January 16, 2026 - The operator of America’s largest power grid is paying more for less electricity — and a new study suggests one reason could be the push to replace cheaper-running coal plants.

PJM Interconnection, the nonprofit charged with keeping the lights on across 13 states and the District of Columbia, procured  more than 134,000 megawatts of generating capacity at its most recent auction to cover the 2027-2028 period.

However, the auction still fell short of the reliability requirement by more than 6,600 MW.

“This auction leaves no doubt that data centers’ demand for electricity continues to far outstrip new supply,” said Stu Bresler, PJM’s chief operating officer.

PJM issued a similar warning in 2024, projecting that up to 58,000 MW of fossil-fuel generating capacity could retire by 2030 without replacement. That timeline could accelerate as large data centers connect to the power grid, driving demand across the region.

The power crunches have also led to higher prices. In 2023, PJM paid $2.2 billion to procure more than 140,000 MW of capacity. In its latest auction, costs rose to $16.4 billion for 134,000 MW.

Some industry analysts and coal industry groups argue that the conditions could look very different if existing coal plants had not been retired as quickly. A new study by Energy Venture Analysts , commissioned by America’s Power, a national coal advocacy group, suggests that keeping existing coal plants online longer could save electricity customers between $3 billion and $54 billion annually.

The analysis found that power companies plan to retire nearly 42 gigawatts of coal plants by 2028, enough power to support up to 50 large data centers.

The study argued it would take far more installed wind and solar capacity to replace retiring coal plants, reflecting the lower and less consistent output of intermittent resources.

The study argues that wind turbines and solar panels are more expensive to maintain than existing coal plants. According to the study, maintaining replacement solar capacity would cost $60 billion yearly, while wind turbines cost $11 billion. In contrast, coal plants cost $6 billion.

Michelle Bloodworth, the president and CEO of America’s Power, said the findings support an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes coal.

“Keeping coal plants open, rather than retiring them, is a good way to avoid unnecessary increases in electricity prices,” she said.

The study also argues that coal plants provide greater reliability during extreme winter weather, when natural gas infrastructure and wind generation can be constrained.

Regulators and utilities in at least 19 states have slowed or reversed planned coal retirements, citing concerns about grid reliability and costs.

Some energy consultants have been more blunt in their criticism of the rapid shift to renewables.

Trisha Curtis, the CEO of PetroNerds, blamed plant retirements on environmentalists pushing unrealistic Net Zero carbon-emission goals.

“When they started shoving the wind and solar into the grid, as fast as they did, now they have rising electricity prices, and now they have actual power demand, and we don’t have enough power,” she said.

Other analysts, including the Institute for Energy Research, emphasized that regulatory delays and legal challenges prevent new power generation from connecting to the grid, reinforcing the need to maintain existing resources, including coal plants, for grid stability. PJM officials said 57 gigawatts of projects are delayed due to local opposition, permitting delays, financing challenges or supply chain constraints.

The Department of Energy has taken steps to prevent more coal plants from closing. It issued 16 emergency orders last year focusing on grid reliability and affordability, including one that delayed the planned retirement of a coal-fired plant in Washington.