Trump's $625 Million Coal Plan May Raise Utility Bills for Millions of Americans
One report found that forcing retiring coal plants to remain open could increase annual electricity costs by $3 billion through 2028.

The artificial intelligence boom has sent electricity prices reeling, with a recent Bloomberg analysis finding that wholesale energy prices in areas near data hubs have jumped 267 percent since 2020. President Donald Trump, who promised to lower electricity bills within 18 months of reentering office, believes he has found a way to fix this issue: taxpayer subsidies for coal.
On Monday, the Energy Department announced that it will offer $625 million in funding to "reinvigorate and expand America's coal industry." The funding includes $350 million to modernize outdated coal power plants or recommission closed ones, and up to $175 million for coal power projects in rural communities. This announcement was coupled with an Interior Department directive to open 13.1 million acres of federal land for coal mining at lower royalty rates. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, announced on Monday it would roll back several Joe Biden-era regulations on coal plants, which the agency says will save consumers $200 million in electricity costs annually.
"These funds will help keep our nation's coal plants operating and will be vital to keeping electricity prices low and the lights on without interruption," Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a press release. "Coal built the greatest industrial engine the world has ever known, and with President Trump's leadership, it will help do so again."
Coal did indeed fuel the Industrial Revolution and was America's dominant electricity source in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, before being replaced by cheaper and cleaner sources like natural gas and renewables. But contrary to Wright's claim, the government subsidizing coal is unlikely to keep "electricity prices low."
In May, the Energy Department issued an order to prevent a Michigan coal plant from closing in order to prevent blackouts. The order failed to keep the lights on and cost the utility $29 million over five weeks, which is expected to be, at least in part, paid for by ratepayers, according to E&E News.
These cost hikes are likely to escalate if the federal government continues to force power plants to stay open. An August report from Grid Strategies, a power sector consulting firm, estimates that ratepayers could pay more than $3 billion per year through 2028 if the Energy Department "mandates that the large fossil power plants scheduled to retire between now and the end of 2028 remain open." This figure could soar to $6 billion per year through 2028 if additional power plants move up their retirement dates to secure government subsidies.
But electricity costs tell only part of the story: In addition to ordering these plants to stay open, the federal government has opened up millions of dollars in funding for coal projects and passed several measures to benefit coal, including subsidizing coal production overseas. The cost of those actions won't necessarily show up in monthly utility bills—but it will force the federal government to borrow more heavily in the future, at a time when the national debt is already unsustainably large (more than $30 trillion held by the public).
Despite the steep costs, the Monday coal order is unlikely to change the energy landscape. Ben King, director of the Rhodium Group's energy program, told Semafor "the price of coal would need to fall by at least half," to "change the calculus" and make coal more attractive to investors than natural gas or renewables. Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling at the think tank Energy Innovation, told the outlet, "this funding is essentially cash for clunkers, but without trading in the clunkers."
Trump's latest coal maneuver will benefit utilities and coal companies, but it will come at the expense of taxpayers, who will be forced to finance yet another wasteful government spending account, and ratepayers who will likely see their utility bills continue to climb.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Anyone here know why Trump favors this policy?
Obama first ran on the concept of clean coal. That’s why.
Because the national security deep state idea seems to be that the US can only continue on as a superpower, with the dollar as a reserve, as a 'petrostate'. Coal is just part of that fossil fuels architecture where control of fuel supply/distribution is a source of political power.
The alternative is an electrostate. China has clearly decided to compete on or dominate that path. Fossil fuels plays a role in the transition to electric. But ultimately electric gets mostly fueled by renewable sources where the 'fuel' can't controlled. Where what gets controlled are the vehicles, industry, transport, etc that requires its energy in the form of electricity. All the components of their Belt and Road initiative etc where Chinese diplomacy/money is turning the world away from the US model to the alternative.
But ultimately electric gets mostly fueled by renewable sources where the 'fuel' can't controlled.
Did you any of this shit with a straight face?
Renewable windmills, solar panels, and batteries that can't be controlled? Fucking insanity if you actually beleive any of this.
Meanwhile you defend China. JFC.
