Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

The Mirage of a Coal Revival and the Perverse Logic of Trump’s EOs

This post is the second in a two-part series. Read Part 1 here.

In a recent post, we highlighted how the Trump administration's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry will likely not accomplish their hopes for “revival,” as the basic economics of coal generation cannot be modified by executive order, despite Trump’s or Lee Zeldin’s desires. What these policies will achieve, ultimately, is releasing coal-fired power plant operators from any obligation not to harm the communities where they operate.

We argued, based on data analysis of the location of coal-fired generating units, that the executive orders will primarily reinforce historical environmental injustices by giving some of the most polluting power plants in the country a license to continue harming people and places already overburdened by a legacy of pollution. These communities, unsurprisingly, are some of the ones facing the harshest socioeconomic conditions in the country, as well as being burdened with some of the highest levels of exposure to toxic chemicals and other contaminants.

In this post, we take one step forward to explore the intersection of energy burden and electoral politics. Although seemingly random, the goal of this series is to show how these policies, in addition to harming the already vulnerable, will also take their toll on constituencies where the president has strong electoral support, as well as communities facing the highest energy burden.

Which constituencies are being hit the hardest by coal-fired power plants?

Coal energy generation is detrimental for everyone, but especially for communities with high energy burden and historic exposure to pollution. As these communities are often in or adjacent to rural counties, it is unsurprising that many of the communities that will be hardest hit by a regulatory “gift” to the coal generation owners are those that voted heavily for President Trump in 2024.

The following figure shows data for counties where the power plants exempted from mercury emission guidelines in a recent EO are located, and it provides a clear picture of how these variables are correlated. On the vertical axis, we plotted the percentile of energy burden risk, which is a relative measure of how much a household in a given county spends on energy, compared to all the other counties in the country. On the horizontal axis, we plotted the percentage difference for the winning party during the last presidential election. The color of the bubbles reflects the winning party, and the size reflects the margin of victory for the winner.

We can clearly see that the vast majority of counties with coal-fired power plants are strongly Republican (they voted for Trump by a margin of 30 percent or more), which is clear from the tight cluster of bubbles in the upper left quadrant of the plot. The second thing that stands out is that the vast majority of them sit above the 50th percentile in the distribution of energy burden, meaning that they spend more on energy than the remaining 50 percent of the other counties in the country, showing how these two dimensions are strongly correlated.

For example, take Stewart County, TN (labeled in the plot), which is home to the Cumberland Fossil Plant (owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority). This county voted for Trump by a 63.3 percent margin (almost two Republican votes per Democratic vote), and it sits in the 91st percentile on the distribution of energy burden — meaning that county residents dedicate more of their household income to energy expenditures than people in 91 percent of the counties in the U.S.

This is the perverse logic of the EOs aimed at “reviving” the coal industry: Despite being advertised as a win for conservative strongholds, the continued operation of these plants will provide few economic benefits while taking a disproportionate toll on the very same communities that helped Trump get elected.

Showing 2,916 results

A coal power plant emitting carbon emissions into the air

Bryan Dunning, Federico Holm | June 23, 2025

The Mirage of a Coal Revival and the Perverse Logic of Trump’s EOs

In a recent post, we highlighted how the Trump administration's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry will likely not accomplish their hopes for “revival,” as the basic economics of coal generation cannot be modified by executive order, despite Trump’s or Lee Zeldin’s desires. What these policies will achieve, ultimately, is releasing coal-fired power plant operators from any obligation not to harm the communities where they operate.

Minor Sinclair | June 18, 2025

Four New Members Join Center for Progressive Reform Board

Five years ago, our board of directors instituted term limits for its members. This was a major decision for a 22-year-old organization that relied on the ongoing commitment of its five founders, all professors of law. Board members have stepped down while others have joined, and the process of renewal and transition has been healthy for the organization. In this context, we’re thrilled to announce the election of four new members to our growing board of directors — two Member Scholars and two independent members. Through each of their commitments to justice, solidarity, and democracy, they embody the deepest values of our organization.

James Goodwin | June 18, 2025

How Trump is Building a Deregulatory State by Fiat: Part III

Over the course of this series, I have explored President Donald’s Trump’s comprehensive effort to build from a scratch a new regulatory system that systematically favors his administration’s anti-regulatory agenda. As part of this campaign, he has issued several executive orders that fundamentally distort the key building blocks that comprise our regulatory system: law, science, economics, and the career civil service. In the earlier posts, I examined the executive orders specifically affecting the first three of those building blocks. In this final post, I examine Trump’s efforts to remake the civil service.

Federico Holm | June 17, 2025

CRA By the Numbers 2025: Update for June 17, 2025

Since our last update on May 27, we have seen a slowdown in developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions, which is consistent with Senate timelines for considering and voting on joint resolutions. However, there has been one key development that closes a chapter opened on April 2, when House Republicans decided to use CRA procedures to undo the waivers issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to California.

James Goodwin | June 17, 2025

How Trump Is Building a Deregulatory State by Fiat: Part II

In the first post of this series, I began detailing President Donald’s Trump’s comprehensive effort to build from a scratch a new regulatory system that systematically favors his administration’s antiregulatory agenda. As I explained, he has issued several executive orders that fundamentally distort the key building blocks that comprise our regulatory system: law; science; economics; and the career civil service. In the first post, I examined the executive orders specifically affecting the “law” building block. In this post, I examine the next two building blocks: science and economics.

Catalina Gonzalez | June 16, 2025

Rebates or Planning Grants? New Report on Strategies for Climate Justice Funding

However dispiriting the federal pullback of critical climate funding currently feels, it’s essential to play the long game and continue to develop effective strategies for an ongoing clean energy transition.

James Goodwin | June 16, 2025

How Trump Is Building a Deregulatory State by Fiat: Part I

During his first term, President Donald Trump encountered for the first time the modern regulatory system that Congress has slowly built up over the last century. What he found was that its commitment to rule of law principles, democratic input, and reason-based decision-making presented a formidable barrier to his administration’s agenda of rolling back protective measures that millions of us depend on to keep our workplaces safe, our drinking water free of contaminants, and our bank accounts guarded against cheats and scams. That experience clearly left an impression. With the help of Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and other White House advisors, Trump has spent the first few months of his second term issuing a dizzying array of executive orders aimed at building, piece by piece, the kind of regulatory system that he would like to have — one that is strongly biased against promoting the public interest.

air pollution

Sophie Loeb | June 11, 2025

Growing Threats Imperil North Carolina’s Clean Energy Future

North Carolinians are facing more threats to our clean energy future at both the state and federal levels.

Shelley Welton | June 10, 2025

Yardsticking It to the Man, Then and Now

In the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and like-minded thinkers advanced the idea of publicly owned utilities as a “yardstick” against which private utilities’ performance could be measured. When private utilities fell short, the threat of public power would discipline these entities into better behavior, or would result in full-out replacement by utilities owned and controlled by municipalities, state entities, or the federal government. This theory animated an impressive array of New Deal efforts at rural electrification, in which the government directly built out large-scale public electricity generation and funded communities to create their own local power systems in areas of the country that private utilities refused to serve.