The Tennessee Valley Authority, described by the Associated Press as the largest public utility in the United States, is reversing course on plans to retire aging coal-fired units at its Kingston and Cumberland facilities. The decision has drawn sharp criticism from at least one member of Congress and clean-energy groups who say the utility sidestepped meaningful public engagement before pushing the change forward. What makes this reversal especially striking is that TVA’s own financial disclosures show the agency was already weighing the future of these coal plants well before the shift became public, raising questions about whether the process was designed to limit outside scrutiny.
Coal Retirement Dates Now in Doubt
TVA had previously committed to specific timelines for winding down coal operations at both sites. According to the utility’s annual 10-K filing for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, the agency reiterated prior Record of Decision dates for Cumberland in calendar years 2026 and 2028, and for Kingston in calendar year 2027. Those dates had served as benchmarks for communities, regulators, and energy planners expecting a transition away from coal at both plants, and they were widely treated as firm commitments that would shape local economic development and health expectations.
Yet TVA now says it does not want to close those two coal-fired plants, according to Associated Press coverage that detailed the reversal. The utility has cited demand growth driven by data centers and regulatory changes as reasons for reconsidering the retirements. This creates a direct tension: the same 10-K filing that reaffirmed retirement dates also disclosed that TVA was conducting an evaluation of the continued operation of coal-fired units at Kingston and Cumberland. In other words, the formal retirement schedule and the internal review of whether to keep coal running existed side by side in the same investor document, suggesting the reversal was under consideration months before it became a public controversy and before affected communities had a clear chance to respond.
A Gas Pipeline Left in Limbo
The coal reversal does not exist in isolation. It collides with a separate, years-long federal process to build the natural gas infrastructure that was supposed to replace Cumberland’s coal generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a final environmental review for the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Cumberland Project, docket number CP22-493, which would provide firm transportation service for TVA’s planned Cumberland combined-cycle gas plant. That pipeline was envisioned as the supply backbone for a cleaner replacement facility, and the environmental impact statement evaluated construction impacts, long-term emissions, and alternatives on the assumption that coal-fired generation would wind down on the previously announced schedule.
If TVA extends the life of Cumberland’s coal units, the economic and planning rationale for that pipeline project shifts considerably. Ratepayers and pipeline developers now face uncertainty about whether the gas plant will proceed on its original timeline, if at all, and whether the scale of the project still matches TVA’s updated generation plans. The FERC environmental review consumed significant federal resources and public attention, and a coal extension could strand that investment or delay it indefinitely. Neither TVA nor FERC has publicly reconciled the coal reversal with the pipeline’s status, leaving a gap in accountability that energy analysts, local governments, and affected communities will need to watch closely as they assess future rate impacts and regional air quality.
Cohen Demands a Pause on the Board Vote
The most pointed political pushback has come from Congressman Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat representing the state’s 9th District, whose official House profile identifies him as the area’s federal representative. Cohen called on TVA to pause its board vote on the Kingston and Cumberland changes until the public could weigh in. In a letter sent directly to the TVA Board, Cohen alleged that the utility advanced major changes through a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement without adequate public notice, public meetings, or comment opportunities on the new alternatives being considered, arguing that the process fell short of what communities should expect from a federally chartered entity.
Cohen’s criticism targets a procedural weakness that matters beyond partisan politics. A supplemental EIS is meant to address significant new information or changed circumstances, but it can also function as a shortcut if the sponsoring agency narrows how and when the public learns about it. By alleging that TVA failed to hold sufficient meetings or open proper comment windows, Cohen is arguing that the utility treated a major policy reversal—keeping coal plants open past their planned retirement—as a routine procedural update rather than the kind of decision that demands broad community input. His congressional office framed the letter as a defense of transparency and due process at a public power provider that serves millions of ratepayers across the Tennessee Valley, many of whom have limited alternative options for electricity service.
Clean-Energy Groups Challenge TVA’s Rationale
The backlash extends well beyond Capitol Hill. Clean-energy advocates have criticized TVA over the adequacy of public input in this process, according to the AP reporting that first detailed the coal reversal, and they have questioned whether the utility is fully accounting for the long-term costs of continued coal use. Their concern is not just environmental but structural: TVA’s board members are politically appointed, and critics argue that this governance model makes the utility less responsive to the communities it serves than an elected public utility commission would be. When an appointed board can approve a coal extension without facing voters, the incentive to hold rigorous public hearings and incorporate local feedback weakens, particularly in low-income or rural areas that have historically borne the brunt of industrial pollution.
TVA’s stated justification, that surging electricity demand from data centers and shifting regulatory conditions require more generation capacity, deserves scrutiny on its own terms. Data center growth is real across the Southeast, but extending the life of decades-old coal units is not the only way to meet that demand. Solar, battery storage, and demand response programs have all dropped in cost and expanded in scale since TVA first committed to the Kingston and Cumberland retirements, and many utilities in other regions are leaning heavily on those options to handle peak loads. The utility has not publicly released the internal economic modeling that led it to favor coal extensions over these alternatives, which makes it difficult for outside analysts to evaluate whether the decision reflects genuine grid reliability needs or a preference for the path of least regulatory resistance and the continued use of fully depreciated assets.
What Ratepayers and Communities Stand to Lose
For the people living near Kingston and Cumberland, this is not an abstract policy debate. Coal plants produce particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants that affect respiratory and cardiovascular health, with disproportionate impacts on children, older adults, and people with preexisting conditions. The Kingston plant carries a specific historical burden: in 2008, a massive coal ash spill at the site released a torrent of toxic sludge into the Emory River and surrounding land, an event that left behind long-term cleanup challenges and health concerns for workers and residents. Communities that expected cleaner air and reduced industrial risk as part of the planned retirements now face the prospect of continued coal operations with no clear end date, along with the ongoing storage and management of coal ash and other waste streams.
Ratepayers across the TVA service territory also have a financial stake in how this plays out. Extending the life of old coal units can appear cheaper in the short term because the facilities are already built, but ongoing fuel costs, maintenance, and potential environmental compliance upgrades can add up over time. If the coal reversal undermines the case for new gas infrastructure that has already undergone extensive federal review, it could also lead to sunk planning costs and further delays in modernizing the generation fleet. Without clearer public modeling from TVA, residents are left to wonder whether they are paying more, both in monthly bills and in health impacts, to preserve a coal-heavy status quo rather than accelerating a transition to cleaner, more flexible resources that align with the retirement dates TVA itself previously endorsed.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
