utilities and state regulators had long planned,” adding that no one wants the “aging and unreliable” unit to keep operating “except the coal industry.”
Colorado consumers are also navigating rising electricity costs tied to energy infrastructure decisions. Xcel Energy has proposed a tiered rate structure for data centers in Colorado in an effort to protect consumers from increasing power costs — a separate but related sign of the pressures reshaping the state’s energy market.
What’s Next
The fate of the Craig 1 plant remains unresolved, with Tri-State Generation opposing continued operation on both economic and grid-management grounds. Legal challenges from environmental groups, including Earthjustice, are expected to continue as the administration’s energy directives face scrutiny in the courts.
Colorado regulators and utility operators will likely continue pushing back against federal mandates that conflict with long-term state energy planning. Meanwhile, the broader question of campaign finance transparency — particularly surrounding contributions to political action committees — remains an open issue, as PAC donation disclosures are not subject to the same requirements as direct campaign contributions.
Federal rollbacks of EPA pollution authority may also face legal challenges, as prior administrations’ environmental findings carry regulatory and legal weight that cannot easily be undone by executive order alone.