America’s coal fleet is no longer just a climate problem, it is a financial liability. New research into plant operating costs finds that virtually every remaining coal unit is more expensive to run than building and operating new clean energy, turning aging facilities into money pits for utilities and their customers. The brutal arithmetic now shows that all but a single coal plant would save ratepayers money if it were replaced with cheaper alternatives.
That conclusion, drawn by Researchers examining the cost to maintain coal-based power in America, undercuts the political promise that coal can be revived as a bargain source of “baseload” electricity. Instead of delivering savings, the fleet is soaking up billions of dollars that could be redirected to modern infrastructure, local jobs and community transition funds.
The new math: 99% of plants in the red
The core finding is stark: analysts comparing plant-by-plant operating costs with the “all in” price of new wind and solar conclude that 99% of existing coal units are more expensive to run than building new renewables in the same regions. In other words, almost every coal plant in the country is now outcompeted on pure price, even before counting health or climate damages, leaving just one facility that can still claim a narrow cost edge. That is the “all but one” reality that Researchers and writer Mary Swansburg have highlighted, a shift that would have been unthinkable when coal dominated the grid.
That conclusion is reinforced by separate modeling that finds Coal Plants Are More Expensive Than New Renewables virtually across the board, and that a nationwide Coal to clean transition would generate a net benefit of Clean Transition Is Worth $589 Billion, Mostly In Red St that still host large coal fleets. A related analysis of the “coal cost crossover” shows that Transitioning away from coal would save enough to finance nearly 150 g of four hour battery storage, a scale of investment that would harden the grid against outages while cutting costs. Together, these studies show that the economic tipping point has already passed.
Operating coal is getting pricier, not cheaper
Even for plants that remain online, the cost trend is moving in the wrong direction. Detailed accounting of fuel, maintenance and compliance expenses finds that Power generated by coal in 2024 was 28 percent more expensive on average than in 2021, a jump driven by volatile fuel prices and the rising cost of keeping aging boilers and pollution controls running. One report calculates that $6.2 billion in extra spending was required in 2024 alone compared with what utilities would have paid for the same amount of electricity if coal costs had stayed at 2021 levels.
Those higher operating costs land on customers. Analysts note that Coal plant owners passed much of that $6.2 billion through in the form of higher rates, even as cheaper wind and solar projects were available in the same markets. As one researcher put it in a separate interview, “The reality is that coal is the most expensive resource, and so it is rightfully used the least, or used last,” a point echoed in analysis that points to Xcel Energy’s experience with fuel price volatility linked with fossil fuels.
Policy lifelines keep costly plants on life support
Despite the unfavorable economics, federal policy has intervened repeatedly to keep specific coal plants running. Under President Donald Trump, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SECRETARY WRIGHT HAVE touted emergency actions that they say saved more than 15 GW of coal powered electricity by directing the Department of Energy to issue special reliability orders for five “reliable coal power plants.” A separate fact sheet from the administration frames these moves as “ending the war on beautiful clean coal,” even as independent analysts warn that the orders lock in higher costs for ratepayers.
Those interventions have continued in specific states. Reporting shows that Department of Energy ordered two coal fired power plants in Indiana and one in Colorado to keep operating past their planned retirement dates at the end of 2025, citing grid reliability concerns. Earlier this month, State leaders again clashed with CLIMATEWIRE reporting that The Department of Energy had ordered a damaged coal fired plant in northwest Colorado to keep running while new transmission and storage systems are built in the area. These decisions may avert short term reliability risks, but they also extend the life of plants that are already uneconomic compared with new renewables.
Emergency orders and the “paying twice” problem
Short term emergency orders have become another tool for keeping coal units online, often at significant cost. A detailed investigation into a 90-day emergency order requiring continued operation of Consumers Energy’s J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan found that the directive generated an expensive scramble to modernize equipment that was already slated for retirement. Critics described the spending as “burning money,” arguing that every dollar poured into extending Campbell’s life could have been invested in cleaner, more flexible resources instead.
An independent report commissioned by environmental groups warns that If DOE issues similar orders for additional older fossil plants, the cost could reach nearly $6 billion per year, a figure that would ultimately be borne by households and businesses. A separate analysis of who pays to keep these plants alive notes that When a plant is kept online after replacement assets are already in the rate base, customers effectively pay twice, once for the new resource and once for the old coal unit, with total excess costs estimated at up to $5.9 billion a year. That “paying twice” dynamic is at the heart of why so many coal plants now function as money pits.
What a coal-to-clean shift would buy
The scale of potential savings from retiring coal and building clean energy is not abstract. The latest Coal Cost Crossover analysis finds that Transitioning to clean energy resources would save enough to finance nearly 150 g of four hour battery storage and would support new investment across the U.S. in transmission, storage and local generation. Those savings, layered on top of the $589 Billion net benefit identified in the Coal to clean transition study, suggest that the money now spent propping up coal could instead fund a massive build out of cheaper resources and community support.
Crucially, the economics of new renewables are not hypothetical. Detailed comparisons show that Feb findings that 99% of coal plants are more expensive than new wind or solar are based on projects already operating or under construction within a 30 mile radius of the coal units. Earlier work on the Coal cost update and the broader Jan analysis of Transitioning both point to the same conclusion: keeping nearly the entire coal fleet running is no longer a rational way to deliver affordable, reliable power.
That leaves policymakers with a choice. They can continue to extend lifelines, as in the Trump Tosses Lifelines approach to the Struggling Coal Industry, which one critic described as “Clearly this is a full throttle attempt to help the fossil fuel industry,” or they can lean into the data that Researchers like Mary Swansburg have surfaced. If nearly All coal plants are now money losers compared with clean energy, then the real question is not whether to keep them alive, but how quickly to replace them while investing in workers and communities that have powered America for generations.
More from Morning Overview