Minnesota is cited in a new research brief outlining the obstacles America would face in trying to reopen coal plants, an idea prioritized by the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aiming to boost coal production, despite coal's shrinking presence in the energy sector.

The administration said the move can help meet growing electricity demand with the emergence of data centers but the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis predicts giving coal-fired power plants new life would be costly.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst at the institute, said it does not make sense.

"It's not an 'evil conspiracy' to push coal out of the market," Wamsted pointed out. "The reality is that coal is the most expensive resource, and so it is rightfully used the least, or used last."

He points to Xcel Energy's Sherco facility near the Twin Cities, a coal plant being phased out and replaced with a massive solar operation. Wamsted noted utilities are planning for other sources because they have proved to be reliable and less costly. The analysis found 24 of the 102 recently closed U.S. coal plants are already torn down and restarting others would require big investments due to their age.

Wamsted added time is another problem because of the maintenance backlog in getting coal plants back online or in some cases rebuilt. He argued investors would not be interested in waiting to get an older plant reopened only to shut it down again because of the declining appetite for coal.

"In 20 years or 30 years, that plant, which would still be relatively new, would probably be what we call a stranded asset," Wamsted stressed.

Like clean energy infrastructure, Wamsted said ratepayers would be asked by utilities to cover the construction costs for increasing coal production. The difference, he explained, is sources like wind and solar are poised to stick around much longer and they do not have the price volatility linked with fossil fuels.

Some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, are considering repealing the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy incentives. Supporters of the measure say cuts would threaten jobs in Alaska. The efforts come as Alaska's liquid natural gas supplies will not be enough to meet demand in the state. That means the state may have to begin importing gas causing prices to rise.

Jennifer Hyde, federal infrastructure coordinator at the Alaska Center, hoped clean energy projects could begin benefitting the state before the crisis takes hold.

"We're hoping that communities can seize on IRA funds in order to actualize on solar projects, on wind projects, on hydro projects, on a number of other alternatives before this crisis happens," she explained.

Begich and other Republicans signed a letter arguing that the clean energy subsidies in the IRA will undermine America's energy dominance - and inflate energy costs. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has supported the clean energy incentives.

Anchorage business owner Ben Kellie is concerned about the impacts of the possible repeal of clean energy incentives on Alaska's economy, and said the incentives can mean major savings for Alaska families.

"This isn't just saving a few cents off of a bill. A lot of these projects are in communities where people are paying over a thousand dollars to heat and light small homes off the road system," Kellie said. "This is real money that not only stays in the community and circulates, but helps families make ends meet through cold winters."

In 2023, about a quarter of all Alaska energy came from renewable sources.

A bill before Indiana legislators that would have prevented city officials from requesting energy information from large commercial buildings failed in this year's legislative session.

One nonprofit believes if Senate Bill 197/House Bill 1389 had become law, Hoosiers would have faced higher utility bills. The Thriving Buildings Program relies on utility usage data gathered between 2021 and 2025 to help lower utility bills.

Paula Brooks, justice director for the nonprofit Hoosier Environmental Council, said conversations between community stakeholders, public officials and residents about building environments are key to the program's success.

"It gave building owners the opportunity to benchmark -- which is, make comparisons of their energy and water usage -- to be able to identify ways to save money on utility costs and most importantly, improve the air quality, reduce carbon emissions," she explained.

A building environment consists of building and construction materials and is a major contributor to global gas emissions. With the program's collected data, it is predicted that public health savings in Indianapolis could reach $77 million by 2030. Indianapolis is responsible for 66% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions.

Brooks applauds the Thriving Buildings Program because residents feel their voices are being heard as their communities develop. But these voices also oppose President Donald Trump's recent executive orders to build more coal plants to boost electricity generation, and to ensure the EPA is assisting in promoting America's energy security.

Brooks believes there is another alternative to using coal as a power source.

"Renewables is not only the future, but it's happening now. This distribution model that we have now, where the energy companies hold all the power, it's only about 75 years old," she continued.

Renewable energy creates opportunities to look at new energy delivery models or "energy democracy," with solar for microgrids. So, rather than having a huge power plant somewhere, she noted, the electricity could be in a community and owned by the community, while contributing to the electric generation for industrial use.


get more stories like this via email

A new report from the Ohio River Valley Institute argued the oil and gas industry, not taxpayers, should cover the cost of plugging up hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil wells across Appalachia.

Plugging wells in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia could cost nearly $40 billion, with most of the burden coming from shale wells.

Dwayne Purvis, founder and principal consultant at Purvis Energy Advisors in Fort Worth, Texas, and co-author of the report, said he analyzed the Ohio River Valley along with other states, finding old shale wells are often unable to fund their own decommissioning.

"Of course, there are some shale wells are getting older and depleting, producing at slower rates, and even some that are shut in or marginal," Purvis explained. "What we did in this study that was new for the first time, was to offer ideas on how financial assurance reform can address this disparity."

Purvis pointed out there are currently more than 265,000 unplugged non-shale wells across the three states too, many of which also pose environmental risks. He added hundreds of thousands more were plugged decades ago but often to outdated standards, meaning they may still leak.

Purvis noted the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law jump-started efforts to plug oil wells but the funding was never meant to be permanent. He contended operators should pay for decommissioning the wells but acknowledged many cannot afford to do it.

"The next best option is what we've offered, that it needs to come from, the money for decommissioning, needs to come from other companies in the oil and gas business, who do have the income necessary to cover the liabilities of the industry as a whole in order to protect the public," Purvis outlined.

According to the report in the three states studied, Purvis' proposal would directly increase oil and gas employment by an estimated 32% and create more than 19,000 new jobs.


get more stories like this via email