Why Should We Keep New Mexico’s Remaining Coal Plant in Service? It’s Essential.

By Jim Constantopoulos

Shut down New Mexico’s last remaining coal plant (Four Corners Generating Station), environmentalists say, and replace it with renewable energy. But coal is a practical fuel, affordable and dependable. Being generically against coal is no more useful than being generically against electricity. Electricity demand is rapidly rising. Electric vehicles, new AI data centers, and a growing economy simply mean we need more power. And we need reliable power.

While new additions of electricity generation remain dominated by intermittent wind and solar power, keeping what we already have on the grid will be critically important to meeting our energy needs and doing so affordably. Across the country, electricity prices have risen faster than the pace of inflation over the past few years. If we tear down our existing sources of reliable power at the very moment electricity demand begins to soar, even higher prices will be an inevitability.

With everyone I’ve encountered who is really immersed in energy issues, the common view is that we need every available energy source, ranging from renewables and nuclear power to coal, just to keep the lights on. Frankly, we all tend to take the on-demand delivery of electricity for granted. We shouldn’t. In just the past month, power demand eclipsed available supply in Louisiana, forcing the grid operator there to institute rolling blackouts (“load shed”) for 100,000 customers on a 90-degree day.

For years, the nation’s grid reliability regulators have been warning of emerging problems. In fact, the nation’s grid reliability watchdog warned that more than half of the nation could face the threat of blackouts over the next decade if we don’t take corrective action to boost our supply of power. This summer, the PJM interconnection grid operator said Maryland is at elevated risk of supply shortages during periods of peak demand. It may be hard to grasp, but we’re staring down a power supply crisis years in the making. Now, the collision of rapidly rising power demand with the loss of the nation’s coal fleet is coming to a head.

We desperately need the coal plants we have left, and the Department of Energy (DOE) has recognized it. In fact, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently issued an emergency order to keep a coal-fired power plant in Michigan running through the summer to bolster the MISO grid, which stretches from Louisiana all the way up through Michigan and Wisconsin. That plant was being forced off the grid 15 years before the end of its life by anti-coal regulatory policy. DOE’s position is a simple one: we can’t afford to lose existing plants with so many states critically short of power. The looming threat of power shortages is altering the national perspective about coal. Instead of a problem to solve, our coal plants are a critically important reliability backstop that we need as a bridge to our energy future.

For the foreseeable future, new sources of power should come on the shoulders of these reliability bulwarks, not in place of them. Rotating blackouts, rising prices and missed economic opportunities for lack of power are wholly avoidable if we simply embrace the full suite of energy resources at our disposal. Recognizing the ongoing importance of our coal plants is just the place to begin.

Dr. Jim Constantopoulos is a Professor of Geology and the Director of the Miles Mineral Museum at Eastern New Mexico University. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.7 14 votes
Article Rating
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sparta Nova 4
July 22, 2025 2:07 pm

Truth.

2hotel9
July 22, 2025 2:23 pm

Need to do a major expansion of that coal fired plant. Strip money out of wind and solar to do it.

Rud Istvan
July 22, 2025 2:23 pm

While empathetic to the sentiments expressed in this post, not realistic in light of basic facts.
Four Corners was built in two tranches. Units 1,2,3 opened 1963-64. Larger units 4,5 opened in 1969-70 having a combined capacity of 1540MW.

The average age to retirement of an old coal plant in the US is 42 years.

Four Corners 1,2,3 were retired in 2014–after 51 years.

The still operating Four Corners units 4,5 are now 56 years old. They will be retired very soon. Nothing to do with renewables or not. Age alone.

As the adjacent Four Corners coal field is not depleted, the question is what to replace them with. CCGT has a lower LCOE than USC coal. So the economic answer is run a natgas pipeline from the New Mexico portion of the Permian Basin over to Four Corners (about 240 miles), and replace Four Corners units 4,5 with one CCGT equivalently or larger sized. The newish CCGT in Port Everglades is 2400MW as a factual comparison.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 22, 2025 5:03 pm

Keeping Four Corners as a coal
plant is a political decision. One has to judge the probability of a NetZero fanboy administration coming back into
power.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 22, 2025 5:56 pm

Even easier, there is a large natural gas cryogenic plant at Ignacio that could easily provide pipeline quality natural gas.less than 100 Mi.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 22, 2025 6:58 pm

Your statement

“… coal field is not depleted, the question is what to replace them with. CCGT has a lower LCOE than USC coal”

is not even logical, it’s a non sequitur.
Worse, you seem to know nothing of the region, the people and other factors involved in the San Juan Basin / 4-Corners-Region. I’d invite anyone to review the historic tragic decision to close the (coal-fired) Navajo Generating Station (near Page, Arizona, on the border with Utah). Both are Navajo (Diné) Nation operations that (along with the coal mines, processing & transport / railway) offer high-paying and stable (skilled) jobs, to the local people, to exploit the mineral resources under their ancestral lands, to produce and also export a valuable product (reliable electric power) to distant cities. I have witnessed that promises, made (by the USA and its States, e.g. Arizona) to these people, have been casually broken on the basis of such short-sighted economic arguments.
Note the contrast to your suggestion: to pipe in gas from a distant (non-Diné) land, the Permian, and process this to produce power (mainly) for export to yet another!
Finally, there’s this [see below, 70% of New Mexico’s natural gas production is already there, locally — so that they can, with sufficient investment and unwinding the regulatory red tape, have both ‘CCGT’ and modernized supercritical-steam coal-fired power generation such as one sees being installed in the PRC and even India.

