Expert warns Kansas could face tighter electricity reserve margins as coal retirements outpace replacements

Randy Emminger, an industry representative who said he represents Wyoming and the National Mining Association, told the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications on Jan. 27 that coal-fired generation has declined across the Southwest Power Pool and Kansas, and that retirements are outpacing new dispatchable generation.

Emminger said the shift in the regional generation mix has raised reliability concerns. "I just wanna bring a little message about the importance of coal based generation," he told the committee, noting that planning authorities and federal agencies warn that capacity additions have not kept pace with retirements.

Emminger presented regional and state data showing a long-term decline in coal capacity. He said that a decade ago about 58% of Kansas's generating capacity was coal and roughly 22% wind; by 2023 he said wind accounted for roughly 47–51% of generation and coal about 28% of capacity (generating about 24% of electricity). He told the committee the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) region has seen coal fall from about 59% of generation in 2012 to roughly 27% today, while wind and solar have expanded.

Emminger highlighted capacity-factor differences by technology (nuclear at roughly 95%, coal and gas around 65–70%, and variable output for wind/solar) and cited studies and commentary from reliability bodies that, in his account, show rising short-term risk. He summarized recent analyses he attributed to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as indicating elevated risk of energy shortfalls during extreme summer and winter peak periods starting in the mid-2020s and a declining reserve margin for SPP.

He said 15 power plants in SPP have closed in recent years (one nuclear, seven natural gas and seven coal in his figures, representing about 4,700 megawatts) and that utilities have announced another nine plant retirements totalling roughly 5,700 megawatts in coming years. Emminger listed three Kansas units among plants scheduled for retirement in coming years and attributed his retirement-date figures to EIA data while noting utilities (he said "Evergy can correct me with those numbers") may have more precise schedules.

On replacement generation, Emminger said SPP interconnection studies show the majority of new projects coming online through 2030 are wind, solar and battery storage (he cited roughly 87% non‑baseload or hybrid projects and about 13% baseload technologies). He told the committee that canceled and delayed natural-gas projects, transmission siting delays and a cluster of environmental regulations affecting fossil plants have compounded the challenge of replacing retiring capacity quickly.

Committee members asked about the carbon regulation timeline, technologies for carbon capture, the Dry Fork mine-mouth plant’s efficiency and emissions controls, and the effect of SPP’s recent western expansion. Emminger described technical and siting barriers to rapid natural-gas and transmission additions and said carbon capture technologies exist but are expensive and require long-term storage solutions.

Emminger also noted environmental performance improvements at Kansas coal plants: sulfur emissions down about 97% and NOx down about 88% between 2001 and 2023, which he attributed in part to controls and to plant closures that reduced total emissions.

The presentation concluded with committee discussion about regional interconnections, the role of nuclear and small modular reactors, and follow-up questions about specific plant performance and the carbon rule; no committee action or vote resulted from the presentation.

Ending: Emminger opened the floor for questions and committee members discussed follow-up briefings; staff and members signaled interest in further data on reserve margins, plant retirement dates, and the timeline for proposed replacements.