Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced Monday that it will unlock over 13 million acres for coal leasing on federal land, roll back regulations and invest $625 million into the coal industry as part of a multi-agency initiative.
The Department of the Interior (DOI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) all announced while at a DOI-hosted “beautiful, clean coal” event that the agencies will do their part to bolster the coal industry in line with President Donald Trump’s energy agenda. In contrast, the Biden administration imposed stringent regulations on the coal industry, with former President Joe Biden vowing to shut coal “plants down all across America,” which several energy sector experts explained to the Daily Caller News Foundation weakened grid reliability and jeopardized America’s edge in the artificial intelligence (AI) race with China.
“After years of the Obama-Biden administrations dismantling America’s coal industry and destroying thousands of good jobs, what do we have to show for it? A less reliable grid, higher electricity prices, and a stronger China, now the world’s largest coal consumer by far. President Trump is right to reverse course and embrace the most responsibly produced coal on the planet: American coal,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told the DCNF. “By opening 13 million acres for coal leasing and investing $625 million in coal-fired power, the administration is ensuring we have the reliable, affordable energy needed to power data centers, factories, and a growing economy. This is Energy Dominance in action. It strengthens our grid, creates jobs, and secures America’s energy future.” (RELATED: ‘War On Coal Is Finally Over’: Energy Experts Say Trump Admin’s Deregulation Agenda Could Fuel Coal’s Revival)
🚨LIVE: The @interiorpress47, the @EPA and the @ENERGY are announcing how the Trump administration will unleash coal production in the U.S.
“The battle for electricity is something we’re pursuing. … we can’t get there with intermittent, unreliable sources,” Interior Secretary… pic.twitter.com/7IvUf4LhIb
— Audrey Streb (@AudreyLStreb) September 29, 2025
The DOI announced plans to open more than 13 million acres of federal land for coal leasing, eclipsing the 4 million acres the agency is required to unlock under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced two proposed rules to ease regulations on the coal industry, including giving steam-electric power plants more time to comply with certain guidelines and beginning a process to revise the Regional Haze Rule.
Additionally, the DOE announced that it will commit $625 million to bolster the coal industry, which will include updating existing coal plants and investing in coal projects for rural communities among other initiatives.
These are the latest moves as part of President Donald Trump’s energy agenda, which has emphasized clearing hurdles for reliable, affordable energy sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear.
“President Trump promised to put American energy workers first, and today we’re delivering,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum Monday. “By reducing the royalty rate for coal, increasing coal acres available for leasing, and unlocking critical minerals from mine waste, we are strengthening our economy, protecting national security, and ensuring that communities from Montana to Alabama benefit from good-paying jobs. Washington doesn’t build prosperity, American workers and entrepreneurs do, and we’re giving them the tools to succeed.”
Burgum warned against America neglecting to charge forward in the AI race, noting that the U.S. cannot dominate the tech industry if it does not lead in electrical production. Though the Biden administration moved to develop AI, Biden focused on powering America through intermittent power sources like wind and solar while placing strict regulations on the coal industry and blocking new coal mining at the major federal hub known as the Powder River Basin.
Energy experts like Isaac and senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute Steve Milloy told the DCNF that the Trump administration’s efforts to unlock coal as an energy resource greatly contrasts with the Biden administration’s efforts to kneecap the industry.
“President Trump has promised to return America to energy dominance. Part of this includes reinvigorating the US coal industry that Obama and Biden all but destroyed for political reasons. President Trump has already begun the process to reverse the Obama EPA’s junk science-fueled war on coal plant emissions,” Millo told the DCNF. “Today, he is reversing Biden’s policy of ending coal mining on federal lands. But there is a long way to go. Much of the coal industry’s infrastructure has been wantonly destroyed and will need to be rebuilt. But as Jimmy Carter recognized in the 1970s, the US coal industry is vital to America’s success.”
Notably, Trump signed multiple executive orders to boost American coal production and mining to help “unleash American energy” as energy demand is on the rise while supply dwindles.
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.
We have lots of coal, but we have no coal by order. For the present.
O/T Thought police in action – again
That would be Joe Totally not a Dictator Biden.
Normally, I’m against subsidies. But in this case we’ve had the government actively trying to destroy an industry. Helping it get back on it’s feet is justified. So long as the help is temporary.
Subsidies are still subsidies. Just leave them alone, get rid of the regulations which are in their way. Stop the collectivist central planning industrial policy nonsense.
Call it recompense, or restitution, then. ! 🙂
Reparations
If my local government passes a law mandating the tearing down of your house.
Would you be satisfied with just rescinding the law?
Apparently you’re not. Its the meddling that’s the problem, not the technology. If coal is genuinely a better solution, then it’ll be adopted naturally.
Why do we need to invest public funds to ensure cheap reliable electricity for “data centers”. Wouldn’t it make sense for the data centers to make these investments?
Agree 100%. They stand to make substantial amounts on selling these services. They can afford to build the facilities to make it work. And they should build them bigger than needed and sell to the grid if that makes their economics work.
They’ll be spending hundreds of billions on the data centers. Building their own energy facilities they can easily afford and its to their advantage to do it smartly.
I would like to know if you feel the same way for every major user of electricity?
Every auto plant, every steel mill?
You mean that government should not meddle in the markets? Yes, they should not.
Last time I checked, pretty much everyone uses electricity.
