Coal-fired power plant planned for Railbelt would be first in over a decade in entire country

 

By THE ALASKA STORY

March 19, 2026 – A major energy proposal taking shape in Alaska could mark a turning point for the US coal industry, with developers announcing plans for what would be the nation’s first new coal-fired power plant in more than a decade.

Terra Energy Center, an Alaska-focused developer with ties to the earlier Flatlands Energy concept, is advancing a multi-billion-dollar project in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough that would combine coal, biomass, and carbon capture technology into a single large-scale power facility.

The announcement, highlighted in a March 16 fact sheet from the US Department of the Interior, comes as part of broader energy discussions during the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Ministerial and Business Forum in Tokyo.

At the center of the proposal is a roughly 400-megawatt supercritical coal-and-biomass-fired plant planned for the West Susitna/Skwentna area. Terra Energy Center has committed approximately $1 billion toward the effort and reached an in-principle agreement with Hyundai Heavy Industries Power Systems to supply key boiler technology. Additional financial backing includes a reported $500 million equity investment from KOREIT, underscoring growing international interest in Alaska energy infrastructure.

The facility would be paired with a new coal mine tapping local reserves and a carbon capture and storage system designed to reduce emissions. Captured carbon dioxide would be transported 60 miles by pipeline to the depleted Beluga River gas field for “permanent sequestration.” Developers estimate total costs at approximately $2.2 billion for the plant itself and another $1.3 billion for carbon capture infrastructure, with potential offsets from federal tax credits and possible grants from the US Department of Energy.

While some early references have suggested the project could eventually scale up to as much as 1.25 gigawatts, the most consistent details point to a 400 MW core facility as the initial phase.

The proposal stands out against the backdrop of a long-term decline in the use of coal power across the United States. Coal now accounts for roughly 16% of US electricity generation, down sharply from more than 50% in previous decades as utilities have shifted toward natural gas, renewables, and other sources. No new coal plants have been brought online in the US since 2013.

The Alaska project reflects changing energy dynamics, including rising electricity demand driven by data centers and industrial growth, as well as the need for reliable baseload power on the Railbelt grid. The project could also help preserve Southcentral Alaska’s constrained natural gas supplies for home heating and other critical uses.

The development aligns with broader federal policy signals under the Trump administration emphasizing domestic resource development and energy security, particularly in strategic regions like Alaska.

At the same time, the project faces significant hurdles. It remains in the early planning stages and will require extensive permitting, additional financing, and long-term power purchase agreements to move forward. Analysts note that while carbon capture technology could address some emissions concerns, coal projects continue to face economic and regulatory headwinds nationwide.

Terra Energy Center’s proposal raises the possibility that Alaska could become the testing ground for a new generation of coal power.

Latest Post

Comments

15 thoughts on “Coal-fired power plant planned for Railbelt would be first in over a decade in entire country”
  1. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to such a project would be the refusal of Chugach Electric to purchase power generated from coal. The Chugach Board, for reasons that are not clear, has committed to “decarbonize” the utility. Apparently the Board believes, based on an “everybody knows” standard, that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to humanity. Somehow, burning molecules of CH4 is exempt from this plan but what the heck.

    Statistics reflect that advanced societies generally require and consume a lot of energy. Availability of a lot of energy probably creates stress for some environmentalists. One way to limit such stress would be to avoid creating an advanced society. That seems to the path for many these days in Alaska.

    1. JMARK says: The Chugach Board, for reasons that are not clear, has committed to “decarbonize” the utility.

      Respectfully disagree. The commitment to decarbonize is entirely due to a lockstep majority of REAP (Renewable Energy Alaska Project) members elected over the last three elections. REAP is all renewables, all the time. It is their religion. Happily, generated electricity is fungible. If Chugach refuses to purchase, I expect MEA and GVEA will purchase, putting downward pressure on what Chugach has planned for the future (large scale solar and wind projects). Those projects won’t proceed under this president, but they might should a democrat be elected in 2028. Cheers –

      1. “……..JMARK says: The Chugach Board, for reasons that are not clear, has committed to “decarbonize” the utility.
        Respectfully disagree. The commitment to decarbonize is entirely due to a lockstep majority of REAP (Renewable Energy Alaska Project) members elected over the last three elections. REAP is all renewables, all the time. It is their religion………”
        The bottom line is that we (Alaskans who need electric power) are screwed. This political takeover is the Californication of our electric utility. I know of no feasible planning by CEA to provide power for the future from a “decarbonized” source, and we’ve all heard of the removal of the Eklutna Dam (a provider of 17% of the railbelt’s power, and from a “decarbonized” source) in order to renew a questionable coho salmon run on lands controlled by an entity who is almost sure to close off access to.
        The future is clear: we’re in deep trouble, and that is due to ideological/social/political warfare.

    2. Fairbanks LOVES coal, especially UAF. Just keep old Usibelli rolling in those big donor checks to UAF, most of which go to the wacko departments who study air pollution and climate change for a living.

