Given the current climate towards nuclear powerplant construction, and America's continued reliance on cheap electricity, I doubt coal producers and transporters have very much to worry about. Coal-fired plant operators/generators are likely to face a reckoning (sooner rather than later) regarding the installation of new scrubbing and carbon-sequestration technologies, but this might end up being a good thing, and at the end of the day they'll still be burning coal, either way.
The US gets electric energy from five major sources: Coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric and renewables (solar, wind, etc.). No new nuke plants have been built in decades, a number of them are reaching the end of their lifespans and there probably won't be another new one for at least a decade, best-case. The Northwestern hydro projects are largely beneficial (despite all the moaning and groaning) and here to stay, but obviously it's a zero-growth area. Renewables are growing rapidly (a good thing) but still contribute precious little to the overall generating picture. Natural gas has become the favorite fuel of states such as California, but a lot of NG is imported from, for instance, Canada. The only reason NG is as viable a fuel as it is (and it isn't exactly cheap), is because so much of the country relies on coal. If, for instance, the 50% of America that gets its electricity from coal were suddenly compelled to burn NG, like California does, the price of NG (and electricity in general) would skyrocket to a point that makes the current oil price shocks look like pattycakes.
The coal industry is in for some drastic changes in the next few decades in terms efficiency gains and emissions technology/regulation, but at the end of the day we'll still be mining, transporting and burning plenty of the stuff.