15 Electric Generating Coal Plants Planned Retirements Postponed Indefinately

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Since the second Trump administration took power in January, at least 15 coal plants have had planned retirements pushed back or delayed indefinitely, a DeSmog analysis found.

That’s mostly due to an expected rise in electricity demand, a surge largely driven by the rise of high-powered data centers needed to train and run artificial intelligence (AI) models.

Nearly 75 percent of the coal plants were on track to shutter in the next two years.
I suppose that temporarily that is no longer the case.

Not long ago, coal really did keep the lights on. In 2005, it provided roughly half of America’s electricity, making it by far the dominant power source nationwide. But in the past two decades, coal’s market share has rapidly waned. No new coal plants have come online since 2013. These days, its footprint has dwindled, with just 16 percent of the overall energy mix.

environmental regulations didn’t kill coal. Instead, its demise became inevitable mostly thanks to the rise of a competing fossil fuel: natural gas.

Gas has both economic and technological advantages over coal, said David Lindequist, an economist at Miami University who co-authored a recent paper on the environmental impacts of the shale gas boom.

As new fracking technologies helped to flood the U.S. market with cheap gas in the mid-2000s, utilities began a broad coal-to-gas pivot that’s still underway today.

the Trump administration said in September that it plans to feed the AI boom — with an estimated 100 gigawatts of capacity in the next five years — by keeping more old coal plants open. “I would say the majority of that coal capacity will stay online,” Wright said.

Gas turbine bottleneck:
May 30th, 2025
https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/052025-us-gas-fired-turbine-wait-times-as-much-as-seven-years-costs-up-sharply
US gas-fired turbine wait times as much as seven years; costs up sharply

February 20, 2025

~10 years to build a nuclear power plant.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-timeline-of-a-nuclear-plant-construction-and-start-up-project-Source-IAEA_fig5_304660691

4 Likes
2

These utilities are losing money operating these old coal fired power plants. Eventually the ratepayers will end up paying for these increased cost of coal, operation and maintenance.

New nuclear, natural gas and coal power plants take 10 to 15 years to buy the components and construct the plants.

Batteries, solar and onshore wind are ready to generate power in 2 to 5 years. Offshore wind is killed by Trump politics. The DoD has studied and reviewed all aspects of the wind towers on security for over 12 years and gave them a go ahead years ago. The new concerns raised by Trump administration is false politics.

7 Likes
3

As you may remember, offshore wind was having serious problems during the Biden admin. Also, as I’ve posted, there are offshore problems (such as cancellations and auctions receiving no bids) in Europe and the Pacific region.

DB2

3 Likes
4

Many of these wind turbines are already installed on the East Coast of American ready to be connected to the grid. So the claims of Military security by Trump administration is flat out wrong. The wind turbines are already out in the ocean and will remain there until we get a President that does does not make arbitrary rules with out any backup. The Easter Coast states have big cities on the coast that want and need lots of electricity generated by wind energy. The PJM grid needs all the help it can get from offshore wind.

4 Likes
5

When I read “Retirements Postponed Indefinitely”, I thought they were talking about the other 'Retirement" – from work.

intercst

6

In the first 10 months of 2025, US electric power generation from coal is up 13% over the same time in 2024. Power generation from natural gas is down about 4%.

US electricity from coal, Jan - Oct, GWh
2024: 544,431
2025: 616,331
Change: +71,900 (+13%)

US electricity from natural gas, Jan - Oct, GWh
2024: 1,584,586
2025: 1,527,594
Change: -56,992 (-3.6%)

Looking at total power generation, including all fossil fuel sources, plus nuclear, hydro, and other renewables (wind, solar, biomass), overall power generation is up 2.6% in 2025, compared to 2024.

US total electricity, Jan - Oct, GWh (including estimated small scale solar)
2024: 3,698,532
2025: 3,793,085
Change: +94,553 (+2.6%)

Numbers from the following source…

They wouldn’t be burning that much more coal if it was uneconomical to do so.

