Recent administrative efforts to endorse new coal-fired power plants and repair outdated plants are making my blood boil. For more than 30 years, I have worked tirelessly along with thousands of other public health and climate scientists to understand the very real public health threats posed by burning fossil fuels like coal. Coal-fired power plants are some of the worst offenders when it comes to causing harm to human health and the environment. In addition to being a health hazard for anyone living downwind of the coal-burning plants, it’s more expensive and less reliable than other cleaner sources for power.

Let’s look at some of the reasons why coal is bad for health. 

• When coal is burned in power plants, it releases soot – tiny particles that get deep into people’s lungs and bloodstreams. Mercury in soot is also a severe health hazard because it releases a potent neurotoxin that contributes to many chronic illnesses. Exposure to soot is linked to cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease, neurological and developmental disorders. Children and senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to impacts from coal-fired soot.
• Coal ash, the hazardous residue left after coal is burned, is a concoction of toxic metals (like lead, mercury and arsenic), cancer-causing compounds, and other dangerous substances. Power plants produce about 70 million tons of it each year. In April 2026, the Trump EPA proposed weakening federal coal ash standards.
• In 2023, a study published in Science magazine reported that:
  • Air pollution from coal power plants is associated with greater mortality than previously thought.
  • Such deaths have decreased due to air pollution regulations and coal power plant retirements.

Coal is not cheap

Prior to this administration, many utilities had already started phasing out coal plants in favor of clean energy because coal plants often need expensive repairs and emit costly, dirty fuel. Coal power is so expensive that, according to a 2023 study, 99% of the time it would be cheaper to get electricity by building entirely new wind and solar farms than it would be to buy power from existing coal plants. 

The Trump administration announced plans to provide up to $500 million in funding to coal-fired power plants in 10 states, along with an export terminal in California. The Columbia Energy Center, coal-fired plant co-owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas and Electric, and Wisconsin Public Service near Pardeeville, is expected to receive $19 million in federal funding for a modernization project. The plant was originally scheduled to retire by 2024. Alliant is exploring a gas conversion for one of the two primary generating units, so there is a potential for continued operations beyond the end of 2029 (the updated retirement date for the facility).

Note the Columbia plant has released more emissions of the health-harming pollutants nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide than any other Wisconsin coal-fired power plant from 2019 to 2023, the most recent five years for which data are available.

Additional costs for coal-fired energy also come from federal taxpayers subsidizing the industry for nearly 100 years. In 2026, the subsidies will be around $5.5 billion. Plus think about all the additional costs that taxpayers must absorb from the impacts of air pollutants on their health – at a time when healthcare subsidies have lapsed for millions of Americans.

There is no such thing as clean or cheap coal. As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, it’s more than time for a real Energy Independence Day from throwback policies that harm Americans and a focus on cleaner energy sources that protect human health and the environment.

A Columbia County coal plant previously slated for retirement that is expected to receive millions of dollars from the Trump administration to “modernize” its operations dramatically increased its pollutant emissions in 2025. 

Columbia Energy Center in Pardeeville is jointly owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas & Electric and Wisconsin Public Service and was initially set to close by the end of 2024. But that retirement was pushed back first to 2026 and then to 2029. 

Earlier this month, the Trump administration listed the plant as one of the beneficiaries of more than $700 million in spending to prop up the coal industry. The plant is expected to get $19 million through funding from the Defense Production Act. 

“Our action will allow these facilities to invest in upgrades that will extend their operational lives for decades into the future, reinforce the reliability of our electric grid, which is really the biggest beneficiary, and most importantly, keep electricity prices very low for the American people,” Trump said in a June 4 Oval Office news conference. 

Department of Natural Resources records show that the pollution emitted by the plant massively increased last year — a sign that the utility companies were ramping up the plant’s usage beyond its planned retirement date. 

In 2024, according to the DNR data, the plant emitted 3.9 million pounds of carbon monoxide. That jumped to 6.6 million pounds last year. Carbon dioxide emissions increased from 11 billion pounds in 2024 to 14 billion in 2025. 