King Canute once tried to order the tides around. Or so it is said. Hard to know whether he ordered the wind to stop, the sun to go into eclipse, the rivers to reverse direction, the earth's mantle to cool, etc. All those sources of energy - not controllable by a king.
Meanwhile you defend China. JFC.
Not really. But I sure as hell am finding better opportunities investing there (even with all the risks) than I am finding investing here now. But hey - keep pimping coal as the future. What could possibly go wrong.
You somehow responded to everything except the part of your comment he was mocking you for.
He isnt intelligent.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-machine-rogue-communication-devices-found-chinese-inverters-2025-05-14/
There is no such thing as an "electrostate". Electricity has to be come from somewhere. It does not exist as a resource that can be directly harvested. You can convert other forms of energy into electricity for ease of transmission and use but that doesn't address where it comes from. It could come, as you say, from 'renewable' or it could come from fossil fuels.
So reframing, you want a 'renewables-state'. A fine goal. The only problem is that it is currently a fantasy. Wind, solar and other 'renewable' sources are wildly incapable of supplying the demand of a modern society. And despite considerable technological advances, that is not going to change anytime soon. Further, the adverse environmental consequences of 'renewables' are just now being fully itemized - and in many cases, they are greater than the adverse consequences of fossil fuels. In other words, they're not only bad for the economy, they may also be bad for the ecology.
It could come, as you say, from 'renewable' or it could come from fossil fuels.
So you accept that framing. But it is not merely some 'green' notion. It is foundationally economic and geopolitical. The world looks very different depending on which energy path predominates. And it really affects everything precisely because with most renewable the fuel/energy source is so decentralized and dispersed that it can't be controlled by a state. Nor can it even be controlled enough to fit neatly into a pricing system. Wind/sun are not private goods even if you attempt to title them and assign them as property.
US power was almost entirely built on our ability to globally control fossil fuels. Using that, we have played kingmaker to decide which countries may industrialize and which must die. It is the US alone that has difficulty conceiving that control of those fossil fuels may no longer matter in future.
The only problem is that it is currently a fantasy.
The US used to be a country that sees that sentence as a technological challenge. We no longer see the future that way. Other countries - in particular those countries who have experienced the hostility of the US - have strong reason to try that challenge anyway. They have nothing to lose.
I have no idea how far renewables will take the world. What I do know is that the US will not be doing anything productive re that. We are either looking backwards - or sucking up to bureaucrats/technocrats/cronies. We are - soon to be - irrelevant.
re: "with most renewable the fuel/energy source is so decentralized and dispersed that it can't be controlled by a state"
That is wildly untrue. Wind farms across the world are huge entities, usually run by and always heavily regulated by the state. This is especially true for all the offshore wind farms (which are the only ones that have even a hope of drawing sufficient uninterrupted wind power). Your fantasy about decentralized power without any connection to facts. It's notable, by the way, that at the start of the fossil fuel age, everyone that that would be the path to a truly decentralized energy structure. Everyone could - and did - have their own generator in the basement. We all moved away from that model because it's inherently inefficient. Wind, solar, biofuel and all the other 'renewables' will inevitably experience the same market dynamics as they try to grow past niche players into anything approaching market scale.
Your rant about US petro-politics is ... actually well-founded but your solution is a false dichotomy. The third solution is to get government out of the way regardless of the energy choice.
Wind farms across the world are huge entities, usually run by and always heavily regulated by the state.
That is merely the scale chosen to put that energy onto a centralized grid. The existing GRID itself controls that - not the wind. The US will let that grid drive all decisions - for now and forever. It is why Americans view wind as alien because the places we have wind are the places where there are no people and no grid. Other countries will be on a spectrum from letting sunk costs of a grid drive everything to letting new energy sources drive a new grid and other infrastructure. Much of the world will bypass that grid structure entirely as a relic. You make the assertion 'across the world' as if it is true rather than just a hallucination.
your solution is a false dichotomy. The third solution is to get government out of the way regardless of the energy choice.
First I don't have a 'solution'. I am simply pointing out the directions we are already going in - with an understanding of the economic forces that are moving us in those directions. Your solution of 'getting government out of the way' is ideological cant. You gonna privatize air/sunshine by 'getting government out of the way'?
