WASHINGTON — In a surprising shift, the U.S. energy landscape is undergoing significant alterations as the Trump administration takes measures to sustain coal power, previously overshadowed by the Biden administration’s push for renewable energy. This change could lead to increased electricity costs and heightened environmental concerns.
Officials and energy analysts, including Enverus, now predict that coal plants expected to close during Trump’s second term may remain operational until his departure from office. These coal plants emit pollution comparable to 27 million cars and were initially slated for retirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Trump administration is actively using emergency powers to keep five coal plants from closing, a strategy that has already resulted in higher utility bills, such as the $135 million cost to keep a Michigan plant open for seven months. Furthermore, millions of taxpayer dollars are being allocated for repairs and to extend the lifespan of other coal plants, alongside the weakening of regulations on air pollution and toxic coal ash.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum articulated the administration’s stance, stating, “the goal for coal plants is 100% stay open, no more retirements, no more shutting down.”
This approach marks a departure from Trump’s first term, where coal advocacy included relaxing environmental regulations. The administration now argues that coal’s reliability during extreme weather events offers a competitive edge over renewable energy sources, which they claim the Biden administration excessively subsidized.
Robert Lifset, a University of Oklahoma professor of energy history, observed, “The Trump administration this time around is much more organized and strategic in trying to bring about a revival of coal,” describing it as a “whole-of-government approach.”
Amid a growing demand for electricity, partly driven by data centers, the administration’s actions have kept the Schahfer Generating Station in Indiana operational. Local activist Barbara Deardorff expressed disappointment, saying, “I was really emotional about it because finally they weren’t going to be a threat to our air and to our water anymore.”
This rare moment in time
The post-World War II era saw U.S. electricity consumption rise alongside economic growth. However, the 2008 recession marked a divergence as economic growth resumed without a corresponding increase in electricity demand, thanks to improved efficiency, according to Seth Feaster of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Utilities began retiring old, costly coal plants, replacing them with natural gas and renewables, which reduced coal’s share of U.S. power generation by over half. The Schahfer plant in Indiana, constructed in the 1970s, was scheduled to shut down as its operator aimed to eliminate coal from its energy production by 2023.
The local community had already begun transitioning, installing solar panels on farmland. However, an emergency order from the Trump administration in December reversed this decision, citing the necessity of coal power during extreme weather events.
A ‘180 degree’ turnaround
Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the administration’s policies, stating, “Today, the policies that get in the way of a reasonable energy development and mess up the math are things focused around climate change.”
The emergency orders, according to Wright, helped avert major blackouts during severe winter storms in January. Meanwhile, Amazon plans to build a large data center complex nearby, powered by gas turbines, potentially doubling the power output of the existing coal facility.
Barbara Deardorff remarked, “It’s been a complete 180,” as her family faces the loss of farmland leased near the plant. Retaining coal plants, as suggested by Burgum, would prevent the retirement of 34 gigawatts of coal power before 2029, threatening to reverse decades of pollution reduction efforts.
Last year, coal plants scheduled for retirement emitted over 130 million tons of carbon dioxide, along with significant quantities of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to health.
Lucas Henneman, an environmental engineer at George Mason University, emphasized, “If we retire all the coal plants we could avoid those 2,000 deaths per year from coal.”
Beyond the five plants ordered to remain open, $175 million has been spent on upgrades for seven others, with applications for an additional $350 million under consideration. Enverus analyst Juan Arteaga suggested that these investments and coal’s reliability make it unlikely that any plants will retire before 2030.
Michelle Bloodworth of America’s Power noted that modernizing U.S. coal plants could cost $1 billion annually, arguing that it is justified given the substantial investments in renewables.
Broad authority over the grid
The administration wields considerable authority to determine emergencies and effect changes in the electricity system, as highlighted by the Congressional Research Service in February.
However, legal challenges have arisen from five Democratic-led states, including Washington, Illinois, and Colorado. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser criticized the orders for burdening consumers with higher costs and hindering sustainable energy development.
Bob Keefe of E2 warned, “We are going from a trajectory where we were going to lead the world on clean energy to one where we are becoming an isolated petrostate,” citing job losses, investment impacts, and higher electricity prices.
Economists remain skeptical about the long-term viability of coal’s resurgence, noting that aging plants are less competitive compared to cheaper solar energy. Despite setbacks in Trump’s agenda, such as a failed coal lease sale and court rejections of wind power blocks, industry leaders remain optimistic.
Jimmy Brock, CEO of Core Natural Resources, expressed confidence, stating, “It’s our time.”
Brown and Phillis write for the Associated Press. Associated Press journalists Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and M.K. Wildeman in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed.
Original Story at www.latimes.com