President Donald Trump’s recent initiative to bolster domestic coal production signals a significant shift in energy policy, particularly affecting the military’s power sourcing. With a new executive order directing the Department of Defense to explore long-term power purchase agreements from coal-fired facilities, there is an emphasis on enhancing the reliability of the U.S. power grid. Trump envisions the military buying significant amounts of coal, underscoring his commitment to traditional energy sources. However, turning this pledge into reality faces hurdles.
The executive order mandates that the Department of Energy assist in keeping certain coal plants operational, but that does not automatically equate to increased funding for coal initiatives. Jerry McGinn, a former Pentagon official, pointed out that “executive orders can’t drive appropriations.” Laws and available funding will ultimately dictate how this policy plays out. Even with the directive, the War Department must navigate procurement rules and funding limits, which could complicate the implementation process.
While the military possesses contracting flexibility to pursue agreements with coal facilities, any actual procurement will happen on a case-by-case basis. The military often enters long-term agreements for electricity through established projects, such as those at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and Fort Cavazos in Texas. These agreements can enhance grid reliability but rely heavily on the feasibility of local resources and infrastructure. McGinn noted that energy sourcing decisions are not made at a national level; they are determined by the circumstances at individual bases. This localized approach means that even if the Pentagon signs contracts with specific coal plants, the actual power supplied will come from a complex mix of the regional electricity grid.
Scale presents another challenge. Coal plants generate more electricity than a single military installation typically requires. Thus, any contracts would need to be substantial enough to meaningfully sustain these facilities, accompanied by potential infrastructure changes or new financial arrangements. McGinn cautioned that “it would sort of be a determination on where this makes sense, where we can do this easily, and where we want to invest.” Involving Congress for additional appropriations becomes likely if large contracts or infrastructure investments are necessary.
This directive aims to ensure that military installations receive uninterrupted, on-demand baseload power, asserting that coal offers a reliability that intermittent sources struggle to match. Trump’s administration presents this initiative as part of a broader strategy to enhance energy security and economic stability, fostering support for coal jobs. The language used by Trump frames this as a reinvigorating force for coal production, as evidenced by his promises of substantial funding for coal plant upgrades.
The broader strategy also aims to revive coal plants facing retirement or that have already shut down, with targeted funds directed toward facilities in select states such as West Virginia and Ohio. The return to service for these plants can have varying timelines depending on their operational status, with mothballed plants potentially returning in months, while fully retired facilities may require extensive repairs and upgrades.
As this directive unfolds, the real test will revolve around its execution. Establishing targeted contracts near specific military installations may offer limited support to some coal facilities, yet a more extensive application of military purchasing power to sustain multiple commercial coal plants will likely necessitate considerable funding and strategic congressional support. The success of the initiative hinges not only on intent but also on navigating a web of logistical and regulatory challenges that lie ahead.
"*" indicates required fields