  2. Who owns Terra? Alaska “focused”? Who owns KOREIT?
    Those are the first questions.
    Carbon capture is a grift. The earth REQUIRES 2- 4% carbon ppm for flora (and fauna) to survive. Current ppm are at 2.4 ppm globally. India & China are the worst offenders.

  3. KOREIT (Korea Real Estate Investment & Trust Co., Ltd.), listed on the KOSPI (034830), is primarily controlled by MK Electron (MKE) and its related entities. As of early 2026, MK Investment and MK Electron hold significant stakes, with MK Investment holding a major portion (approx. 24–28%) after taking management control in 2015.
    한국투자증권
    한국투자증권
    +1
    Key ownership details include:
    MK Electron Co., Ltd. & MK Investment: The largest shareholders, with MKE controlling the company through Leading Value Fund I and its subsidiary MK Investment.
    Management Control: MK Electron established management control in 2015.
    Corporate Structure: KOREIT is a publicly traded company on the Korea Exchange, with a significant amount of shares held by the public (over 50%).
    Leadership: The firm is managed by CEOs such as Yun-seong Choi and Sung-jin Kim, as of 2026.
    한국토지신탁
    한국토지신탁
    +5
    Note: This refers to Korea Real Estate Investment & Trust Co., Ltd. (KOREIT), distinct from KOREIT Asset Management Co., Ltd..
    코레이트자산운용
    코레이트자산운용
    +3

  4. “The Terra Energy Center project, a proposed 1.25-GW coal-fired power plant in Alaska, is being developed by Flatlands Energy, a Canadian company and subsidiary of Asia Alaska. South Korean private equity firm KOREIT is backing the project with a $500 million equity investment, with additional major equipment agreements through Hyundai Heavy Industries.
    POWER Magazine
    POWER Magazine
    +2
    Key details regarding the project’s ownership and backing include:
    Developer: Flatlands Energy is driving the development of the project, which is designed to feature carbon capture and storage (CCS).
    Investment: Koreit committed $500 million, and the project has a $1 billion agreement with Hyundai Heavy Industries Power Systems for boiler supply.
    Status: The project represents the first major new coal-fired plant to be planned in the U.S. in over a decade.
    Location: The project is planned for Alaska, with coal sources likely linked to development in the Susitna River Valley.
    Private Ownership: The company and its affiliates are privately held.
    POWER Magazine
    POWER Magazine
    +6” – Google AI

  5. There is so much economic potential in Alaska. We in the small forty percent if voters hadn’t voted for the right leaders to give us much hope these projects can be built.
    First we need to agree as a state to make some hard choices that’ll make lives a little difficult on the shorterm to get projects built and running. You know it a whss as t that is. Some. Government dependents will out of work and out of money or find the money they depended on elsewhere.
    If it makes people feel better You know Isreal when it became a nation it had to sacrifice a bit of its environment during b its building its water infrastructure to move water from the wet Golon Northern region to move water down to the dryer south. It was an ambitious and expensive undertaking for an infant country but it was necessary for increasing Israel future prosperity.

  6. How is this going to work? PacRim couldn’t do it with their Susitna lease at Beluga. Usibelli couldn’t even mine their coal from Wishbone Hill in Sutton and sell it to Japan.
    Korea and Canada both think this will work?
    I’m not against coal, but these entities have not done their homework.

    1. The PacRim Chuitna Coal project was backed away from because the younger generation of the Hunt family who controlled it decided against coal, because of their environmental leanings. Financially it was well worth doing, and the engineering and plans were pretty well on their way to completion. Politics killed it, like so much of our economy.

  7. The Susitna Dam could accomplish the same thing while creating a large recreational lake behind it. I have the jet-ski concession!

  8. Okay, great idea for resource utilization. To support Alaska agriculture, and food security, how about tapping some of that CO2 into a urea plant? It has been a terrible struggle for ag remaining competitive since the loss of the plant at Nikiski. Coal can easily replace gas as the source.

  9. I am still wondering WHY did the MSB Assembly had to make a decision on the night of the 17th? That assembly meeting was a sh*tshow that could have been avoided. People did not understand the resolution, there were legalities that the attorney should have spoken to, and feelings were running high. The assembly should have tabled the discussion about the resolution and revisited it after things cooled off. There is still a lot of confusion that is being created by the badly worded resolution, but the majority of the assembly decided to keep the wording as is in the resolution. I think that was a big mistake. Before this project continues, the assembly needs to make sure that the public can receive more information on the project.
    For me, personally, I have lost faith that this assembly group can make decisions that are based on the public’s wishes. The 3-17-2026 meeting felt and sounded like an Anchorage Assembly Meeting. The Assembly works for the people – keep it legal and honest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Support
The Alaska Story

Your support allows us to stay independent and continue documenting stories that deserve to be seen and matter.

Keep The Alaska Story Alive