_ Pete

2 Likes
7

There are a few of those. However, the problems of offshore wind have been posted about for several years now, both in the US and overseas. The 100+ thread titled Headwinds Continue started almost three years ago with a Financial Times headline “Europe’s wind industry flags further weakness in 2023 despite energy demand”.

Or from another thread two years ago, the headline “Cost of insuring offshore wind ‘doubled’ amid heavy losses”.

How about this headline from four months ago: “Mitsubishi Abandons Three Offshore Wind Projects in Japan”

And in September we read that “Australia delays first offshore wind auction”.

This summer Germany’s offshore wind auction failed to receive any bids.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

DB2

2 Likes
8

The DOE is not letting them Retire these old coal fired power plants.

Feds order WA power plant to keep burning coal, setting up clash with state

The TransAlta facility in Centralia was on track to switch to natural gas.

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/12/18/feds-order-wa-power-plant-to-keep-burning-coal-setting-up-clash-with-state/

Trump Administration’s DOE Is Forcing Coal Plants to Stay Open. Michigan Is the First Target.

People in Michigan and across the Midwest will be stuck paying the cost of a nonexistent “emergency” with their health and their electric bills.

The DOE’s decision to force the Campbell coal plant to remain online will not address a real problem. Instead, it will impose real costs on customers and communities in Michigan and throughout the Midwest.

To comply with the DOE’s order, Consumers Energy must now:

  • Pay premium prices to purchase coal on short notice.

  • Perform unplanned repairs and maintenance on a plant that was preparing for closure.

  • Find and pay for adequate staffing to run the plant, after many employees already moved to other facilities or retired.

These unbudgeted costs will be passed along to Midwest electric customers. While the costs of the Campbell Section 202(c) order won’t be clear until Consumers Energy files with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates of the fixed operation and maintenance costs for the plant suggest that keeping it online just for the 90-day order could cost more than $7 million, even without accounting for the extra expenses associated with last-minute coal procurement and emergency maintenance repairs. If the plant is not dispatched economically—i.e., if it’s kept running when it is more expensive than cheaper sources on the grid—the costs could be much higher. These costs come as families and businesses are already struggling with high energy prices.

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/derrell-e-slaughter/trump-administrations-doe-forcing-coal-plants-stay-open-michigan-first

4 Likes
9

The government might be able to prevent a power company from retiring a generator, but I don’t see where the government is forcing the plants to run. More coal is being burned because it is more economical, compared to natural gas, to burn coal. This is why 13% more electricity has been generated from coal this year compared to last.

From the DOE website, the following are descriptions of the Section 202(c) orders:

The order directs TransAlta to ensure Unit 2 of the Centralia Generating Station in Centralia, Washington remains available for operation.

The order directs PJM, in coordination with Constellation Energy, to ensure Units 3 and 4 of the Eddystone Generating Station in Pennsylvania remain available for operation.

The emergency order directs MISO, in coordination with Consumers Energy, to ensure that the J.H. Campbell Power Plant in West Olive, Michigan remains available for operation, minimizing any potential generation shortfall that could lead to unnecessary power outages.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There are more examples at the link. The key words are “remain(s) available for operation”. It doesn’t mean the power company must run the plants at a specific capacity factor. It just directs the companies and system operators ensure the plants are available for service, if power demand conditions require it, and perhaps if the plants are dispatched by the relevant system operator.

_ Pete

3 Likes
10

The key words to your response are as follows:

DOE 202(c) orders in 2025, primarily forcing old coal plants to stay online past planned retirement for grid stability, increase utility costs significantly, adding millions to annual bills by overriding market mechanisms, potentially costing ratepayers billions yearly, with specific orders like the Campbell plant costing hundreds of thousands daily for Consumers Energy customers. These mandates raise electricity rates, impacting homes and businesses by forcing reliance on costly fossil fuels instead of cheaper, planned resources, creating substantial financial burdens and legal challenges.

