Lawmakers fight to keep coal plants open amid rising US energy demand

Lawmakers in almost a dozen states have introduced legislation to prop up coal plants that are facing closures. With U.S. power demand surging to record heights in coming years due to increased usage of emerging electricity-reliant technologies, some officials believe the Biden administration’s clean energy transition will not happen fast enough to meet the nation’s growing needs.

“People were concerned that power plants were being taken offline before the new power plants were ready to go,” Joe Trotter, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s energy, environment and agriculture task force director, told Politico. “When you marry that with basically the increase in electrification and electric cars — essentially the increased demand for electricity — it just creates a problem.”

These proposals vary in their methods from state to state, with some granting regulators more authority to intervene in plant retirements, and others compelling utility companies to shoulder transition costs or seek alternative power sources. A bill in Utah even proposed the use of taxpayer funds to purchase closing coal plants.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp emphasized the need for continued energy production from coal, warning of increased risks of electricity shortages during extreme weather events across most regions of the country in the coming decade. This challenge is further compounded by U.S. electricity demand now being anticipated to jump 80% higher than what had been expected over the next five years, driven by the proliferation of technologies like cryptocurrency mining, artificial intelligence and electric vehicles.

However, critics argue that prolonging the life of coal plants merely postpones the inevitable and exacerbates environmental harm. A report by Energy Innovation reveals that almost all of the nation’s 210 remaining coal plants would be more costly to operate than replacing them with renewable energy sources.

“Coal’s decline has really sunk in,” said Michelle Solomon, a senior policy analyst at the Energy Innovation. “With the price of batteries coming down quite rapidly, it makes it a no-brainer to install renewables and storage instead of relying on a coal plant that’s going to be more expensive.”

The size of the investment this would require can be demonstrated in the case of a coal plant in Utah targeted for potential preservation. Even if the state were to purchase it as proposed legislation would allow, the expenses associated with updating the plant and retrofitting it with carbon capture technology could amount to approximately $5 billion.

Environmental concerns are another factor in the pushback against the continued use of this energy production method. Coal remains the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the U.S. energy sector, responsible for over half of the emissions generated and contributing to global pollution that claims half a million lives worldwide every year.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed regulations that could effectively mandate the closure of all coal plants by 2040 unless they adopt costly emissions capture technology that would have to curtail at least 90% of the pollution they create before 2030.

Ultimately, the debate over the future of coal plants in America is a race against time. While eliminating them presents a clear environmental benefit, meeting the nation’s escalating energy demands poses a significant challenge as well.