Emissions of particulate matter, which is connected to health problems such as asthma, nearly doubled from 362,833 pounds to 685,876. 

The amount of nitrogen oxide, ammonia, lead, arsenic and cyanide pumped into the air by the plant all increased last year, the DNR report shows. 

Alliant Energy spokesperson Cindy Tomlinson told the Examiner that the plant’s life had to be extended to meet the midwest’s energy demand.

“In recent years, to meet MISO requirements and the energy needs of the Midwest, the plant has run more frequently, however it continues to operate in the normal range and in full compliance with the air permit requirements,” she said. “Our application and the potential $19 million grant award, provides us with an opportunity to cost-effectively modernize Columbia — an existing cornerstone in the American energy infrastructure. If awarded the grant, funds would be used to lower costs on several planned projects that are designed to maintain reliable and safe operations at the plant.”

But climate and health advocates say that the utility companies’ refusal to transition away from fossil fuels, and the Trump administration’s embrace of the industry will have dramatic effects on the health of Wisconsinites. 

“Coal makes us sick, coal kills people, coal poisons our water, coal causes so much harm that is so well documented that it is almost unthinkable that in 2026 our government would use our taxpayer dollars to continue with this technology,” Brittany Keyes, clean air policy manager for Healthy Climate Wisconsin, said. “There’s no such thing as clean coal, and the utilities running with our taxpayer dollars to continue to burn coal longer is taking Wisconsin backwards.” 

Modeling data from the EPA shows that shutting down the plant would result in 2,600 fewer asthma attacks, 1,200 fewer missed school days, and at least four fewer premature deaths statewide each year.

Amy Barilleaux, spokesperson for Clean Wisconsin, says that the state and its utilities are making that health tradeoff even though the coal needs to be imported from elsewhere. 

“I think Wisconsinites know we don’t have coal here. We have to get coal shipped in or trained into Wisconsin,” Barilleaux said. “It’s extremely expensive, so we have the extreme expense on the front end. Wisconsinites are being asked to foot the bill to keep expensive coal plants open, because of AI. Because the Trump administration says we need to support all the energy demands that are needed by tech companies. Then at the same time you have this giveaway potentially to fossil fuel companies saying, ‘Well, we’re gonna, you know, make it really hard, as hard as possible,’ to have clean energy that we do make in Wisconsin. We do have sunshine, we do have wind.” 

The plant’s life has been extended at a moment when the future of Wisconsin’s energy is at the forefront of the state’s political debate. The massive energy demand of the hyperscale data centers being constructed across the state and the rise in electric bills that have followed have drawn frustration from voters across the political aisle. 

The state’s Republicans are running on a desire to continue the reliance on fossil fuels. When Trump appeared at an Eau Claire dairy farm for an event earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, running for reelection in the hotly contested 3rd Congressional District, touted the president’s support of “beautiful, clean coal.” U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, has for years fought against the development of solar energy in his northern Wisconsin district. 

Democrats meanwhile are running on lowering energy costs. State Rep. Francesca Hong has run on a statewide data center moratorium while former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes has promised to appoint people to the Public Service Commission who will work to keep utility rates frozen. 

Barilleaux said the state would be less susceptible to outside influence on its energy policy if it enacted “integrated resource management,” a system used in other states that requires public utilities to get their future plans approved and publicized by state regulators. 

“Wisconsin does not have to be hurt by these mandates coming down from the Trump administration, these rolling back of regulations,” she said. “If our utilities had just gone ahead and kept their word and shut down the coal plants when they said they would, we wouldn’t have to be having a conversation like this right now, so we could have protected ourselves from this moment, and we still can, like other states.” 

She said Wisconsin needs lawmakers who are willing to stand up to the utility companies. 

“Wisconsin does not have to be as vulnerable as it is to both this Wild West of energy plans that we’re in right now, and to the whims of whoever is in the presidency, we don’t have to be hurt by the way we produce energy, we don’t have to be in this situation,” she said.