The decline of coal power in the United States has sparked significant political discourse, particularly with recent efforts by the Trump administration and Congress aimed at reducing regulations and increasing subsidies to bolster the coal industry. However, a closer examination reveals that the story of coal’s diminishing market presence is more about market dynamics than a so-called ‘war on coal’ by politicians, particularly Democrats.
Historically, coal has been a cornerstone of electricity generation in the U.S., with production peaking at just over 2,000 terawatt hours in 2007. From 2001 to 2008, coal accounted for approximately half of the nation’s electricity generation. This trend, however, began to shift dramatically in 2009, marking the start of coal’s systematic decline.
Proponents of the coal industry often attribute this downturn to President Barack Obama’s policies and regulations that, they argue, rendered coal uncompetitive. Yet, a critical question arises: if such policies were indeed the primary cause of coal’s struggles, why didn’t the industry recover after the end of Obama’s presidency or following various legal defeats of those regulations in court?
The absence of new investments in coal power plants in the U.S. underscores a more complex issue. If coal remained a viable and profitable energy source, investors would likely seize the opportunity to capitalize on its potential. Instead, the current trajectory suggests that capital is being directed elsewhere, and the growth of alternative energy sources is telling.
Looking at the broader landscape of the electric power sector, coal’s decline aligns closely with a significant rise in the utilization of natural gas. Between 2001 and 2024, coal’s share of electricity generation plummeted from 54 percent to a projected 15 percent, while natural gas surged from 18 percent to an impressive 43 percent. In simple terms, coal lost 39 percent of its market share, with natural gas effectively capturing 25 percent of it. Additionally, renewable sources such as wind and solar have captured around 17 percent of the market during this time, illustrating a clear trend toward cleaner energy alternatives.
While some may attribute coal’s struggles to renewable energy subsidies, a pivotal factor is the stark comparison with natural gas. Natural gas, unlike renewables, has not received the same level of subsidy support in the market. Moreover, as a thermal resource, it serves as a direct substitute for coal. The timing of natural gas’s ascendancy coincides remarkably with declining prices fuelled by advancements in extraction technology, particularly directional drilling. Since 2008, natural gas prices have plummeted by about 69 percent, while coal has become more expensive, with an increase of 16 percent since that year.
Further reinforcing this shift has been the improved thermal efficiency of natural gas power plants, presenting an attractive case for investors and energy producers. The shift away from coal and towards natural gas and renewables can be understood through the lens of economic theory known as ‘creative destruction.’ This process illustrates how older industries often cede ground to emerging, more efficient technologies, a trend evident in numerous aspects of modern life, from transportation to communication technologies.
Despite the tangible impact of regulatory measures on the coal industry, these political factors do not adequately explain coal’s market decline. The deeper reality is that consumers and investors are gravitating towards more competitive energy sources. This is, ultimately, a question of consumer preference and market adaptation rather than an outright suppression of coal by government policies.
The ongoing policy conversations, including recent bills aimed at adjusting royalty rates and extending subsidies for coal under the Defense Production Act, reveal a misguided approach to revitalizing the coal industry. Empirical evidence indicates that coal’s struggles stem from natural market forces and fail to substantiate the idea that market interventions would resolve its challenges.
Attempts to prop up coal power through subsidies risk distorting market mechanisms and hinder economic growth. Previous analyses have shown that providing subsidies for mature technologies such as wind and solar is economically detrimental, and similar reasoning holds true for coal.
As highlighted in a past piece from R Street, reclaiming outdated energy sources will not make progress toward a future powered by innovation and efficiency. The pathway to economic improvement lies in allowing market dynamics to flourish, fostering the ongoing process of creative destruction that propels productivity and enhances quality of life.
In summary, while the discussion around coal power continues to be a front in the political arena, the undercurrents of market evolution reveal a different narrative. The decline of coal is not merely the result of regulatory pressures but fundamentally reflects a transition towards more efficient and cost-effective energy solutions in an ever-evolving energy landscape.
image source from：rstreet
