Live: Trump announce energy EO’s

quote:

---

Would love to see coal make some sort of comeback

---

quote:

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

Why not if it is competitive?

---

quote:

---

Natural gas is more efficient than coal12. Coal plants have a lower efficiency rate, often around 33-40%, while gas plants, especially combined cycle plants, have higher efficiencies, typically ranging from 45-60%12. Natural gas is also less expensive and cleaner than coal

---

quote:

---

We are sitting on more nat gas than we know what to do with.

---

quote:

---

252 billion short tons
As of January 2020, the United States has the largest recoverable coal reserves with an estimated 252 billion short tons of coal remaining, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Learn more: U.S. Coal Resources and Assessment.

---

quote:

---

Anything on nuclear?

---

quote:

---

Why not if it is competitive?

---

quote:

---

As of April 8, 2025, several regulatory barriers in the United States impact the use of coal for electricity production. These barriers stem from environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, though their enforcement and impact vary under different administrations. Below is an overview of the key regulatory hurdles currently in place:

### 1. **EPA Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants**
- **Description**: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented rules targeting greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, including coal plants. Finalized in April 2024 under the Biden administration, these standards require existing coal plants planning to operate beyond 2039 to capture 90% of their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2032 or shut down. New coal plants face similar stringent requirements.
- **Impact**: The high cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology—estimated at billions of dollars for retrofitting—makes compliance economically challenging for many coal plants, pushing operators toward retirement rather than investment. This rule effectively accelerates the phaseout of unabated coal generation unless significant advancements reduce CCS costs.
- **Status**: While the Trump administration, sworn in on January 20, 2025, has signaled intent to roll back such regulations (e.g., via executive orders like "Unleashing American Energy" issued on January 20, 2025), these rules remain in effect as of now, pending legal challenges or new regulatory actions.

### 2. **Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG)**
- **Description**: The EPA’s ELG rules, updated in recent years, impose strict limits on wastewater discharges from coal-fired power plants, targeting pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and selenium from flue gas desulfurization systems and coal ash ponds.
- **Impact**: Compliance requires costly upgrades to water treatment systems or ash handling processes. For older plants, these expenses often outweigh the economic benefits of continued operation, leading to retirements. For instance, the rules have been cited as a factor in planned closures of coal units by 2025, with 8.1 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity scheduled to retire this year alone.
- **Status**: These regulations are still active, though the Trump administration’s push to "eliminate burdensome regulations" may lead to revisions or delays in enforcement.

### 3. **Coal Ash Management Regulations**
- **Description**: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA regulates coal combustion residuals (coal ash) to prevent groundwater contamination. Rules require proper lining of ash ponds, closure of unlined ponds, and monitoring, with deadlines tightened in recent years.
- **Impact**: The cost of retrofitting or closing ash ponds—sometimes hundreds of millions per plant—adds financial pressure on coal operators. Non-compliance risks fines or forced shutdowns, further discouraging coal use.
- **Status**: These rules persist, though the National Mining Association and some lawmakers (e.g., via the COAL Act introduced in 2025) are advocating for streamlined permitting and reduced oversight, which could ease this burden if enacted.

### 4. **Clean Air Act Requirements**
- **Description**: The Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates controls on criteria pollutants like sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), as well as hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury) via the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). Coal plants must install scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction systems, or other technologies to meet these standards.
- **Impact**: While most operating coal plants have already installed these controls (nearly 90% by 2023), the upfront and maintenance costs deter new coal plant construction and strain older facilities. The CAA’s framework also supports state-level emissions caps, which can further limit coal’s viability.
- **Status**: The CAA remains a cornerstone of U.S. environmental law, though Trump’s administration has directed agencies to review and potentially relax such standards to prioritize domestic energy production.

### 5. **State-Level Policies**
- **Description**: Beyond federal rules, some states have enacted laws or utility commission policies favoring coal plant retirements or imposing additional emissions limits. For example, states like California and New York have aggressive decarbonization targets (e.g., 100% clean energy by 2045), effectively phasing out coal. Conversely, coal-reliant states like West Virginia and Wyoming have laws resisting retirements, but these don’t override federal mandates.
- **Impact**: In states with anti-coal policies, regulatory barriers compound federal rules, hastening closures. In pro-coal states, federal regulations still dominate unless repealed.
- **Status**: State policies vary, with some facing legal challenges (e.g., Arkansas’s 2024 law creating a commission to review coal retirements), but they generally reinforce or amplify federal barriers.

### 6. **Permitting and Leasing Delays**
- **Description**: Coal mining and power plant construction face prolonged permitting processes under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. Federal coal leasing on public lands has also been contentious, with moratoriums or delays under prior administrations (e.g., Obama-era pauses, partially lifted under Trump).
- **Impact**: Lengthy environmental reviews and litigation (often by environmental groups) delay new coal projects or expansions, increasing costs and uncertainty. This discourages investment in coal infrastructure.
- **Status**: The Trump administration’s January 2025 executive order aims to streamline NEPA reviews and prioritize energy projects, but implementation lags, and existing permits remain subject to legal scrutiny.

### Broader Context and Shifts
- **Economic Competition**: Beyond regulations, coal faces market-driven barriers from cheaper natural gas (due to the fracking boom) and renewables (solar and wind costs dropped 85% and 70%, respectively, since 2010). These economic pressures amplify regulatory impacts.
- **Trump Administration Influence**: Since January 2025, Trump’s energy dominance agenda has sought to reverse Biden-era rules, with figures like Senator Shelley Moore Capito and Representative Harriet Hageman pushing legislation (e.g., the COAL Act) to ease permitting and counter EPA overreach. However, as of April 8, 2025, these efforts are in early stages, and existing regulations still govern.

### Conclusion
The primary regulatory barriers keeping coal from being used for electricity production include stringent EPA emissions standards (CO2, wastewater, coal ash), Clean Air Act pollution controls, state-level decarbonization policies, and permitting delays. While the current administration is working to dismantle some of these—potentially boosting coal’s short-term prospects—the entrenched legal and economic challenges suggest that regulatory relief alone may not fully revive coal-fired electricity absent significant technological or market shifts. As of now, these barriers remain active, though their future enforcement is uncertain amid ongoing policy debates.

---

quote:

---

Why not both?

---