More Than 50 Coal Companies Have Been Wiped Out Since Trump’s 2016 Victory

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

November 23, 2019 8:51 PM ET

  • Coal producers are still finding life difficult even as President Donald Trump is easing regulations on the industry.
  • More than 50 coal plants have shuttered since 2015, when Trump began campaigning to save the industry from former President Barack Obama’s so-called war on coal.
  • Trump has seen one of his biggest backers, coal tycoon Robert Murray, fall on hard times after his plant filed for bankruptcy amid the country’s changing energy mix.

One of the largest coal companies in the western U.S. closed Monday, making it among the more than 50 coal producers to shutter since voters elected President Donald Trump in 2016 on a promise to rescue the industry.

The Navajo Generating Station burned the last of its coal as the Arizona-based coal producer deals with the industry’s downturn, the Arizona Republic reported Monday. The mine that supplied the plant with coal closed in August, leaving Navajo with no other supply in the area.

This comes after a coal company headed by one of Trump’s biggest supporters filed for bankruptcy in October. Murray Energy announced on Oct. 29 that it reached an agreement to continue operating, with CEO Robert Murray relinquishing two of his roles in the company.

Murray contributed $1 million to a Trump super political action committee and donated another $300,000 to the president’s inauguration. He’s also been at the forefront of efforts to poke and prod the Department of Energy into crafting policies designed to prop up the fledgling coal industry.

He also has done his level best to provide leverage for the industry during a time of upheaval. A series of reports in 2017, for instance, showed photos of the coal tycoon meeting with Energy Secretary Rick Perry that year to craft policies designed to prop up the coal industry.

Things have been rough for the industry, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). (RELATED: This Major Trump Backer Is Behind An Effort To Block Gas Power Plants)

Nearly “34.1 [gigawatts] of coal capacity from 170 coal-fired generators at 85 plants have retired — 36 of those plants remain operational” since 2016, Glenn McGrath, an engineer at EIA who is responsible for calculating electricity generation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. One gigawatt can power roughly 300,000 homes.

He added: “One could reasonably claim that roughly 50 plants with coal-fired capacity have closed.” The closures have actually slowed since 2015 during former President Barack Obama’s final term in office, according to EIA data.

“The annual number of retired U.S. coal units has declined since 2015, and the configuration of retired coal capacity has changed,” EIA noted in a report in July. Most of the plants that have retired since 2015 have been larger than those that shuttered after that year, according to the report.

Trump, meanwhile, is getting pushback from environmentalists and Democrats who object to his regulation rollbacks. New York Attorney General Letitia James is among a handful of attorneys general who are suing the administration to block Trump from easing restriction on coal power plants.

James, a Democrat, argues the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had no basis for weakening a regulation Obama brought in 2015 that placed national limits on carbon dioxide pollution from coal power plants. The so-called Clean Power Plan required states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2022 and encouraged states to close and replace facilities with natural gas.

Obama’s rule was expected to force more coal power plants and mines to close down, costing thousands of jobs in the process. Nearly 40% of coal-fired power capacity has been retired or announced plans to retired as a result of market forces, technological change and an increase in regulations, according to some experts. Trump promised to end what conservatives believe was Obama’s “war on coal.”

“America is blessed with extraordinary energy abundance, including more than 250 years worth of beautiful clean coal,” Trump tweeted in a May 2018. “We have ended the war on coal and will continue to work to promote American energy dominance!” He was reviving elements of his campaign promise.

Coal is still an important energy mixture. The U.S. got 27% of its power from coal plants in 2018, despite mining jobs declining in recent years, according to federal data. Coal power generation and mining employed 160,119 American workers in 2016, the Energy Department reported. Coal use globally is expected to rise in the coming decades on growing demand, mostly from Asian countries.

Some energy advocates say the closures are a result of Obama-era regulations. “I do think Trump has ended the war on coal. Most of the plant closures were baked into utility plans once the [Mercury and Air Toxics Standards] MATS rule came out,” Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. Ebell worked on Trump’s EPA transition team and is a fervent critic of Obama’s policies.

He added: “We and others fought the MATS rule. It was absolutely a shameful rule.” Ebell was referring to the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), an Obama-era regulation that required the EPA to factor in additional “co-benefits” when evaluating a regulation’s cost compared to its expected health benefits. Obama used the rule to justify waves of regulations.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the rule in 2015. Justices ruled that the EPA should have considered the costs regulations impose on utilities before foisting rules on them. Obama-era EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy sparked an optimistic tone after the high court acted.

