A quiet rebellion is unfolding in Nebraska’s Panhandle—and it’s about power, money, and politics. Three local public power districts have decided to part ways with their longtime energy supplier, Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. Their notice is official: they plan to exit within two years and find a new source for wholesale electricity. But here’s where it gets controversial—the reason for their departure points directly to Colorado’s climate policies.
Boards from the Panhandle Rural Electric Membership Association (PREMA), Roosevelt Public Power District, and Chimney Rock Public Power District all voted last week to start the separation process. Their decisions followed Tri-State’s September announcement of a 7.5 percent wholesale rate hike for 2026, with projections of increases reaching or surpassing 30 percent within the next five years. For many Nebraska public utilities, that was the breaking point.
Chimney Rock’s General Manager, Curtis Kayton, didn’t mince words in his interview with KNEB News. He explained that Colorado’s increasingly strict energy regulations have become a burden on Nebraska customers. “As Colorado policy has grown cleaner and greener, it’s also become overly aggressive, and those changes are now hitting us through higher electric rates,” he said. “We can’t keep paying for Colorado’s political and policy choices.” For Kayton, this isn’t just about environmental goals—it’s about affordability.
The timing is no coincidence. At the end of 2023, Tri-State submitted a two-phase Electric Resource Plan to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The plan targeted an ambitious 89% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels in Colorado and aimed for 70% clean energy across all member utilities by 2030. That’s a massive shift—but one that comes with steep costs for some of its members.
Zac Bryant, General Manager of PREMA, added another layer to the issue. He pointed out that much of Nebraska enjoys significantly cheaper wholesale options. “Two-thirds of the state already have other power sources that cost roughly 30 percent less than what we pay now,” Bryant told KNEB News. “It’s a serious concern for us because it directly impacts our members’ bills. That’s what drives us to look for fairer, more affordable alternatives.”
Still, leaving Tri-State isn’t a casual choice. The partnership between Nebraska’s Panhandle districts and Tri-State stretches back to the 1950s—a relationship built over decades of shared infrastructure and reliability. Yet, as Kayton explained, loyalty can’t replace fiscal responsibility. Protecting members from rising costs now outweighs the weight of tradition.
The three districts have officially set their withdrawal date for December 1, 2027. That timeline aligns with Tri-State’s Contract Termination Payment (CTP) tariff, which governs how and when member utilities can end their contracts early. Originally, these wholesale service agreements were supposed to run all the way to 2050 or even 2066. Exiting early won’t come free—Tri-State’s notice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) confirms that any departing utility must pay a CTP fee, calculated according to FERC tariffs and rulings. Some of those cost elements are still being contested in appeals, adding yet another layer of uncertainty.
In its public statement, Tri-State noted that together, the three Nebraska districts—CRPPD, PREMA, and RPPD—represented roughly 1.9 percent of the cooperative’s utility member revenue and 1.3 percent of total operating revenue for the 12 months ending September 30, 2025. Financially, their exit may seem like a small dent. But symbolically, it signals a growing divide between Tri-State and the smaller, rural power providers that helped build it.
Notably, these Panhandle districts aren’t the first to make the leap. Northwest Rural Public Power District, based in Hay Springs, submitted its own second non-conditional withdrawal notice at the end of 2024, scheduling its official departure for January 1, 2027. And before that, Mountain Parks Electric, based in Granby, Colorado, severed ties with Tri-State in February 2025 after giving notice two years earlier. Mountain Parks’ exit cost about $86 million in termination fees, including its share of Tri-State’s power purchase obligations. However, after factoring in credits for its capital investment, the final payment dropped to roughly $71.6 million.
This growing pattern raises an uncomfortable question: Is Tri-State’s clean energy future pushing some members out the door? Supporters of the Colorado policies argue that prioritizing renewable energy is vital, even if it costs more in the short term. Critics say those costs shouldn’t fall on communities that didn’t help shape those state-level rules.
Now, as December 2027 approaches, Nebraska’s Panhandle power districts face both risk and opportunity. Walking away from decades of partnership could lead to major financial savings—or unforeseen complications. But one thing is certain: their move has reignited a crucial debate over who should bear the price of clean energy progress.
What do you think—are these districts right to walk away from Tri-State’s greener but costlier future, or should they have stayed loyal to support long-term environmental goals?
