Turn up the heat: why the US is returning to "dirty" energy
While the whole world is trumpeting the dangers of coal-fired generation, American President Donald Trump is betting on black fuel: first, he ordered the Pentagon to purchase energy from coal-fired thermal power plants, and now he plans to allocate $ 700 million to the development of the industry. The sum will be used not only for the modernization of existing stations, but also for the construction of new facilities. The reason for the reversal from the "green" agenda is the growing demand for electricity, including data centers. What this will lead to is in the Izvestia article.
Coal is back in fashion
"We're going to get the miners back to work," US President Donald Trump announced last April. At the same time, he signed a decree with the provocative title of "reviving America's beautiful clean coal industry."
A lot has been done since then. Federal lands have been reopened for lease for mining. An "energy emergency" regime has been declared in the country. And in February, Trump ordered the Pentagon to conclude agreements on the purchase of electricity from coal-fired thermal power plants and allocated $ 175 million for the modernization of six plants.
These measures are already producing results. After 15 years of declining coal consumption in the United States, the industry in 2025 showed an unexpected increase in demand, by about 10%.
The White House is ready to use emergency powers to advance the agenda. We are talking about the Defense Production Act of 1950, which allows the president to intervene in the economy if a particular industry is recognized as important for national security.
According to Bloomberg, it is through this mechanism that Trump is now going to announce a program to finance coal-fired power for almost $700 million. Of these, $425 million will be used to modernize 13 existing power plants, and another $75 million will be spent on an export terminal in California, which will open a route from Wyoming, Montana and other states.
Another $185 million in grants will be allocated for the construction of new facilities in Alaska and West Virginia, as well as for the restart of the station in Maryland.
But it's not just about wanting to support the miners. The Republican emphasizes that the United States needs stable energy sources for the development of industry, data centers and artificial intelligence.
However, not everyone liked this motivation. Keith Kennedy, Director of Energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, warns that such government measures threaten the environment and climate.
From mines to data centers
The demand for electricity in the United States is not only growing, but also breaking records. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that consumption will increase by 3.1% next year. At the same time, electricity itself is becoming more expensive: according to the forecast, prices for consumers will rise by 5% in 2026 and continue to rise in 2027.
There are several reasons: mining cryptocurrencies, electrification of transport, buildings and industry. But one of the main new factors is data centers (data centers). According to Pew Research estimates, American data centers consumed more than 4% of the country's total electricity in 2024, and by 2030 their demand could grow by another 133%.
The peculiarity of data centers is that they need not just a lot of energy, but stable, round-the-clock and predictable power. Power outages can lead to service outages, data loss, and financial costs.
"That's why Trump started talking about coal," Olga Veretennikova, vice president of the Borsell analytical company, explains to Izvestia. — Coal-fired power plants, like gas and nuclear power plants, belong to dispatchable generation: they can be used as base power, unlike solar and wind generation (RES), which depend on the weather. Therefore, coal can be considered as a quick safety reserve for regions where the network is already overloaded.
Another advantage of black fuel is that a significant part of the infrastructure already exists: stations, power lines, personnel and logistics. This is faster than building a new nuclear power plant, and in some cases easier than coordinating a large renewable energy project together with the network infrastructure.
But the risk is also obvious. If the AI infrastructure relies on coal-fired power generation, its carbon footprint will grow. And this contradicts the climate commitments of the largest technology companies — Microsoft, Google and Amazon, which, on the contrary, are trying to reduce emissions.
At the same time, the basis of American generation today is natural gas — more than 41% of production. Coal, on the other hand, has been losing ground for a long time: in 2025, it provided about 17% of electricity, yielding to renewable sources (24%). However, the Trump administration is trying to slow down this turnaround: the White House is reducing support for green energy and curtailing some programs for solar and wind generation.
What the experts say
Today, the American authorities are pursuing three objectives: to strengthen energy security, support coal states, and respond to the growing demand for electricity. At the same time, as Olga Veretennikova explains, we are not talking about the dominance of coal, but only about an attempt to slow down its displacement.
— The political logic here is obvious: these are jobs, support for coal states, and symbols of energy sovereignty. Economic logic is also present: the U.S. energy system is entering a period of rapid growth in demand after many years of stagnation," the expert explains.
The real problem that Trump is trying to solve is the energy deficit, agrees Mikhail Nikitin, head of the International Business and Finance practice.
— Electricity consumption in the United States is growing for the first time in two decades, and the main driver is data centers for AI. The IEA predicts a doubling of their consumption by 2030. Data centers require a stable base load, not renewable energy with unpredictable output. In this context, saving coal plants is a quick solution to a real problem," he tells Izvestia.
However, the prospects for such a reversal remain controversial. Back in his first term, Trump promised to revive coal, but from 2017 to 2024, production in the United States decreased by 32%.
The market is voting against coal regardless of subsidies, says Igor Rastorguev, a leading analyst at AMarkets. According to him, the EIA predicts a further decrease in coal generation by another 7% in 2026. New solar generation, according to estimates by Lazard and BloombergNEF, costs about half the price of new coal-fired power.
— The same $700 million could go to gas-fired peak stations with rapid commissioning or small modular reactors. Both options provide a stable load with lower risks. The focus on coal is not explained by its economic efficiency, but by the speed of implementation, political attractiveness and the logic of energy independence. But the sustainability of this strategy is questionable," the analyst notes.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