“But even if we don’t, it was three years ago,” McCarthy said on a June, 29 2015 appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “Most of them are already in compliance, investments have been made, and we’ll catch up. And we’re still going to get at the toxic pollution from these facilities.” She has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

EPA supports all kinds of energy production, provided the producers comply with the Clean Air Act, the agency told the DCNF.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 25, 2019 2:41 pm

EPA made the bogus declaration that CO2 is a “pollutant”. CO2 is one of the building blocks of life and not a “pollutant”. The EPA is overdue for closure as a useful institution acting without supervision or control. Trump should abolish it. It would not be missed.

November 25, 2019 4:09 pm

A few idiotic states have and are forcing the closure of coal power plants, and the reduction in the use of coal has triggered the closure of some coal producers. Neither this, nor the closures of plants and producers during the Obama Presidency is the fault of Trump. Trump’s actions, however, means that the feds won’t force power plants in other states to close as well, keeping many coal producers in business.

He couldn’t save all the producers, but he is saving the industry.

Steve Z
November 25, 2019 4:25 pm

Despite the fact that CO2 is not really a pollutant, the EPA should not be abolished, since it has (through common-sense regulations) significantly reduced the emissions of real pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon MONoxide, nitrous oxides, and particulates, which have contributed to the air being much cleaner over American cities than comparably-sized cities in China and even Europe. The EPA has used a free-market approach to limiting emissions, where industries that emit less than their “permitted” amount can sell credits to those emitting over their permitted limits, which the cleaner industries can use to offset the price of their pollution control equipment. Using the EPA to regulate CO2 is an aberration from its original mission, since CO2 is not a pollutant, and is necessary for plant life.

Even during the relatively friendly Trump presidency, coal-fired power plants find themselves temporarily at a competitive disadvantage compared to natural gas, due to plentiful supply from the Marcellus and Utica Shale fields, and also natural gas that is a by-product from oil fracking in West Texas and North Dakota. It is true that natural gas must be compressed into pipelines for transport, but coal must also be shipped by railroad, which also consumes fossil fuel for transport (usually diesel fuel in locomotives). Natural gas also burns much more cleanly than coal, producing much less sulfur oxides or particulates than coal. A combined-cycle plant using natural gas is much more efficient (usually over 60%) than a coal-fired plant (about 30 to 35%).

While it is estimated that the USA has about a 400-year supply of coal, the total reserves of natural gas obtained from fracking may be less. If natural gas becomes scarce in the future (and no further reserves are found), coal may become more economical in the long term.

nayyer ali
November 25, 2019 5:47 pm

Coal is declining for a simple reason. It is no longer low cost energy. Much of it has been replaced by cheaper natural gas. In addition, coal plants pollute more than any other source of energy. At this point, in windy or sunny regions, wind and solar are cheaper than coal. Electricity generated by coal dropped 3% last year globally, this is not just an American phenomenon. China and India are scaling back their coal plans because of terrible pollution in their cities. Peak coal worldwide happened in 2013. We are now on the downside of that, and in the US being a coal producer is a good way to lose your shirt.

John Endicott
Reply to  nayyer ali
November 26, 2019 10:54 am

Coal is declining for a simple reason

it isn’t, you know. Worldwide coal production increased last year (and the year before) led by China and India. and 2019 is shaping up to be a record high year for global coal production.

China and India are scaling back their coal plans because of terrible pollution in their cities

yeah, about that. sorry to break it to you but China *increased* it’s coal production last year by 2.9% and it’s coal imports by 4%. and India increased it’s coal production by 5.3%. so much for scaling back. It’s only in the west where politicians put up barriers (and subsidize the competition) in order to “fight climate change” that coal is seeing any decreases. That has little to do with the economics of coal and everything to do with the politics of the west.

nayyer ali
November 25, 2019 5:56 pm

If we could have an energy grid that doesnt lower our standard of living, creates no pollution, costs less than a fossil fuel based system, and doesnt put billions of dollars into the hands of foreign governments that are hostile to us, wouldnt we want it? If wind/solar/storage/EV’s can do that what’s wrong with switching over? I live in LA, and the thought of never having smog again is rather appealing. We are very close to the tipping point on costs, I have solar on my roof cause it saves me money, and I drive a hybrid for the same reason. Costs are dropping every year, by 2030 the economic case is going to be a no-brainer no matter where you live.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  nayyer ali
November 25, 2019 8:14 pm

nayyer ali

If wind/solar/storage/EV’s can do that what’s wrong with switching over?

Problem is, without real energy production subsidizing wind and solar and other taxpayers paying for “your” solar modules and California’s forced-economy political schemes mandating energy buy-backs and mandates, there would be “no wind/solar/storage/EV” systems at all in the real world.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  nayyer ali
November 26, 2019 3:46 am

You are a hopelessly brainwashed and delusional troll. Get a clue.

niceguy
Reply to  nayyer ali
November 26, 2019 4:11 am

If the cost is so low, what are all the subsidies for?

