Steve Milloy
Contributor
President Trump took two major steps this week to end the 14-year-old Democrat war against the coal industry and cheap electricity. Although greens have promised to sue, they are unlikely to succeed as the moves have pretty much been pre-approved by the Supreme Court.
First, EPA proposed to roll back all greenhouse gas emission standards for coal plants. The Obama EPA first issued climate emissions standards for coal plants in August 2015. These rules didn’t last long as they were stayed by the Supreme Court in February 2016.
Although President Trump proceeded to replace the Clean Power Plan with the much less expensive and more practical Affordable Clean Energy rule in June 2019, that effort was rejected by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in January 2021. But that turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for climate activists. (RELATED: STEVE MILLOY: Big Beautiful Bill Won’t Raise Electricity Prices)
In June 2022, the Supreme Court invalidated the Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA on the basis of a first-time used constitutional theory called the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine, unless a regulatory agency can point to express authorization from Congress for a major regulatory program, the program is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. The Clean Power Plan had no such authorization.
But the never-admit-defeat Biden EPA went back to the drawing board and issued a new rule that can essentially be thought of as a Clean Power Plan 2.0. It is this rule that the Trump EPA is now rolling back.
When the greens sue the Trump EPA, the agency will be able to point to West Virginia v. EPA and say that neither the Biden EPA nor the Trump EPA have been expressly authorized by Congress to regulate emissions from coal plants. This should be a winning argument.
The second rule to be rolled back is something called the Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS). As far as the war on coal is concerned, this is actually a much more important EPA rule as it was the one the Obama EPA used to wreck 50 percent of the US coal industry. Issued in 2012, the MATS rule was aimed at reducing mercury emissions from coal plants, something that sounded scarier than it really was.
When EPA did the benefit-cost analysis for the MATS rule, it could only come up with hypothetical benefits worth $6 million dollars, while the actual compliance costs were estimated to be on the order of $10 billion. In the 2015 SCOTUS ruling that rejected EPA’s benefit-cost analysis as unreasonable, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “One would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”
Similarly to regulatory ping-pong of the Clean Power Plan, the first Trump EPA took action to defang MATS. The Biden EPA responded by defying SCOTUS and making the rule more stringent. Now the ball is back in the Trump EPA’s court and MATS is once again headed to the ashbin of regulatory history, hopefully for good. The rule’s economics have only gotten worse for its advocates and a challenge to the Trump EPA’s new action is unlikely to succeed.
While the good news is that these Trump EPA actions should finally put an end to the war on coal, the bad news is that severe damage to the industry and the cheap electricity it provided was done long ago.
The 2012 MATS rule was so draconian that utilities hurried to close coal plants and switch to gas plants. By the time SCOTUS got around to ruling against MATS in 2015, it was too late for the half of the coal industry that had been destroyed. Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy mocked the tardiness of SCOTUS, responding, to the Court’s decision as follows: “The majority of power plants have already decided and invested in a path to achieving compliance with those mercury and air toxic standards.” Even the West Virginia v. EPA decision came seven years after the Clean Power Plan was first issued.
Democrats wielded the government to illegally wreck the coal industry and to pointlessly raise electricity prices. The damage done is immense and will take the government-sized help to repair it. President Trump is taking the necessary steps to revive the coal industry, but there is a very long way to go.
Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer, publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Instituting rules requiring a stable grid, that is, deeply disfavoring nondispatchable sources like wind and solar are needed.
Good point. We need to do more than to relieve the absurd restrictions on coal and gas. Measures against proliferation of intermittent sources is necessary too, for best system cost and performance.
And perhaps a rule that requires that all minerals used in the production of “clean energy” be mined in the USA by American miners.
There should be no exporting pollution in the name of clean energy.
yes!
Great idea- rules requiring a stable grid! Such rules probably already exist but aren’t being followed.
Rules… their very existence begs the get around.
Not a fan of adding rules unless the market can’t make them. Unreliable electricity at residential and commercial property will be corrected by the market or voters. Elections to decide power quality goes a bit far.
Utilities are already regulated, so any claim of a free market is missing the point. The issue was Congress deciding to subsidize wind and solar, adding another layer of socialism onto an already socialized system.
The ClimateCult crusade has destroyed national wealth faster than a tornado in a trailer park.
A tornado doesn’t have a five year mandate to wreck. The British government does.
even faster than fentanyl in a trailer park
Or Fentanyl (why do people say “fentanol”?) in a Seattle park.
That one always bothers me as well.
Erm, faster than a tornade in a solar voltaic farm, might be a better analogy.
