Because my grandfather was a coal miner in the 1940s, I’d often hear stories as a child about how his work was the backbone of America and his profession alone made him “tough as nails.” And, before I began doing research for this article, I believed this kind of nostalgia was the guiding force behind the Conservatives of America and their crusade to keep this dying fuel source alive.

I was sorely mistaken.

The problems I uncovered weren’t nearly that surface-level; the economic ties between the coal industry and America run so deep that unless there is a serious overhaul to the complete economic infrastructure surrounding energy, going completely green could be just as disastrous as keeping the status quo.

Unfortunately for us in the Centennial State, nowhere is this fact about to become more painfully apparent than in Moffat and Routt counties.

In 2028, the coal-fired Craig Station is set to close completely, impacting much of the energy that will be provided to Northwestern Colorado. To help mitigate these losses, battery storage and a natural gas-fired plant will be added in Moffat County as part of the plan.

All of this, of course, is being done to ensure the “2040 going green agenda” put forth by Governor Jared Polis is kept on track. While I support the idea of going green, when you look at the nuts and bolts of us getting off of coal completely, it’s clear this plan has not been well thought out.

The Hechinger Report—a nonprofit news organization dedicated to educational issues—found that in the state’s transition plans, K-12 schools get only brief mentions when it comes to the subsidies given to the county to stem the loss of tax revenues by the Craig Station closure. And when the school systems are mentioned, it’s usually telling them to buckle up because it’s going to get a bit earthquake-y. 

In total, school districts in Moffat and Routt counties stand to lose up to half of their entire tax base when the coal plants shutter; a number totaling in the millions according to some experts.

When I learned of how massively these children were going to be hit, I pulled up the recently signed “2025 School Finance Act” to see if there were any allocations for Moffat County or any other areas that future plant closures will impact.

Nope.

In all fairness, House Bill 25-1320 does some incredible things to help our future generations with educational spending, but it doesn’t really address the specific ties between education and energy.

At this point, I reached out to Meghan Lukens—the State Representative for Moffet and Routt counties in the 26th district, and is the Chair for the Education Committee—about HB25-1320 and what potential remedies are currently being worked on when it comes to the loss of revenue for these students.

While she pointed out that her constituents would be positively impacted by the legislation through “an over $438,000 increase in school funding in FY25-26 than in FY24-25,” she did admit that, “The legislation does not include targeted provisions to address the unique, long-term impacts of energy transition on local tax bases, like what Moffat County is facing with the upcoming coal plant closure. In Colorado, K-12 funding is a partnership between local property taxes and state support.”

This led me to question whether or not state lawmakers have been aware of this problem and are working on a solution. “Yes, there have been ongoing conversations among legislators—especially those representing coal-transitioning communities—and the Colorado Energy Office about how to provide long-term stability for communities impacted by Colorado’s energy transition, with a particular emphasis on economic diversification.”

Speaking of diversification needs …

I wanted to play the advocate’s Devil for a moment and look at the other end of the spectrum; what will happen to revenue streams if we go completely renewable, like Polis wants by 2040?

A 2023 article by the clean energy analytics group Renew Economy gives us a glimpse into what this could look like.

In it, energy analyst Gerard Reid said, “Denmark consistently meets 85% of its weekly energy needs from renewables. However, on particularly windy days … Denmark’s strong interconnections with neighboring countries enable it to export up to 50% of excess power.” He claims this has led to “countries [like] Spain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden experiencing zero or negative prices due to surplus production as they have reached the limit of what they can use or even export.”

Though a zero-balance energy bill is great for the average citizen of these nations, it comes with its own economic issues. First, since America is a capitalist society, there would be zero revenue generated for the people who own and run the grids, thereby necessitating massive job layoffs.

The second major issue is what energy companies in these nations are currently experiencing due to a poorly built infrastructure: companies are having to pay to offload excess electricity generated due to the inflexibility in the systems. To combat this, a major overhaul that would include “building more pumped hydro storage, upgrading existing hydro facilities, increasing flexible demand, [and] building out grid infrastructure,” would be needed, according to Reid.

Considering that The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the US a D+ grade this year for its electric grid, I’m sure we’ll do just fine handling this second concern.

To be honest, the only legitimate solution I can see to solve the problems that arise from both the loss of coal and a nation that runs completely on renewable energy is that energy companies need to be treated like fire departments and considered a public service.

Without those kinds of government subsidies, there would be too many jobs lost by the revenue reduction if we had our energy bills cut by even 50%, and with coal’s share of electricity generation in the US dropping to 16% in 2023 from a peak of 53% in 1997, it’s only a matter of time before it goes the way of … well … the dinosaur.

Right now, the Democrats have been searching for an identity. For many years, they’ve been dealing with problems as they arise instead of getting in front of them; remember, Roe v. Wade was “decided law” for five decades. If they are serious about wanting to win future elections, they would be wise to start using novel ideas like “prevention” instead of “reaction.”

And with the steps the Trump administration is willing to take in order to perpetuate his maniacal chubby for coal production, I would recommend fixing these economic divisions between energy and education sooner, rather than later.