In a landscape dominated by the assumption that coal is an expensive relic dragging down the grid, this analysis from Energy Bad Boys delivers a jarring counter-narrative backed by hard data: existing coal plants are often the cheapest power source available. The piece challenges the prevailing wisdom that retiring these facilities saves money, arguing instead that premature closures are driving up costs and threatening reliability.
The Cost of Reliability
The editors begin by dismantling the idea that climate activism is solely about emissions, suggesting a conflict between those seeking rapid decarbonization and those prioritizing grid stability. "Retiring coal plants—no matter how expensive—without adequate replacement isn't a solution to the problems plaguing our electricity system," the piece argues. This framing forces readers to confront the reality of what happens when baseload capacity vanishes without a like-for-like substitute.
Energy Bad Boys reports, "Existing coal power is often the most affordable source of electricity on the system, competing primarily with existing combined cycle natural gas and nuclear." By analyzing 82 plants using Federal Energy Regulatory Commission data, they found the average operating cost at $45.57 per megawatt-hour, with nearly 80 percent of facilities operating below $60. This stands in stark contrast to new renewable projects; the article notes that when firming costs are included—necessary to back up intermittent wind and solar—the gap widens dramatically. "Solar at $110 per MWh is 142 percent more expensive than the average coal fleet," they write, a figure that suggests the transition to renewables may be far costlier than advertised if reliability is priced in.
Critics might note that this analysis relies heavily on Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) metrics, which some grid planners argue fail to capture the full systemic value of zero-carbon resources or the long-term risks of carbon pricing. However, the piece effectively highlights a critical short-term vulnerability: the immediate economic reality for ratepayers facing skyrocketing bills as cheap thermal capacity is shuttered.
The Utilization Paradox
A key insight in the coverage is the relationship between how often a plant runs and its cost per unit of energy. The editors explain that fixed costs are spread over more megawatt-hours when plants run frequently, making high-utilization assets cheaper. "Plants that are utilized at higher capacity factors generally have lower costs per MWh because fixed O&M and capital costs are spread over more MWhs," the article states.
This dynamic creates a paradox where the most efficient, low-cost coal plants are often forced into early retirement due to policy pressure or market signals favoring renewables. The piece highlights the J.H. Campbell plant in Michigan, which was generating power for just $30.36 per MWh before facing closure. "Why is Consumer's Energy... seeking to shut the plant down 15 years before its original retirement date, when it is so obviously one of the most reliable and affordable power plants," they ask. The answer, according to the text, lies in corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) mandates rather than economic necessity.
"Retiring some of the cheapest and most dependable power plants in America before building sufficient dispatchable replacements was never the bargain it was advertised to be."
The coverage draws a parallel to past grid failures, noting that the reliance on intermittent sources without adequate thermal backup mirrors the conditions seen during the February 2021 North American winter storm, where capacity shortfalls led to catastrophic blackouts. The editors point out that the J.H. Campbell plant ran at high capacity during recent cold snaps, proving its value when the grid is stressed.
The Reliability Imperative
The article concludes by examining the consequences of replacing thermal capacity with renewables without sufficient firming resources. It cites the case of NIPSCO in Indiana, which retired over 1,200 MW of coal and replaced it entirely with wind and solar, leaving the grid more vulnerable to supply tightness. "The reliability crisis facing the country is largely due to the premature and excessive retirement of coal facilities," the editors assert.
While the piece acknowledges that not every plant should operate forever—some are indeed inefficient or nearing the end of their useful lives—it argues that the blanket assumption that all coal is uneconomic is dangerous. "The cost of capacity shortfalls resulting from further closures would very likely outweigh the cost of keeping these plants open," they warn.
This argument resonates with historical precedents like the Voting Rights Act's focus on protecting access; here, the argument is about protecting access to affordable electricity as a fundamental utility. The editors suggest that policy driven by ideology rather than grid physics is creating a fragile system where ratepayers pay more for less reliability.
Bottom Line
The strongest element of this analysis is its rigorous use of operational data to debunk the myth that coal is inherently expensive, exposing the hidden costs of premature retirement. Its biggest vulnerability lies in potentially underestimating the long-term economic and environmental liabilities of maintaining aging thermal infrastructure. Readers should watch closely as grid operators balance these immediate cost realities against the urgent need for decarbonization.