[philipkglass]

Coal is the greater problem. In the short term, undermining coal power with either non-combustion energy sources or NG is an improvement. Building new NG plants and transport facilities doesn't have a large carbon footprint. The life cycle footprint of electricity from gas is dominated by actual gas consumption. Even if electricity from NG has a life cycle GHG footprint that's as about as bad as coal, due to lax control over fugitive emissions, NG emits far less mercury, acid gases, and harmful particulates.

If renewable energy costs continue to decline as expected, RE will be able to deeply cannibalize NG demand too after coal is gone. If batteries continue to make cost progress, even an increasing portion of "windless night time" demand will be up for grabs from renewables. That will in turn decrease gas demand from power plants and all the associated emissions. Plant load factors for natural gas will fall when competing against renewables just as coal plant load factors did when competing against cheaper NG and renewables. If all goes well, NG will end up as a stranded asset in more and more locations, as is already happening to coal.

I hope to see stronger regulatory action to curtail emissions intensity of electricity generation, but the great thing about improving economics of lower-emissions alternatives is that the pressure against emissions stays there regardless of who has the political upper hand. The Clean Power Plan undermines coal only if the Clean Power Plan has the political support it needs. Falling prices for renewable electricity and natural gas undermine coal regardless of who's been elected:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/luminant-to-close-2-more-tex...