What color is the sky on your planet?
Natural gas is now the most important fossil fuel…have you been in a coma since 2008?? You can take down your Bush/Cheney posters too! 😉
China is the world's largest consumer of coal JFree. They are not building our renewables.
They produced 73% of their primary energy from coal in 2007. It is now 54%. The direction and magnitude of that matter - as does the deliberately engineered absence of oil from dominating that mix.
Again from my comment above - it does not matter one whit what an American says about any of this. The US is, correctly, viewed by the rest of the world as the real enemy re any changes to energy mix. Our goal is and has always been to suppress the growth of every other country - to keep them under our thumb. To do so via the control of energy. We may want that to continue. They don't.
Bush invaded Iraq to make oil cheaper for everyone on the planet.
Walter John Matthau (October 1, 1920 – July 1, 2000) was an American actor, known for his "hangdog face" and for playing world-weary characters. He starred in 10 films alongside his real-life friend Jack Lemmon, including The Odd Couple (1968) and Grumpy Old Men (1993).
Hey Jeff, what happens to utility bills if we don’t increase production?
Let's ask the Midwest, jersey, and California. Oh. 2x national averages on increase.
Trump has already jacked up my utility bills by shipping LNG to China! Btw, if you ship LNG to China then what do you think will replace natural gas in America?? We are 15 years into a 30 year cycle and you’re exporting our cheap natural gas to an adversary?? Very strange!
The price of LNG peaked in 2022.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas
Huh, I think we were just talking about welfare the other day.
This appears to be welfare to coal companies, no?
Not really as much as taking tax dollars to keep electricity bills lower. I don’t like it and let the market decide. If millions of Americans get priced out of using electricity (due to lost production and increased demand by data centers), they should reevaluate their life choices. The cost of delivered electrons could increase tenfold and it wouldn’t impact my life.
And LNG exports to China…dumbest policy in history!!
Keep my tax dollars away from this. You can take it from my coal dead hands.
Oh for peat sakes...
Mining for puns huh?
Never mine these guys.
Energy customers often get the shaft.
Rock on, dude!
Anthra-cite?
Oil well that ends well.
Well, we have some precedent on what the expansion of renewables has cost us, and there's good hard scientific data on the mind-boggling efficiency of coal so, it's a gamble I'm willing to take.
If coal has these economic efficiencies, why do we need subsidies?
Because we regulated them out of business and have subsidized inefficient forms of energy such as wind and solar for decades. If we completely de-regulated coal the industry would probably spring back up but it could take 20 years.
I know what you're trying to do... you're trying to get me to agree to disagree on the issue of subsidies-- and then keep subsidizing inefficient forms of energy while continuing to regulate coal out of existence.
If coal is so inefficient, why did we have to declare a war on affordable coal-fired electricity?
It's as if you think the only two possible policy options here are "subsidize green energy" or "subsidize coal".
It seems you either don’t understand what regulate out of business means or you’re being dishonest.
Affirmative
Further, if we continue to subsidize electric cars, we're going to need coal to increase grid capacity. Luckily, electric cars are mostly a bust, even with subsidies so it's possible that wind and solar will continue to fail to meet our energy needs now, instead of failing worse to meet our 100% electrified future we strategically and reluctantly voted for.
Electrons matter
I’m not a fan of the subsidies. I do like opening up more land as well as removing lots of the Biden era regulations.
May. Might. Probably.
The essence of reason argumentation. Never a follow up on their predictions.
You forgot could.
It's like Reason forgot 30 years of reporting on the government beating the tar out of the coal industry to usher in less efficient, more costly forms of energy, then finally an administration came in and demanded the beatings stop, and Reason is huffy because the industry is asking for some help with its medical bills which consist of knife wounds on its hands and arms.
Coal subsidies are crony capitalism subsidies. Handouts to Friends of Trump using your tax $$. Donald Trump has strong connections with the coal industry, including endorsements from organizations like the West Virginia Coal Association and support from various coal executives
None of those things explain why coal is less efficient than any green energy production...which is and has been heavily subsidized the entirety of its existence.
