Coal-fired Power Plants Face Dim Future

With the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions imminent, the door is closing on the prospect of building new coal-fired power plants in the United States.

| April 13, 2009

  • Coal-fired plant
    A coal-fired power plant near Lake Powell in Arizona. Only five new coal-fired power plants opened in the United States in 2008, while 24 proposed coal-fired power plants were scrapped.

  • Coal-fired plant

Community opposition, legal challenges and financial uncertainty over future carbon costs are prompting companies to rethink their plans for coal. Since the beginning of 2007, 95 proposed coal-fired power plants have been cancelled or postponed in the United States — 59 in 2007, 24 in 2008, and at least 12 in the first three months of 2009.

This covers nearly half of the 200 or so U.S. coal-fired power plants that have been proposed for construction since 2000. The vast majority of the remaining proposals are essentially on hold, awaiting word on whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going to impose limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. With further legal challenges ahead and the regulation of CO2 imminent, 2009 may very well witness the end of new coal-fired power plants in the United States.

An April 2007 Supreme Court ruling is proving to be a seminal decision. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the agency authority to regulate CO2 emissions, and that the EPA must review whether such emissions pose a threat to public health or welfare. Complying with the Court order, new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson submitted an endangerment finding to the White House in late March 2009 indicating that human health and welfare are indeed threatened by CO2 emissions. This finding opens the door to regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would provide a backup option for curbing emissions if Congress fails to set limits on them through legislation.

Congress, however, is under increasing pressure from grassroots activists to take on Big Coal. Encouraged by calls from former Vice President Al Gore and leading climate scientist James Hansen for civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal-fired power plants, thousands of individuals from across the United States converged on Washington, D.C., on March 2 to protest the coal-burning Capitol Power Plant and to urge Congress to pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions. The rally was the largest act yet of civil disobedience against coal in the United States.

Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are strong advocates of regulating carbon emissions, and they are pressing to get a climate bill through Congress before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. If limits on CO2 emissions are imposed via a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, the operating cost of fossil-fuel-based power plants would increase. And since the burning of coal releases more CO2 per unit of energy than any other energy source, coal-fired power plants would be hit the hardest. With President Barack Obama calling for a cap-and-trade program to curb carbon emissions, the future for new coal-fired power plants looks tenuous at best.

Even if legislation to regulate carbon emissions does not materialize this year, approval of pending permits for coal-fired power plants is potentially on hold. In November 2008, prior to the endangerment finding, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board determined that the agency’s regional office must consider whether to regulate CO2 emissions before approving an air quality permit for a proposed coal-fired plant in Utah. This not only put the brakes on building the Utah plant, it set a precedent to halt the permitting process for any proposed plant until the EPA determines whether and how to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act.

4/20/2009 4:13:09 PM

Oh, please... that claim about "your energy bill will go up $1600 next year" is pure right-wing political propaganda. It's a lie. There are no valid statistics to back it up. Yes, energy bills will be going up in the future, but that is going to happen no matter *how* we generate our electricity. But they aren't going to go up anywhere near that much that fast. And in case people haven't noticed, we are already paying 2 to 3 times a much for our electricity as we were 15 years ago -- and that increase happened using "cheap coal" to expand our grid capacity. "Cheap coal" is only cheap to build, it is incredibly expensive to use in the long run considering all the health problems, acid rain, mountaintop destruction and CO2 greenhouse gas this filthy 'resource' blesses us with. Unfortunately for all of us, coal-fired electric plants are only being stalled in the USA. China is *still* building a new one every week (literally), and India is doing the same. And those plants are not regulated like the ones in the U.S. and so do not have the scrubbers and filters on the smokestacks! Surely everyone realizes that air pollution in China and India does NOT stay in China and India?

Sandy S
4/19/2009 11:42:18 AM

Anyone believing coal is cheap needs to talk to Sarah Palin she has a bridge to nowhere she would be glad to sell you. Coal and its hidden expense is our power bridge to nowhere unless we use it to transition to renewable power. Your taxes, subsidies, pollution and destruction of mountains at the expense of future generations is a burden we shouldn’t pass on to our grandchildren. Coal will not be the cheapest thing we have if we truly enforce the Clean Air Act and stop letting polluters use our money to bribe officials, Period.

Sandy S
4/19/2009 11:09:34 AM

I believe individuals should be paid to generate electricity then feed it to the grid to help boost our power supply to as many as we can and lower our reliance on imported oil, coal and nuclear. So many problems come with them, besides large tax dodging company domination and control of our power supply. Rural peoples could use biomass from their property instead of letting it become methane polluting the air more than 20 times more than CO2. They could use it to generate electricity; produce income, spreading any pollution they produce out so vegetation can use the CO2 on their property. Many did it during WW2. If we augment our power with solar, wind, running water, etc. on a small basis we could produce a lot of electrical power for the smart grid it would shorten transmission distances and the losses accumulated. Time we get off our collective assets and stop letting some big polluting power company using government grants, subsidies, and our tax money to enslave us to use their power only with rules they make to discourage self reliant power

Mother Earth News Fair Schedule 2019


Next: April, 27-28 2019
Asheville, NC

Whether you want to learn how to grow and raise your own food, build your own root cellar, or create a green dream home, come out and learn everything you need to know — and then some!


Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 64% Off the Cover Price

Money-Saving Tips in Every Issue!

Mother Earth NewsAt MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet's natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. You'll find tips for slashing heating bills, growing fresh, natural produce at home, and more. That's why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.95 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.95 for 6 issues.

Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
International Subscribers - Click Here
Canadian subscriptions: 1 year (includes postage & GST).

Facebook Pinterest Instagram YouTube Twitter flipboard

Free Product Information Classifieds Newsletters