President Donald Trump‘s plan to rescue aging coal plants to strengthen the electrical grid would impose new costs on households, even if it succeeds in boosting the U.S. in the race to develop artificial intelligence and securing national security.

Following unrealized ambitions laid out in his first administration, Trump is embracing an aggressive approach with coal, calling it “essential” to ensure the United States has a reliable grid flowing with affordable energy. His vision would be a turn away from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, that were prioritized by the Biden administration. 

Recommended Stories

• GOP begins marathon debate on Energy and Commerce portion of Trump tax bill
• Could coal plant landfills be the answer to the rare earths supply problem?
• House GOP unveils bill text for slashing Biden energy tax credits

In early April, Trump signed a number of executive orders aimed at reviving the coal industry by keeping dozens of coal-fired power plants open and clearing the pathway for additional coal mining. 

“Pound for pound, coal is the single most reliable, durable, secure, and powerful form of energy,” Trump said ahead of the April executive order signing. “It’s cheap, incredibly efficient, high density, and it’s almost indestructible. You could drop a bomb on it, it’d be there for you to use the next day.” 

Propping up fossil fuels has remained central to Trump’s energy strategy. While cleaner energy alternatives like solar power have been deployed in the U.S. at a record pace, renewables have yet to keep up with rising demand brought on by electrification and the data centers required for artificial intelligence and other technological applications. 

Pursuing supply-side solutions to prop up grids — such as extending the life of retiring coal plants — is seemingly one of the easiest solutions for meeting those immediate needs. 

But it may come with some added costs. 

Republicans have long faulted regulations meant to curb climate change — such as subsidizing wind and solar, or limiting carbon emissions — for accelerating the decline of coal power plants. They argue that there is a downside to adding wind and solar power to the grid, which is that they are what energy experts call “intermittent,” meaning that they cannot be relied on when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.  

In other words, coal plants may be more reliable, and thus, in a sense, more valuable in terms of grid security. But, the power they produce is more expensive in terms of what is charged to households in the form of utility bills.

One way of making the comparison is what analysts refer to as the “levelized cost” of energy. The LCOE, as it is also known, is the cost of electricity based on power source when taking into account all capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, construction costs, interest rates, depreciation, and other location-specific details, such as the estimated amount of power renewables could generate in that region annually.

Based on LCOE, coal is generally not competitive with renewables, according to an analysis from the climate and energy research firm Energy Innovation Policy and Technology. The study found that power from solar cost roughly $24 per megawatt hour, while the average cost for coal was about $36 per megawatt hour.

According to the firm’s estimates, of all the coal plants in the U.S., only one — Dry Forks Station in Wyoming — produces power more cheaply than an alternative renewable plant would.

A major caveat is that those findings are driven in part by the subsidies for renewable energy provided by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act signed by President Joe Biden. House Republicans are advancing legislation to repeal those tax credits.

Still, even without the federal subsidies for renewable energy, more than 80% of the domestic coal fleet would no longer be cost-competitive with renewables, the group estimated in a 2019 report.

“Historically, coal plants used to be your base load generation that ran most of the time and met substantial portions of the energy needs of consumers,” David Lapp, head of Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel, told the Washington Examiner. 

“But because of their higher cost and because other technologies are cheaper, including gas and intermittent resources [like] solar and wind, which of course don’t require any fuel, coal is no longer competitive,” Lapp said.

Consumers in Maryland are bracing for higher energy bills because the state’s only coal plant saw its life extended. 

At the start of this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a “reliability-must-run” agreement between power producer Talen Energy, regional transmission operator PJM Interconnection, and the Maryland Public Service Commission, that extends the life of the state’s Brandon Shores coal plant by four years. 

The agreement is meant to provide power to customers until the state is able to complete necessary transmission upgrades, allowing other energy sources to be brought online and Brandon Shores to retire. 

As a result, Maryland customers are going to face higher costs to keep the plant running. 

Under the existing agreement, Lapp said, customers are poised to pay roughly $180 million to keep Brandon Shores and a separate oil-fueled power plant through 2029. 

But even though coal power is more expensive and entails carbon emissions, some see it as worthwhile, at least in the short term, to meet growing demand while avoiding blackouts.

“I don’t think it’s the long-term solution, but I don’t see how you do the transition without it,” Former Trump climate adviser George David Banks told the Washington Examiner. “Because you need all this power tomorrow or yesterday, however you want to look at it. ” 

Banks suggested that if Brandon Shores, for instance, carried out its retirement as scheduled this year — effectively removing generation without immediately replacing it — it could leave customers with even higher rates than the anticipated increase. 

“If you take that out of the mix, it’s going to be even worse for consumers,” Banks said. “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to be willing to pay more for my electricity if I know that I’ve got it for 24/7.” 

During his first presidency, Trump looked to capitalize on using coal to meet energy needs, but ultimately fell short on his promises to revive the industry. Trump had vowed to bring back mining jobs, slash Obama-era regulations, and provide federal financial backing to power plants at risk of closing. Specifically, the administration hoped to have utilities pay higher rates for coal power on the grounds that it is reliable.

While Trump rolled back certain climate-related rules regarding coal and introduced his own regulations regarding extending the lives of coal-fired plants, rising costs in the industry had many utility operators looking for cheaper alternatives, especially natural gas. At the same time, companies and investors faced growing pressure to adopt emissions reduction goals and accelerate the adoption of renewables.

Many, including Lapp, have begun to accept that coal power will continue to be used in a short-term capacity until the grid’s transmission lines are built out more or see additional upgrades to connect more new generation to customers. 

“The things we need to focus on are getting the generation that is waiting in the queues online faster,” Christy Walsh, a senior attorney and federal markets director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, previously told the Washington Examiner. 

“I think we need to build out more large-scale transmission, and then we need to expand demand response efficiency and storage resources, more than kind of provide additional support to coal, which is just going to cost consumers,” Walsh said. 

Building out transmission is a complex process involving numerous agencies and players, including the Department of Energy, Power Marketing Administrations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Independent System Operators, utilities, and more. 

Even if the major players find agreement regarding transmission build out, new projects can also face pushback from environmentalists and local residents concerns about the impact on their backyards. 

When asked if the president had any plans to issue executive action solely focused on transmission, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers criticized energy policies under the Biden administration that focused on intermittent resources like wind and solar instead of “reliable natural gas and beautiful, clean coal.” 

Rogers also pointed to an executive order signed by the president in April, which emphasized the need to utilize all available power generation resources, including coal and other fossil fuels. 

Critics maintain that the overall costs of coal are just too high.

TRUMP MOUNTS SECOND ATTEMPT TO REVIVE COAL, WITH STAKES HIGHER THAN IN FIRST TERM

“Coal is fundamentally – it’s a dying technology. We can move to much more economically beneficial technologies,” Lapp told the Washington Examiner, noting that wind and solar are not subject to volatile fuel costs. 

“I think those technologies are going to continue to advance, and we’re going to see coal and gas over time…they’re going to be bygone technologies,” he said.