And Trump paid reparations to white WV coal miners in his first term….whaaaa, you got black lung improving every one else’s lives but your own! Now you know how slaves feel!! Boo hoo!
Cut subsidies on all forms of energy production and we will truly see what's most efficient and cost effective.
We flushed $3 trillion down the toilet in Iraq attempting to flood the market with Iraqi oil. But keep in mind the 2008 GFC was the result of an energy crisis and so it actually made some sense to invade Iraq for the oil.
The very first sentence is bullshit.
The artificial intelligence boom has sent electricity prices reeling
No, green unreliables have done it. Whatever impact AI data centers have on electricity usage could have been handled easily and with barely a blip in electricity prices if it weren't for all the solar and wind subsidies and mandates.
Let's agree to disagree and strategically and reluctantly keep the subsidies for wind and solar in place, and leave Obama's War on Coal intact because Trump's plan could cause a rise in utility bills!
Both things can be true. Green unreliables (great phrase, by the way) are hampering supply which drives up prices. But the massive increase in AI data centers is also driving up demand - which also drives up prices. The amount of energy demanded by AD data centers is mind-bogglingly big - enough to be rather more than "a blip" on the price curves.
But yes, the markets would react more cleanly without all the subsidies, mandates and other government interference.
That last is the key -- just as with all industrial changes, they would be smooth and fast enough that most people would never notice. Data centers don't pop up overnight, and they aren't built fully populated. They add capacity as budgets and infrastructure allow. Think of all the "new" auto factories which sprang up all over the South. I don't recall a single worry about electricity scarcity or rising prices.
Well that might have been true in 2023 but not now.
Server farms are exploding and the speed of the builds is astounding!
Power plants being built alongside the server buildings by the private companies to power them.
The budgets are incredibly huge and capacity is being added now.
If you make more of something, the price comes down.
Except electricity for some magic reasons.
Government as well
For what it is worth, these are the groups who the study was done "on behalf of":
Earthjustice
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
Just sayin'.
Source: The very first page of the report link in article.
https://tenor.com/view/special-ed-special-gif-14524557650897979460
Ha!
No on subsidies, yes on roll back Biden regs. Congress needs to repeal EPA and Dept of Energy or at least drastically reduce scope and end all rule making powers.
Congress needs to repeal EPA and Dept of Energy or at least drastically reduce scope and end all rule making powers.
You mean El Presidente Por Vida Trump can't do it with executive orders?
Isn't that good though? We're all supposed to be using less energy or else the world will end, right? Global warming? *COAL!*
There needs to be a COALition against this.
Does SUPPLY AND DEMAND NOT EXIST anymore? FFS. More electricyt equals lower prices. More demand equals higher prices.
With AI now coming in and the grids already not getting the levels of electricity it should because of idiot green policies which forced the prices up because supply was not allowed to keep up with demand, somehow Reason thinks electricity will be more expensive when more of it is produced and added to the grid?
WTF?
The majority of the AI and digital currency mining servers will have a private power source eventually.
What must happen for prices to go down is States like Oregon can't refuse to buy electricity from fossil fuel sources as they have done for decades now. The climate change hoax and BS Net Zero push has ended. Time to allow new power plants to be built, coal, NG or nuke.
https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/04/03/rocky-mountain-power-coal-plant/
“PacifiCorp’s 2023 IRP update irresponsibly assumes that the Hunter and Huntington coal plants in Utah can operate without any pollution controls moving forward, a major oversight given EPA’s impending regulations to limit pollution in national parks, ozone crossing state lines, and greenhouse gas emissions, all of which will impact Hunter and Huntington,” Rose Monahan, Sierra Club’s staff attorney, said in a statement.
Note that Trump is blocking construction of wind farms and other clean energy sources. There is no logical reason to prevent these from being completed.
He is not "blocking" them. He is rescinding the multitude of discretionary waivers that exempted those projects from otherwise-applicable restrictions on their environmental consequences and rescinding some of the subsidies on which those projects depended for their economic viability.
Hint - if you can't make a profit without government subsidies, you're not really a viable economic entity - and that is a very good reason to stop throwing good money after bad.
What you described is Trump blocking them. He put a halt to a wind farm that was 80% complete.
Needz moar jawboning.