With 59 coal power plants scrapped last year, the industry is fighting to make sure it can emerge from the climate change debate with a guaranteed spot in the nation's energy future. Even as critics call for shuttering coal plants, the industry is shopping new uses for the fuel, such as converting it into synthetic diesel and jet fuel through a proposed group of coal-to-liquids plants.
In recent years, the industry has enjoyed a strong ally in President Bush. He steered hundreds of millions of dollars to develop technologies that could reduce coal emissions.
But momentum against coal-fired power has been building. Reid, who criticized Lucas' group for spreading ''misleading'' information during the buildup to the Nevada caucuses, said recently that coal was ''ruining the world.''
Waxman recently called for a ban on new coal-fired power plants unless they reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In January, the Energy Department pulled the plug on the industry-supported FutureGen project, a $1.8 billion bid to build a plant that would emit little carbon dioxide. The department cited soaring cost projections.
The top presidential candidates are reluctant to draw a hard line against coal. Instead, they advocate government investments in new technologies to capture carbon from coal plants and store it underground.
Sen. Barack Obama, for example, wants existing plants retrofitted with carbon-capture technology ''as soon as it is commercially available.'' Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who acknowledges the intense economic pressures to use the fuel, supports projects that are at least partially cleaner than current technologies allow.
Sen. John McCain has also talked about federally subsidized research to find a way to limit greenhouse gases. But McCain gets low marks from the industry for his past sponsorship of a cap-and-trade system that would limit carbon emissions.
Some opponents who have fought coal plants over health issues are now backing climate change legislation that would preserve coal's role as a major player in the energy industry.
''We have no love affair for coal,'' said Jonathan Banks of the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force. But, he added, ''we're not going to get a climate policy by destroying the coal industry.''
The companies bankrolling Americans for Balanced Energy Choices include mining giants Peabody, Consol, and Arch Coal; railways Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, BNSF and CSX; and utilities Southern Company, American Electric Power and Duke Energy. Combined, those companies are worth more than $200 billion.
The coal industry has given a combined $38 million to federal candidates since stepping up their climate change campaign three years ago. More than 65 percent went to Republicans, according to an analysis of campaign data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
But utility companies that burn coal are now putting almost half their money behind Democrats. Obama topped the list of all recipients this cycle with $248,000. Clinton was second with $200,000, and McCain was ninth with $93,000.
The Center for Responsive Politics' Massie Ritsch said the coal industry's historical ''true color'' is red, but with Democrats controlling Congress and making a strong run at the White House, ''they're having to renew some friendships with Democrats.''
___
Associated Press writer Matt Gouras reported from Helena, Mont.