Key Effects on Utility Costs

  • Direct Cost Increases: Forcing inefficient, costly fossil fuel plants to run adds operational expenses that get passed to consumers.

  • Billions in Potential Costs: Independent analysis suggests these orders could cost ratepayers billions annually across affected regions.

  • Specific Examples:

    • The mandate for the Campbell plant cost Consumers Energy over $80 million through September 2025, averaging $615,000 daily, paid by MISO grid customers.

    • Orders to keep plants running beyond planned retirement dates can cost tens to hundreds of millions per year in states outside the Northeast.

  • Ratepayer Burden: These costs affect homeowners and businesses, raising overall electric bills.

Why Costs Are Rising (DOE 202(c) Orders)

  • “Emergency” Mandates: The Department of Energy (DOE) issued emergency orders under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to keep retiring coal plants running, citing grid reliability concerns.

  • Interfering with Markets: Opponents argue these orders bypass normal market processes, forcing utilities to operate unneeded plants.

  • Legal Challenges: Lawsuits are underway, with groups arguing the DOE is misusing emergency powers to bail out polluting plants, incurring costs without true necessity.

https://www.edf.org/media/independent-report-finds-trump-administrations-orders-keep-coal-fired-power-plants-running#:~:text=Since%20the%20President’s%20electric%20grid,unlawful%2C%20unwise%2C%20and%20unfair.

2 Likes
11

Senate Democrats ended permitting reform discussions after the Trump administration on Monday ordered work to halt on all offshore wind farms under construction, which total 7 GW.

“The illegal attacks on fully permitted renewable energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume,” Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. “There is no path to permitting reform if this administration refuses to follow the law.”

The Trump administration “will own the higher electricity prices, increasingly decrepit infrastructure, and loss of competitiveness that result from its reckless policies,” the senators said.

The move to end discussions comes after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a permitting reform bill last week.

The Trump administration’s decision to pause leases and order work to halt for 90 days for undisclosed national security reasons affects five offshore wind projects: the 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the 2-GW Empire Wind and 924-MW Sunrise Wind off of New York, the 800-MW Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts and the 700-MW Revolution Wind offshore Rhode Island.

3 Likes
12

The expanding wave of Section 202(c) orders, meanwhile, has already triggered swift and fierce opposition. Earlier this month, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, Attorney General Nick Brown, and Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller jointly condemned the Centralia order, saying: “Under the guise of ’emergency powers,’ U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is attempting to force Washington state’s dirtiest power plant to continue burning coal. Let’s be clear: there’s no emergency here.”

Similar resistance has followed the December 23 Indiana orders affecting coal units at Schahfer and Culley, with potentially far-reaching repercussions. Last week, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice filed the first-ever judicial challenge to DOE’s use of Section 202(c), asserting that the orders unlawfully override decisions made by utilities, state regulators, and grid operators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a Request for Rehearing challenging DOE’s repeated extensions for the J.H. Campbell plant, arguing that the orders exceed DOE’s authority under the Federal Power Act and fail to satisfy statutory limits requiring operation only when necessary. “Nearly seven months into this fabricated emergency, what is now clear is that DOE will continue issuing these unlawful orders unless the courts intervene,” she wrote.

Cost and reliability concerns are also adding complexity. Earthjustice characterized the Indiana orders as “an unprecedented power grab” that overrides decisions made by power companies, grid operators, and state utility regulators, noting that the targeted coal plants were already deemed uneconomic and unreliable. The group has cited filings showing that compliance with earlier DOE orders at J.H. Campbell cost more than $80 million over several months—an average of more than $615,000 per day.

The group has also pointed to an independent Grid Strategies analysis—which the consulting group prepared for Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, and the Sierra Club—that estimates federal mandates forcing large fossil plants scheduled to retire through 2028 to remain online could cost ratepayers between $3.1 billion and $5.9 billion per year, depending on how many units are subject to emergency orders. The August 2025 study assumes an average subsidy of $89,315 per MW-year, based on recent Reliability Must Run contracts used by regional grid operators, and suggests the estimate may be conservative. It notes that early cost data from federally mandated plant extensions already exceed $180,000 per MW-year in some cases.

