Government
Trump's Calls for Big Boost in Coal Production Draws Ire From States
While industry-leaning groups support latest White House energy order
Critics say boosting coal production would reverse the downward trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions over 2005 levels.
Photo by Filipe Filipovic at Pixabay
Opponents of a Trump executive order aimed at boosting coal production in the U.S. are lining up to challenge it, stating that the president’s action undermines states’ authority to set their own policies and would set the nation back in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which have declined by more than 16% over 2005 levels, according to the latest U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory, released in April 2024.
Trump’s order, released April 8, instructs the heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Treasury, and the Departments of Transportation, Interior, Energy, and Labor to identify regulations, guidance, programs and policies that “seek to transition the nation away from coal production and electricity generation” within 30 days, and to rescind or revise those policies within 60 days.
“Our nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers,” Trump wrote.
The order follows Trump tweets in March pushing coal in his energy dominance agenda and moves by 'China last year to ramp up coal power production, despite big investments in clean energy in recent years.
Several fossil-fuel-aligned or industry-focused energy sector groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, were quick to praise the order.
However, a spokesperson for the Edison Electric Institute was more neutral, saying EEI's utility members use a diverse mix of energy to meet growing demand, and that they will “continue to engage with the administration and other stakeholders…to ensure that sufficient generation is available to meet customer needs and that we can build the new generation needed to meet demand quickly and affordably.”
But critics argue that reinvigorating coal production, partially through restricting efforts by states to reduce emissions caused by coal, is unconstitutional and ignores the market forces that have led most power utilities to shutter aging coal facilities on their own volition.
Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new smart AI search tool.
Ask ENR →
“Coal is more expensive than cleaner, safer renewable energy,” said Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel of U.S. Clean Energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement. “Coal use has declined because of the high cost of operating coal plants, and no executive orders will change that market reality.”
In a joint statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said,“The federal government cannot unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority. We are a nation of states—and laws—and we will not be deterred. We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer.”
Evan Westrup, a spokesperson for the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 24 governors across the U.S. and territories who are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, says all of the group’s members have renewable and clean energy standards for electricity as well as climate action plans. The alliance’s members have been “active in challenging attacks on their work and resources in recent months,” he says, adding that many of those efforts have been successful.
In Pennsylvania, a state legal challenge led to the release of more than $2 billion in federal funds that had been frozen under DOGE. On March 19, four states—led by Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellis—filed a lawsuit alleging that since February, EPA has “pursued a highly irregular and illegal campaign to thwart the $20 billion appropriation that Congress made” for clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction projects based solely on the president’s dislike for the Inflation Reduction Act.
This “violates fundamental constitutional guarantees of liberty in the separation of powers and flouts myriad statutory and regulatory controls on federal agencies’ management of Congressional appropriations and finalized awards,” they assert in the complaint.
