Energy
‘War On Coal Is Finally Over’: Energy Experts Say Trump Admin’s Deregulation Agenda Could Fuel Coal’s ‘Revival’
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Audrey Streb
Within the first months of his second administration, President Donald Trump has prioritized “unleashing” American energy and has already axed several of what he considers to be burdensome regulations on the coal industry, promising it’s “reinvigoration.”
Trump signed an executive order on April 8 to revive the coal industry, and shortly after moved to exempt several coal plants from Biden-era regulations. Though it has become a primary target of many climate activists, coal has been historically regarded as readily available and affordable, and several energy policy experts who spoke with Daily Caller News Foundation believe Trump has the cards necessary to strengthen the industry.
“When utility bills are skyrocketing or blackouts are happening in winter, people are going to want reliable power back,” Amy Cooke, co-founder and president of Always on Energy Research and the director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Center told the DCNF. “The beauty of coal is that it allows for affordable, reliable power, which is absolutely crucial to economic prosperity, and in particular, innovation.”
“I think the number one, most significant threat to humanity is no power,” Cooke said, adding that coal is a vital contributor to the nation’s “baseload power.”
Following his executive order, Trump in early April granted a two-year exemption for nearly 70 coal plants from a Biden-era rule on air pollution that required them to reduce certain air pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that the move would “bolster coal-fired electricity generation, ensuring that our nation’s grid is reliable, that electricity is affordable for the American people, and that EPA is helping to promote our nation’s energy security.”
Shortly after, skepticism swirled surrounding whether or not the coal industry would be able to experience a revival, and whether it would be economically savvy to pursue one.
Energy generated from burning coal only powers roughly 16% of the U.S., though 40 states are dependent on coal, according to data from America’s Power. Energy generation through coal reached a record low in 2023, a Rhodium Group study reported. In 2021, however, coal was the primary source of energy for 15 states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“We can lead the world in innovation,” Cook told the DCNF, referencing developments in natural gas and nuclear power as beneficial. “But you have to have coal. It has to be part of the mix.”
“It’s insane that we would shut down any base load power right now, when the demand for power is so high,” Cooke added. She further referenced the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s 2024 report and research from Always on Energy Research that have projected rolling blackouts to begin across the U.S. by 2028.
As American energy demand continues to climb, the odds of impending blackouts would increase if the supply fails to grow at the same rate. The push toward renewable energy sources, in addition to stringent environmental regulations approved under former President Joe Biden, may have contributed to the slower growth of energy supply currently being experienced in the U.S.
Immediately after returning to the White House, Trump declared a national energy emergency, stating that “the integrity and expansion of our Nation’s energy infrastructure” is “an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States’ national and economic security.”
“We looked at it and predict that there will be periods of blackouts of 24 hours or more,” Cook told the DCNF.
She further noted that “the cheapest power is the power you’ve already paid for,” arguing for the continuation of existing coal plants and the reopening of ones that have been closed.
“The only people who think coal is bad are those who view it through the lens of carbon emissions only, and that is no way to do energy policy,” Cooke said, arguing that it is necessary to adopt a “holistic” approach to energy generation, given the nation’s projected energy crisis.
“The American people need more energy, and the Department of Energy is helping to meet this demand by unleashing supply of affordable, reliable, secure energy sources – including coal,” Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an April 9 statement. “Coal is essential for generating 24/7 electricity,” he added, “but misguided policies from previous administrations have stifled this critical American industry. With President Trump’s leadership, we are cutting the red tape and bringing back common sense.”
The president has also said that he envisions greater job opportunities for coal miners with the industry’s expansion, stating during an April 8 press conference that the workers are “really well-deserving and great American patriots.”
“For years, people would just bemoan this industry and decimate the industry for absolutely no reason,” Trump added.
“Miners can wake up today for the first time in a decade and their spouses and families will realize they have a job tomorrow,” reporter Bob Aaron said in a video shared on X. They can “hear a president of the country announce that the war on coal is over.”
“I really anticipate a revival in the coal industry in the United States under Trump,” David Blackmon, an energy and policy writer who spent 40 years in the oil and gas business told the DCNF. He pointed to the Trump administration loosening restrictions on coal, adding that the Biden administration made it “near impossible” to build new coal plants due to aggressive climate rules.
Under Biden’s signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. prioritized renewable energy generation and subsidization, resulting in a hefty price tag for taxpayers who had to foot the bill for several environmental initiatives, including hundreds of millions of dollars for solar panel construction in some of the nation’s least-sunny locations.
“The cheapest, the most affordable thing to do is to keep our current infrastructure online,” André Béliveau, Senior Manager of Energy Policy at the Commonwealth Foundation, told the DCNF. “Coal remains one of, if not, the most affordable energy source we have.”
“You’re forcing retirement of full-time energy sources and trying to replace them with part-time energy sources, and that’s not going to work,” Béliveau continued, referencing renewable energy avenues such as wind and solar. “We can’t run a full-time economy on part-time energy.”
Alberta
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
From Energy Now
At the energy conference in Calgary, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressed the case for building infrastructure to move provincial products to international markets, via a transportation and energy corridor to British Columbia.
“The anchor tenant for this corridor must be a 42-inch pipeline, moving one million incremental barrels of oil to those global markets. And we can’t stop there,” she told the audience.
The premier reiterated her support for new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Man., and potentially a new version of Energy East.
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government are assembling a list of major projects of national interest to fast-track for approval.
Carney has also pledged to establish a major project review office that would issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Alberta
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.
Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets. However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies. While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”
The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act). Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.
It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions. While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?
As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?
The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity. Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day. In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.
What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil? It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.
Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
