Consumers are also worried about the ability of the utility companies to expand production, or even to maintain production, as electrical use increases and population increases, and having an alternate source for backup and to reduce peak demand makes sense.
Also utilities themselves are concerned about meeting increasing demand. Here in Michigan, a number of coal fired power plants (9 locations, I believe) are slated for decommissioning in the next 10 years, some of them do not have a really good alternative solution yet (such as one that serves the entire western upper peninsula). Utilities are scrambling to find ways to reduce demand and provide alternate sources of energy generation. Michigan is not a good candidate for extensive solar power (although there is some) but we do have potential for wind generators.
Anyway, our major electricity provider has a number of incentive programs right now aimed at reducing demand. We had them come in to our church and do an energy audit and they gave us, free of charge, 80+ LED bulbs to replace our old incandescent bulbs in our sanctuary - about $400 worth of bulbs. They also have incentives for replacing most of our other less efficient lighting sources which we will probably do next year since it will require some cash outlay on our part.
So the economics of it is that rather than investing $500 million to build a new generating plant they are investing that capital in reducing demand. In fact, I would think it is significantly cheaper to reduce demand by 1kW than it is to generate 1kW. Of course that only goes so far and they are investing significant amounts of money in new electricity generators - primarily wind and natural gas (I don't think they have plans to replace any coal fired plant with another coal fired plant - it is too costly).
Companies are already shifting away from coal because of cost. Companies are also investing in solar and wind farms to reduce production costs.
A big part of the cost associated with coal is transportation. For plants that are close to the source, I think it is still an economic choice - Wyoming and West Virginia for example. But in most places, natural gas is much less costly to produce and deliver. The other big cost is the technology needed to clean the smoke from coal. However, since many plants are implementing those scrubbing systems, there must still be economic incentive to do so.
However, I am not sure that the economics would favor alternative energy sources were it not for the pressure put on utilities to reduce emissions from coal fired plants, which is an example of how government does need to step in and set standards, not just wait for the market forces to drive corporate decisions.
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.