Trump’s Push for Domestic Coal Production
President Donald Trump announced that the military is set to start “buying significant amounts of coal” as part of a broader initiative aimed at enhancing domestic coal production. This move, he argues, will help bolster the reliability of the U.S. power grid. However, putting this plan into action is going to run into challenges posed by Pentagon procurement rules, funding limitations from Congress, and the existing constraints within the power grid.
A newly signed executive order instructs the Army secretary to “seek to source” electricity from coal-fired plants through long-term power purchase agreements that will power military bases and other essential facilities. Additionally, it mandates the Department of Energy to assist in keeping certain coal-fired plants operational.
It’s worth noting that while the executive order provides a directive, it doesn’t automatically generate new funding or modify electricity market regulations. The order highlights that implementation must adhere to existing laws and “is subject to the availability of funds.”
“Executive orders alone cannot drive spending,” said Jerry McGinn, a former Pentagon official now leading the Baroni Center on Government Contracts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The military can, theoretically, have its contracting office pursue agreements with coal-fired power plants when feasible. In practice, the military routinely establishes long-term power contracts for various installations, including bases like Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and Fort Cavazos in Texas, often partnering with third-party providers for on-site energy generation.
If deemed beneficial for grid reliability and mission assurance, officials might structure agreements with local coal facilities. However, McGinn pointed out that while they have considerable flexibility, it often applies only at specific locations and not on a national scale.
It’s important to note that the Department of the Army doesn’t control local electricity markets. While it can create contracts for certain facilities, it does not dictate how grid operators distribute electricity or which fuels private utilities should use.
Most military installations are linked to regional power grids, drawing from various sources, including natural gas and renewables. Thus, even if a deal is struck with a coal-fired power plant, the electricity supplied to the base would still come from the broader grid.
In practice, any such agreement would primarily act as a financial commitment to designated facilities, rather than a direct rerouting of coal-generated power.
Another limiting factor is that coal plants typically produce much more electricity than what a military base needs. While bases consume large amounts of power, meaningful contracts would require significant long-term commitments.
If energy procurement at a base requires infrastructure upgrades or new contract arrangements, that could lead to additional investments needed from the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy.
“It’s going to be about figuring out what makes sense, where it’s easiest to implement, and where to invest,” he added.
Most likely, any significant increase in contracting and infrastructure spending will require Congressional approval. Typically, utility expenses are covered through an operational and maintenance budget sanctioned by lawmakers. Extra funds might be necessary if the policy’s implementation requires building new infrastructure, upgrading transmission systems, or increasing energy costs over time.
According to a fact sheet from the White House, this directive aims to ensure reliable, on-demand power for military and defense-critical sites based on the belief that coal offers dependable energy—something intermittent sources may lack. The proposal is also tied to broader goals of energy security and economic stability.
President Trump and his administration have framed this move as part of a larger strategy to revitalize coal production and safeguard coal-related jobs, including a mention of $175 million in Department of Energy funding meant to retrofit coal plants. He emphasized that the military plans to “purchase a significant amount of coal,” linking this initiative to support for miners and reliable energy supply.
The White House is adopting a parallel approach to revive certain coal-fired plants facing closure. Trump revealed that the Energy Department would provide financial support to facilities in states like West Virginia and Ohio to either maintain operations or restart dormant equipment.
The readiness of coal plants to come back online varies considerably. Facilities that were temporarily closed might resume operations in months, but a fully decommissioned plant could require extensive repairs and regulatory compliance, which might be time-consuming.
The White House and Pentagon haven’t responded promptly to inquiries regarding how this directive will be executed.
In the end, the impact of Trump’s directive hinges on its execution. While targeted contracts at specific facilities could offer limited support, a broader initiative to leverage military purchasing power for multiple coal-fired plants would likely demand substantial funding, careful contract arrangements, and backing from Congress.