The petroleum industry in Northwest New Mexico, particularly within the San Juan Basin, is a significant contributor to the state’s energy production, with a strong focus on natural gas. While the Permian Basin in southeastern New Mexico is the state’s major oil producer, the San Juan Basin is a major source of natural gas, including coalbed methane. The basin also produces some crude oil, and oil production is growing with the application of advanced drilling technologies. 

Retiredinky
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 23, 2025 7:46 am

Good discussion and comments. My power has been reliable in the summer and winter and I am not aware of forced blackouts like mentioned in the article. Is there a site that compiles forced outages with cause, duration and number effected? This info might be enlightening.

Bob
July 22, 2025 3:08 pm

We do not have a power or energy problem, we have a government problem. A government fixated on wind and solar. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators and we have plenty of energy for everyone. Wind and solar can not supply the grid, everybody knows that stop pissing our money and resources away on them. It is just stupid.

Reply to  Bob
July 22, 2025 5:53 pm

Yes, ditch the windmills and solar. Incorporating them into the national grid is the cause of our problems.

Bruce Cobb
July 22, 2025 3:52 pm

“New sources of power”? The only ones I can think of might be SMRs or perhaps nuclear fusion. For now though, what we need are coal, gas, and nuclear fission. We need less wind and solar, not more, as it is bad for the grid and bad for our wallets.

Tom Halla
July 22, 2025 5:08 pm

Undoing perverse incentives that encourage utilities to close written down facilities in favor of new weather dependent sources like wind and solar are the issue. Putting strong incentives in favor of dispatchable sources might be effective, as well as accelerating the removal of subsidies and incentives for wind and solar.

July 22, 2025 5:57 pm

The national electric grids never had any blackout problems until windmills and industrial solar were added.

Before windmills and industrial solar = No problems on the grid.

After windmills and industrial solar = BIG problems on the grid.

The problem has been identified. Now, fix it. I think the Trump administration is going to do so.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 22, 2025 10:49 pm

It is not that simple. The issue is the decadal long failure to invest in infrastructure. Privatisation has been a failure around the world for that reason. Company directors get
rewarded on short term rises in share prices rather than securing the long term viability
of the company. Look at the situation in the UK with water companies. Privatisation has resulted in 80 billion pounds being sucked out of the companies over 20 years with no investment in new plants or pipes leaving the companies bankrupt.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 23, 2025 7:20 am

True.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2025 7:20 am

I beg to differ. Had you written blackout RISKS, I would be all in.

There have been blackouts and there always will be. The relevant question how large and how frequent.

There was a major blackout due to a tree taking out an interconnector in Ohio coupled with a software bug. NYC and most of the northeast were in blackout for more than a day.

Nothing is perfect. The world is not safe. A random meteor could wreak havoc, for example.

John Hultquist
July 22, 2025 7:30 pm

 James Constantopoulos has degrees from the University of Idaho (1985 & ’89). Geography where my wife still was, was in the same building. I had given up on academics by then but still knew the geologists and mining crowd. Go James!

July 23, 2025 10:26 am

A power outage in the Santa Barbara (California) area caused air-traffic control problems between LA and San Luis Obispo, ground-stops at Santa Barbara airport, and caused a scrub of a SpaceX launch:

SpaceX launch set for tomorrow after widespread power outage scrubs mission at last minute

July 23, 2025 3:39 pm

LCOE is a bogus metric designed by Lazard rent-seekers. LCOE only values the discount period, not the actual life cycle of a plant, among other objections. Full Cost of Energy, FCOE, is essential to apply. It never is. Natural gas (NG) is an excellent fuel, but is better used for other purposes than base electricity production. For example, fertilizer production, residential heating, food preparation, and load following, are the proper domains of NG, purposes for which it is extremely convenient. Coal, in modern USC power plants, is clean and efficient. The rubbish about CO2 as a pollutant can now be dismissed, or NG would be excluded too. If government regulation were designed to attain energy efficiency along with environmental safety, then coal would not be more expensive than natural gas, under FCOE. The coal plants in NM already were in operation for 50 years and could operate for 60-70 years – time in which to build modern USC plants. The life cycle for coal plants has been shortened by activist-induced early termination. CCGT plants have ~35 year life spans when used as load followers. Base load use results in shorter operational lives and higher costs. At least TWO must be built, doubling the cost, to replace one equivalent coal plant.
AND, do not forget, the USA is blessed with the world’s largest coal resource. Its safe use is easy.