1 Like
13

One Day Prior to Planned Closure, DOE Orders Colorado Coal-Fired Unit to Keep Running

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued another emergency order to keep a coal-fired power plant operating, this time saying a Colorado facility must remain online at least another three months.

Unit 1 at the Craig Station in Moffat County, in northwest Colorado, had been slated to close December 31. The DOE issued the order late on December 30. The order issued Tuesday, which could be extended, means the 427-MW unit must continue to remain operational until March 30, 2026. The Craig plant includes two other coal-fired units, with 410 MW and 448 MW of capacity, respectively, that are scheduled for retirement in 2028.

Craig Unit 1 is the latest in a series of U.S. coal-fired power plants ordered to postpone their closure by the Trump administration, which has claimed the moves are necessary due to an energy emergency. Many energy industry analysts, along with government officials and environmental groups, have said no such emergency exists. The DOE earlier this month ordered two coal-fired power plants in Indiana to remain online, and earlier this year issued orders to postpone the retirement of coal-burning units in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington state.

A state law in Colorado requires large-scale utility power providers to generate 100% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2050, which has helped shape timelines for plant retirements for the state’s electric utilities.

Colorado Governor Criticizes Order

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) in a statement criticized the order, saying, “This order will pass tens of millions in costs to Colorado ratepayers, in order to keep a coal plant open that is broken and not needed. Ludicrously, the coal plant isn’t even operational right now, meaning repairs—to the tune of millions of dollars—just to get it running, all on the backs of rural Colorado ratepayers!”

2 Likes
14

An interesting technical article about how offshore wind targets are often unrealistically high. Thus, “National policy targets overestimate energy production output by up to 50%.”

Screenshot 2026-01-07 at 6.47.43 AM
Screenshot 2026-01-07 at 6.47.43 AM790×768 86.1 KB

A theoretical upper limit for offshore wind energy extraction
Feareira et al.
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-sustainability/fulltext/S2949-7906(25)00269-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2949790625002691%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

DB2

1 Like
15

This is not a major issue with offshore wind. Coal and natural gas fired power plants do not meet their energy production output by up to 50%.

16

The problem comes not with a given capacity factor but rather from overestimating it. Planning, field design and assumed performance “can become misaligned with physical constraints.”

The authors write "Such overestimation not only hides true energy costs but also underestimates power variability, integration, and curtailment risks, and it distorts policy pathways”.

“The [Dutch] WIN plan, for example, assumes that offshore wind will provide around 60% of all CO2 -free electricity generated in the Netherlands by 2040, based on capacity factors as high as 53% (in average). If, instead, the system-average capacity factor proves to be closer to 34.6%—as predicted by our theoretical model and supported by global operational trends—then more than 20% of the Netherlands’ planned CO2-free electricity supply will be missing by 2040 due to the shortfall in offshore wind generation alone.”

Serious issues…

DB2

1 Like
17

No serious issues for the world. Netherland’s error is an outlier. They will learn from it.

1 Like
18

It was the worst of the cases they looked at, but weren’t the only one with significant overestimates. Table 1 in the paper shows a 25% error for Belgian North Sea projects, 20% errors for the New York/New Jersey projects and for the French Atlantic. French projections for the Channel region are off my “only” 15%. These are all first order effects with significant repercussions.

DB2

1 Like
19

New York State has mandated 9,000 MW from offshore wind (by 2035, IIRC). These study results indicate that the state will come up short (not good for residents and businesses) or have to build 20% more capacity (not good for costs).

DB2

20

These are some of the wind farm project in Europe and US. In fact with Trump’s meddling these projects are suffering and so are the laws which were designed to help alleviate the horrors of climate change. So you should be blaming Trump for the significant repercussions, not the wind energy people making laws and building wind farms.