Think more about public utility. A new housing development pays for roads, utilities, expanded police and fire services, schools, etc. Existing residents get to use those things as well. Traditionally facilities are required to negotiate “will serve” letters. Why should data centers be not on;y exempted but subsidized? All to pay back at only the lowest bulk commercial rate.
But we are at war, and we must win.
And users pay. Any reason for the government to distort the markets and separate users from payers?
Government HAS distorted the market, in a colossally stupid way. A correction is entirely justified.
For the most part, data centers are building their own power supply. The issue is time to construct. Energy providers other than major utilities can get up and running in <2 years. Utilities take that just for the permitting/planning. The real governor on data center rollout is the availability of gas turbines. Every manufacturer has their full production booked up for 5+ years so it becomes a real horse trade as to who is willing to pay what to get access to hardware.
Both.
All of the above are true. The big guys – e.g., Meta, Google, Microsoft – are spending billions building their own power plants. Smaller data centers are cutting deals with existing electric service providers who may spread the cost of upgrades and new facilities to all ratepayers.
The missing factor in this is what is going to happen to fuel costs, primarily natural gas and coal. The demand is forecasted to rise sufficiently and push those prices significantly higher, raising electric prices even for those producers not serving data centers. These cost increases, of course, must be passed on to the consumer.
AI data centers are resource hogs. It is difficult to see how they can be built and operated without having an impact across society. If we get the expected increases in productivity across multiple fields, we will save in the long run, but expect some economic pain between now and then.
Common sense should go a long way. But not at the UN. The climate scam is here for a reason, for wealth redistribution. It has nothing to do with climate. Trump is probably the only person on the planet able to say this, we can only hope that common sense is contagious.
“…for wealth redistribution”. The UN plan for this starts with IPCC which provides the scientific claims that CO2 causes global warming and climate change and that the rich countries are the big polluters. The UNFCCC then determines for each country an “assessment” for a contribution to the this organization and the UN COP. Even the poor countries are given an assessment. The UNFCCC and the UN COP the distributes the funds to help the cope the poor countries cope with the alleged harmful effects of global warming and climate change.
Budgets for these organizations is many billions of funds. Unfortunately, much of the funds goes to the administration and the workers of these organizations, government bureaucrats, consultants, advisers, contactors, and NGO’s.
These organizations should be shut down. we really don’t need them because the is no harmful global warming and climate change. President Trump got it right about the big climate con.
Just make sure the scrubbers work or we could enter an era of a cooling planet.
We need an “All of the above” energy approach for the grid:
Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Hydro
All of the above
.
None of the below:
Wind, Solar, Fairy Dust, Unicorn Farts
Can they use Unicorn Farts in gas thermal turbine generators as a fuel?
🙂
Yes but finding a source may be problematic.
Maybe. Maybe not. Just get all the modelers to pass gas at the same time!
More about coal use –
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/canada-is-falling-for-chinas-climate-promises-the-same-way-the-west-fell-for-beijings-wto-myths-5921224
Story tip.
More good news, nice to see Steve Milloy in the fight.
It’s not merely coal that needs a boost, but leaders in a variety of countries need to realize that renewables like wind and solar can’t deliver so that the production other fossil fuels needs to be ramped up. Never mind reaching Net Zero, it’s unattainable and never mind forcing green product mandates on consumers since they’re overpriced and undependable. Just make energy from fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear available at reasonable cost , and that’s good enough for the huge majority of the population. If renewables will eventually have their day, let private enterprise develop them and not on the backs of ordinary citizens.
COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Full cost of electricity, A-to-Z basis, shows the extent of ratepayer/taxpayer screwing
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Year 1 O&M cost = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Year I Coal cost = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Year 1 Bank/Owner cost = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Year 1 Total cost = 1.130 b
Year 1 Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b
Total revenue equals total cost at 8 c/kWh
.
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/small-modular-reactors
.
SMRs sounds good, but the electricity cost/kWh would be at least 2 times gas fired CCGT plants.
Such plants are up to 60% efficient, have very low CO2/kWh.
.
It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of say 50 units per year, because the US no longer has the thousands of educated and trained nuclear engineering professionals capable of designing any nuclear plants.
The US lost that capability after Three Mile Island in March, 1979, more than 45 years ago.
.
Also, the US has not enough working-age people who 1) know how to do more complicated stuff, 2) care enough to do it, 3) have the work ethic and mental discipline, or 4) are otherwise inspired to make themselves useful.
Factories have 400,000 unfilled jobs, but there are few skilled, ambitious people to take them.
People have weird expectations; they want to make big bucks doing nothing.
.
The US has a total lack of Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM) professionals who are in high places to call the shots.
The US has been filling the shortfall with Chinese, Indian, etc., STEM folks.
The vacuum at the top was filled by lawyer/liberal arts/enviro functionaries who know next to nothing, except obstruction; Hochul, Newsom, etc., are demagogue-style examples.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each.
China, Russia, South Korea, and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
If four countries were building 50 SMRs/y each, it would require:
.
Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units near harbors.
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site near harbors,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each subsystem,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output
.
AI systems require lots of steady electricity
Each major AI system should be required to have its own power plant
.
Any SMRs shipped to Africa and other such areas, would be turnkey-built in Europe, the US, Russia, Korea, China, and then shipped by special barges to Africa, etc. The SMRs would stay on the barges and send power to shore. No fuss, no muss
.
By definition, highly subsidized, very expensive, environment-uglifying, bird/bat/sea fauna/tourism/fishery/viewshed-destroying, weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, grid-disturbing, expensive-electricity-producing wind/solar/battery systems do not qualify.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1