- Pipelines = Cheaper Gas. More pipelines mean reduced oil and gas prices, meaning less reason to burn coal. Although coal remains cheaper than gas, there are more costs associated with burning coal (unloading, stockpiling, grinding to dust, emissions controls, boiler fouling, increased wear, coal ash disposal). And since most people like cheaper fuel and gasoline, most people at least tacitly like things that make gas cheaper. This will lead to continued at least quiet bipartisan support of fracing.
- Time Line--Utility Plant Move Slowly. Even if coal were significantly cheaper than gas--which more pipelines and drilling prevent--power plants are decades in the planning and construction. If you were budgeting for a power plant, would you propose coal, knowing that the neighbors will oppose permitting and that the regulatory pendulum will swing back in 4 years, but no more than 8? No matter my political temperament, I would not see this as a long term strategy. I would not stake my job on a coal-burning plant that would be shut down a few years after it opened. Therefore, planning of new coal plants is very unlikely. At most a few might go through a few motions, but they won't commit the money.
- Clean Coal. I'm an engineer and like the science. But I wouldn't invest in something that is economically marginal and still politically vulnerable.
- Most States Determine Their Own Rules. I know several coal plants that were closed, all the result of local pressure. States can set their own rules. A change at the federal level will have no influence on most closures. Finally, no matter how conservative the voter, no coal plant will receive support at the local level (NIMBY).
- Health Care. Unemployed miners should be able to figure out where that is headed.
I'm not even sayin' whether this is good or bad, it's just what the facts reflect. You don't put the genie back in the bottle. Historically, can't ignore the bloody shirt, and there is a case against coal that goes far beyond global warming.