Like most of Wyoming, I would welcome the construction of new coal‑fired power plants.
When we hear that electricity demand is rising and utilities are extending the life of existing plants just to keep up, it’s hard to understand why companies aren’t investing in a resource that is cheap, abundant, reliable, and already part of our energy backbone.
The problem isn’t technology — coal generation has advanced just as other energy sources have. The real obstacle is idolators weaponizing regulation and manipulating economic forces.
Across the country, coal plants are being shut down not because they’re worn out, but because regulation has made these paid‑off assets more expensive to operate.
With proper maintenance, many could run for decades.
Scrapping them is like trading in a reliable, paid‑off truck for a brand‑new model and a mountain of debt.
People with financial sense don’t throw away functioning assets — and neither should utility companies.
Regulation itself isn’t the enemy. Prioritizing public safety and environmental stewardship is important. But environmental zealots have hijacked regulation, demanding a impracticable ransom to kill coal.
Coal plants are ordered to add new controls to operate, and someone must pay — utilities, shareholders, and ultimately ratepayers.
When no one wants to shoulder the cost, companies abandon coal for alternatives. Unreasonable regulation is how government busybodies seize power to control others.
The problem is not stewardship but excess. Coal remains competitive — until more regulation ties one arm behind its back.
This is where economics meets theology. Idolatry elevates creation above the Creator and human flourishing. Many have elevated the environment to something approaching an object of worship without much pushback.
They delight to sacrifice your standard of living to satiate their god — though the high cost is never enough to alleviate their fears, and there is little or no marginal benefit to ecosystems or anyone else. Christianity teaches stewardship — caring for creation without worshiping it.
That distinction matters. The question we should be asking is whether our environmental and safety regulations are economically rational.
Do they produce meaningful improvements in public health and environmental quality, or is it virtue signaling to make people feel good?
When a rule delivers little marginal benefit but imposes heavy marginal cost, it becomes a barrier to affordable energy rather than a tool of stewardship.
There is a logical sweet spot: the point where we achieve the greatest public and environmental benefit at the least marginal cost.
Some environmental impact and cost to utilities will remain, but it produces the best overall outcome for both people and the environment, realizing balance.
This is the essence of environmental economics—maximizing benefit while minimizing unnecessary burden.
The remaining environmental impact is part of the cost society bears for the extraordinary benefits of electricity. If people demand zero environmental impact while still expecting reliable power, they will pay dearly for it.
The alternative — unreliable or no electricity — is far worse for public safety and the environment. Yet U.S. energy policy for the last two decades has pursued the former and is drifting toward the latter.
Every choice carries a cost.
If we want the cheapest electricity with no environmental safeguards, taxpayers will pay through a damaged ecosystem and health impacts.
If we demand electricity with near‑zero risk, utilities will bear enormous compliance costs, pricing out coal as ratepayers face sky‑high bills.
The reasonable middle — affordable and reliable power with sensible environmental controls — requires acknowledging that zero risk is impossible.
Electricity improves every aspect of modern life. It raises people out of poverty, improves health, heats homes, powers hospitals, supports industries, and sustains communities.
Responsible stewardship means pursuing the greatest marginal benefit at the lowest marginal cost, not eliminating all risk at any price.
This is where the theological framing becomes unavoidable.
When society treats the created world as so sacred that no impact is tolerable, it has crossed from stewardship into idolatry.
And idolatry always demands sacrifice — usually from those least able to bear it. In this case, the sacrifice comes in the form of untenable energy costs, reduced reliability, and abandonment of valuable infrastructure already paid for by ratepayers.
This only makes sense in clown world.
Wyoming understands the value of its natural resources and the value of common sense.
We can protect the environment without worshiping it. We can pursue responsible regulation without crippling the systems that keep our society functioning.
And we can insist on policies grounded in economic reality rather than ideological purity.
Environmental economics offers a path forward — one that honors creation without idolizing it, supports human flourishing, and keeps electricity affordable.
That is the balance we should be striving for, and it is within reach if we have the courage to reject idolatry and return to the God of reason — King Jesus.
Scott Clem can be reached at: ScottClem@Live.com