While much of the world is looking to phase out its coal production, United States President Donald Trump has put coal back on the energy agenda, with big plans to reinvigorate ageing coal facilities. Despite concerns over the impact of ongoing coal use on human health and the environment, Trump views fossil fuels as the most stable energy source to boost U.S. energy security, which could lead to consumers paying more for their energy bills over the coming years.
Upon entering office in January, Trump declared an energy emergency, and he has since worked rapidly to change the landscape of U.S. energy by signing a flurry of executive orders and passing bills aimed at reducing the growth of the renewable energy sector and, instead, returning to a reliance on fossil fuels. In April, Trump signed an order entitled “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241”.
In the order, Trump stated, “Coal is abundant and cost-effective, and can be used in any weather condition. Moreover, the industry has historically employed hundreds of thousands of Americans. America’s coal resources are vast, with a current estimated value in the trillions of dollars, and are more than capable of substantially contributing to American energy independence, with excess to export to support allies and our economic competitiveness.”
Despite promises to lower consumer energy bills in the coming years, sectoral experts now believe that doubling down on coal production could actually lead to an increase in consumer energy bills, compared to investing in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Trump’s executive order tasked the Department of Energy (DoE) with ensuring that coal power plants continue to operate, even those that are destined for closure.
In July, the DoE published a report that states that current power plant retirements and additions will put the U.S. at massive risk of blackouts by the end of the decade. It has used its newly given powers to stop the closure of the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan, even though the utility operating the plant warned that closing the facility would save consumers over $600 million. The DoE plans to halt the closure of other coal facilities across the country in line with Trump’s energy aims.
However, several energy experts have said that the report relies on worst-case scenarios to reach its conclusions and largely overlooks the new renewable energy capacity being added to the grid. Experts argue that paying to keep ageing coal plants online could result in consumers paying billions of dollars more for some of the least efficient and least reliable power plants on the grid, as well as put their health and the environment at risk.
A report from June, by the think tank Energy Innovation, showed that coal power was 28 percent more expensive in 2024 than in 2021, following several years of movement away from the “dirtiest fossil fuel” to various other less-polluting energy sources. The analysis shows that 95 percent of the 162 U.S. coal-fired power plants that were still operating at the beginning of the year were more expensive than in 2021, with costs increasing at twice the rate of inflation for half of these plants.
It’s not just climate scientists who are concerned about the financial and environmental cost of keeping coal plants running, as one may have expected. Several U.S. utilities have found that the operating costs of coal plants are simply too high, particularly compared to gas-fueled facilities and renewables. Several utilities have chosen only to use coal plants for power as a last resort, when they cannot deliver enough solar or wind power to the grid, for example, due to the high cost of production. Experts believe that keeping more ageing coal plants online would inflate consumer costs further.
Most of the coal plants in the U.S. are old and inefficient, with the average age of a coal plant standing at 44 years in 2024. Older plants tend to be more expensive to run because they need more investment in maintenance. The generating power at these plants also falls over time, making them highly inefficient compared to many other energy sources. And consumers are seeing the effects of keeping these facilities online unnecessarily.
In Georgia, Plant Bowen was expected to be retried in 2028. However, Georgia Power has extended its life to 2035, even as costs rose from $46/MWh in 2021 to $72/MWh in 2025. This also follows six electricity bill increases for Georgia Power customers between 2023 and 2025. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, the Williams Station coal plant has had its retirement date delayed from 2028 to at least 2031, as costs have increased by $27/MWh, or more than 50 percent.
So, while President Trump insists that fossil fuels, including coal, will help fix the country’s “energy emergency”, the financial reports at many of these coal plants appear to prove otherwise. Meanwhile, the cost of gas and renewable energy production continues to fall, offering a cleaner alternative for consumers, as well as lower energy bills.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com
Why Iraq Wants Solar Despite Centuries of Oil Reserves
Petrobras Clears Key Hurdle for Amazon Drilling
Eni Sells 30% in Cote d’Ivoire Oil and Gas Project to Top Trader