John Endicott
Reply to  nayyer ali
November 26, 2019 10:43 am

If we could have an energy grid that doesnt lower our standard of living, creates no pollution, costs less than a fossil fuel based system, and doesnt put billions of dollars into the hands of foreign governments that are hostile to us, wouldnt we want it?

Sounds great, what is this unicorn you speak of.

If wind/solar/storage/EV’s can do that what’s wrong with switching over?

If wind/solar/storage/EV’s can do that government wouldn’t need to subsidize wind/solar/storage/EV’s as the market would be willingly adopting it in droves. You see businesses and people, contrary to what you might believe, are (in general) not all that stupid. if they can get their energy cheaper, easier and more cleanly, they’d do so all on their own.

I have solar on my roof cause it saves me money, and I drive a hybrid for the same reason

And how much money did the government chip in for your solar and your hybrid so you could “save money”? Way more than you’ve “saved”.

Costs are dropping every year

If costs are “dropping” like you claim then why is it everywhere where subsides and tax credits are reduced/eliminated sees a massive drop in sales? without being able to suck on the government teat, wind/solar/storage/EVs are *not* cost effective.

Steven Mosher
November 25, 2019 9:42 pm

told you guys years ago coal was dead (walking around zombie like)
you had a shot at promoting Nukes and putting all your weight behind that.

but no.

WXcycles
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 25, 2019 11:09 pm

told you guys years ago coal was dead (walking around zombie like) …
————————————————————————

You’re so dreaming Mosh, claims are not facts, here are the facts:

BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019

Coal – Total World Production:

Million tonnes oil equivalent
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018
3410.0 | 3409.8 | 3601.4 | 3866.5 | 3909.1 | 3978.0 | 3966.0 | 3860.9 | 3660.8 | 3755.0 | 3916.8

Global coal production growth rate in 2018 = 4.3%
Global Net coal production growth from 2007 to 2017 = 1.3%

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-coal.pdf

Coal production is almost back to its 2013 peak and will most likely exceed it this year making 2019 or else 2020 that highest Coal production year ever. On page 6 you can see that the brief flirtation with uneconomic non-delivering “renewables” (i.e. unaffordable unreliables) experiment has come to an end, and China and Asia as a whole have switched back to coal consumption. While Africa’s not much interested in anything else.

Economics and not figments of ideologies determine what’s a marketable resource and what’s time and money wasting vaporware.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 25, 2019 11:09 pm

It is remarkable what Govn’t policy can do to a commodity. Next is meat…oh wait! We have here in Australia, Burger King promoting grass burgers. I prefer my meat burger grass fed too.

WXcycles
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 25, 2019 11:37 pm

Then there’s this, from yesterday:

Chinese investment in clean energy is plummeting

WNM | Nov 25, 2019 at 1:02 PM

Beijing, November 25 (WNM) – After benefiting from generous subsidies for more than a decade, China slashed subsidies for solar panel projects in the middle of last year and reduced them for wind, resulting in an abrupt shift, writes the Financial Times
( https://www.ft.com/content/be1250c6-0c4d-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67 ).

The change in policy is reflected in the renewable energy sector: Chinese investment in clean energy are falling – from $ 76 billion in the first half of 2017 to $ 29 billion in the first half of this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

https://world-news-monitor.com/top-news/2019/11/25/chinese-investment-in-clean-energy-is-plummeting/

There’s a real “zombie” Mosh, the term ‘graveyard-spiral’ springs to mind.

The ‘investment’ in unaffordables was a loser, so that experiment is coming to an end, as they’re getting back into coal plant building in a very big way.

That’s some good news for life on earth, eh? And in only 11 years humans will be gone too – Win-Win!

John Endicott
Reply to  WXcycles
November 26, 2019 10:28 am

Thanks for bringing facts to the table WXcycles. sadly it’s wasted on the drive-by king, but much appreciated by the rest of us all the same.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 26, 2019 10:34 am

told you guys years ago coal was dead (walking around zombie like)
you had a shot at promoting Nukes and putting all your weight behind that

Why do you assume it’s an either or? The world energy mix is comprised of several different fuel sources: coal, hydro, nat. gas, nukes, oil, wind, solar, etc. Nothing wrong with using the one that’s best suited for the purpose at an economically reasonable price. In some places that will be nuclear, in others (as China has shown with their massive appetite for energy) that will be coal.

November 25, 2019 9:47 pm

But with producers shutting down, where will I be able to buy a (small) lump of coal for someone’s stocking?

John Endicott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 26, 2019 10:36 am

China, as they’re the producers of 45% of the world coal production.

chris
November 26, 2019 12:46 pm

a billionaire failed to maintain his fortune by donating millions to Trump while he screwed his “low information” employees? #Socking!

but the bright side for die-hard Trump readers of this blog: bargains on West Virginia toxic waste dumps!

Verified by MonsterInsights