In some cases it remains true: the pen is mightier than the sword – h/t Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton (Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, 1839).
Despite the intimidation, threats, regulation, and the under the radar coercion things stubbornly refuse to go the green’s way. Have you ever noticed in the media, no matter what is being discussed, how the [celeb?] interviewee always manages to insert “climate change” wherever possible into their answers? I know I have.
It’s a dead easy signal of virtue that costs them … net zero. Unless, they’re really stupid and private jet around etc
The kids at the Guardian have resorted to naming Carbon dioxide as: “planet-heating pollution”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/13/trump-military-parade-pollution-emissions
I wonder if any of them have a garden, and if so, what kind of state it is in.
The Guardian calls the military parade in the US “planet-heating pollution”, yet stays silent on the annual military parades by China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, India, Venezuela, and France.
And what do they think our Trooping of the Colour is?
I wonder why?
The Guardian is the epitome of self-loathing.
Reading the Guardian on line also produces Planet Heating Pollution then. I wonder what their global readership carbon footprint would be?
I bet this story will not be mentioned at all in any way here in the People’s Republic of Wokeachusetts. At least not until I start ranting about it- as I often do about stories I see on WUWT. Of course, as usual, those rants are 100% ignored. I usually send them to state officials (energy and environmental types), enviro groups, and of course forestry folks since that was my industry- but even they’ve prostrated themselves to the green BS. Some of the biggest forest owners have slaughtered their forests for the easy bucks by converting them to solar “farms”. And some of the best farmland in New England, in the CT River Valley, are now such travesties- thanks to the easy profits.
I used to live in the CT River Valley from 1997 to 2013. Back then, much of that farmland was wasted on tobacco production, whose only “benefit” is to give smokers lung cancer. Why don’t those farmers try raising something edible?
’Back then’ smoking was not only quite commonplace, but also socially acceptable. FYI, most of the tobacco grown in CT was highly prized as a wrapper for very high end cigars, rather than used in the mass production of ‘coffin nails’.
Getting back to the gist of the article, one of our biggest problems today is dealing with intrusive governments that are only too eager to act on the urges of what some busybodies consider ‘wasteful’.
True, well, at least some are now growing legal weed, which can be made into edibles. 🙂 I happen to detest tobacco having lost many friends and relatives to lung cancer.
If others value your property much more highly than you do, there’s nothing wrong with selling your land to them. The problem, of course, is that the higher valuation only arises from the coercive power of a government empowered by fearful idiots to protect them from the fictional effects of an essential trace gas.
Do the solar farms produce any electricity in the snowy wintertime?
I’d like to know – can’t be much with the short days and low sun. I saw one pro solar video where the guy said solar works even with a foot of snow because some part of the spectrum can penetrate snow that far. I don’t recall if he meant ultra violet or what. Didn’t make any sense to me.
Depends on how densely packed the snow is.
This should be great news for Britain, because we’ve got huge amounts of the stuff:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
“Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.
Experts believe there is between 3 and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.
Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal – much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas.
In comparison: so far the world extracted ‘merely’ 0.135 trillion ton of oil, a small fraction of the coal reserves located beneath the North-Sea.”
Unfortunately those in charge barely have two functioning brain cells between them.
An apology to Benjamin Franklin: Carbon-based fuel is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.
Story tip: Sun dimming and saving the climate…
Brits have been warned that Russia could launch a nightmare attack against the country by using high-tech doomsday equipment to block the sun.
Defence experts have stressed that Vladimir Putin could use geoengineering to transform weather systems and disrupt the UK.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/warning-vladimir-putin-could-attack-35401739
Well…. Mr Bond….
Well, Charles..
I can’t think of anything that Russia could do to the sun/atmosphere that won’t impact Russia just as much as it does the UK.
I thought blocking the sun to stop global warming is a good thing.
Unless one is living on solar voltaic. Then….?
Her Majesty’s Secret Service are on it.
Gub’mint destroyed coal, they can bring it back. Make coal great again.
The government can just get out of the way. It doesn’t need to “do” anything.
President Trump’s changes to the regulation on the element Mercury, Hg, can be repeated in spirit for the element Lead, Pb.
I have done a lengthy study of Lead toxicity. Each time I revise it for an article on WUWT, it remains far too long. This is partly because there are so many objections to the narrative by The Establishment. The overall finding is that (obviously) ingestion of high quantities of Lead can lead to death but the low quantities that are alleged to cause a loss of Intelligence Quotient, IQ, in youngsters is based on science with a bias. Geoff S
Once the linear zero threshold took hold, even water will kill.
More progress.