By the end of 2007, plans for 59 coal-fired power plants across the country were cancelled or seriously delayed, in large part due to a rapidly growing weariness among prospective investors. Just when King Coal was looking invincible, the canary in the coal mine stopped singing and the big bucks began bailing.

Citing concern over the cost of future carbon regulations that are expected from Congress perhaps within the year, many of the banking industry’s heavy hitters have begun seeking more economically secure ventures.

However, not waiting for Washington’s inevitable carbon cap, three Wall Street powerhouse investment banks n Citigroup, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley n have just released their own set of environmental standards placing the onus on utilities to prove that their coal-fired plants are economically viable even under future, stricter government regulations. This move stands to make securing funds for future coal-fired plants extremely difficult.

Adding to the projected increased costs on carbon regulations is the rising price tag on construction. Recent hikes on materials and skilled labor in building new coal-fired power plants have driven building estimates up by at least 40 percent.

The significant withdrawal of private investors has spurred many coal companies on to Capitol Hill, trying to procure your dollars to fund their environmentally-unfriendly power plants. But so far, the feds have not been handing over blank checks. For many coal projects, in fact, grants are being rejected.

Of the 151 proposals this decade for new coal-fired plants, only 10 have been built, 25 are under construction and many of those left on the drawing board are facing serious obstacles.

Even utilities currently operating coal-fired power plants are pulling the plug on new proposals n 44 of the 59 cancellations or delays came from utilities themselves. One such company, PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries Pacific Power and Rocky Mountain Power, serving six western states, not only scrapped plans for two coal plants in both Utah and Wyoming last year, but has also proposed building a wind farm in the latter state on the site of an abandoned surface coal mine. Regarding the company’s decision, spokesperson Dave Eskelsen said coal projects were no longer viable.

One of the biggest single blows to King Coal came when a consortium of several investment banks, including Goldman Sachs, bought Texas-based energy company TXU only when TXU decided to scrap eight of its 11 coal plant proposals and commit to several environmental measures including conservation and development of renewable energy.

Additionally, Citigroup stated in response to their decision last year to devalue coal stocks, the coal industry is, “likely to be structurally impaired by the new regulatory mandates applied to a group perceived as landscape-disfiguring global warming bad guys.“

And coal-to-liquid technology (CTL) has not shaped up as King Coal’s answer to climate change. A sobering analysis on CTL shows that carbon capture and storage raises energy costs in coal plants by

60 percent to 100 percent, requires 5 to 15 gallons of water per gallon of liquid coal, and plant construction costs range from $2 billion to

$8 billion. Even worse, burning coal-based fuel produces nearly double the greenhouse gases as petroleum-based fuel.

Last Week, the U.S. Department of Energy yanked its funding from the proposed and highly anticipated FutureGen CTL plant in Illinois, attributing a cost increase of nearly 100 percent.

Making coal energy even less attractive is the recently released U.N. report saying global investments in sustainable energy should reach $15 trillion to

$20 trillion in the next 20 to 25 years. Along with the report n instrumental in shaping the climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 n is the U.N. climate panel’s recommendations of 25 percent to 40 percent reductions in greenhouse gases by 2025. This new, evolving energy picture has little room for coal.

Doubts surrounding CTL technology, combined with rising costs and market uncertainties of traditional coal-fired plants, equate to ill-advised gambles in the world of high finance.

So energy investors are finding safer places to make money. Worldwide, investment is pouring into clean, green renewable energies and other eco-technologies. A recent Worldwatch Institute report shows that global investment in renewable energy in 2006 totaled $51 billion, up 33 percent from 2005, and estimated 2007 figures are around $65 billion.

Here in the U.S., the wind power industry ballooned by 45 percent last year, opening seven new factories and creating nearly half of the industry’s 20,000 jobs. Solar power saw a similar increase. In the sun-rich Southwest, many solar projects have been slated for completion between 2009 and 2014.

The market is reacting and investors are seizing the day. The renewable energy sector is poised for exponential growth. During the last few years over 575 environmental and energy hedge funds have been created and clean technology is now the third most popular destination for venture capital trailing only internet and biotechnology. In 2006, venture capital and private equity investment in clean energy totaled

$8.6 billion, 69 percent above 2005

numbers and 10 times the amount invested in 2001.

Wall Street’s calculated withdrawal from coal and subsequent surge into renewable energy is sending a clear message to the fossil fuel industry’s heaviest polluter n if you want our green, you’ve got to go green. Until King Coal finds an environmentally sound solution in burning coal for power, private monies will continue hemorrhaging out of current and future endeavors and into bankable futures, such as renewable energy, that are both environmentally and economically sound.

Brad Hash is a Missoula-based research assistant for Western Progress, a regional policy institute. He holds a master’s degree in environmental studies from the University of Montana.