On the campaign trail last year, Donald Trump frequently criticized the Biden administration for new regulations targeting what he called “clean, beautiful coal.” In April, he signed executive orders directing federal agencies to undo any regulations that “discriminate” against coal. Coal-fired power plants produce a significant but shrinking share of U.S. electricity — about 16 percent in 2023 — and are by far the most polluting and planet-warming component of the power sector on a per-kilowatt basis.

"This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

So it was no surprise when, on Wednesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin gathered more than a half dozen Republican lawmakers at the agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters to announce the planned repeal of two rules, finalized under the Biden administration, that established limits on carbon and mercury emissions from U.S. power plants. Once finalized, the Trump administration’s proposals will eliminate all caps on greenhouse gases from the plants and revert the mercury limit to a less strict standard from 2012, respectively.

The Biden-era rules, Zeldin said Wednesday, were “expensive, unreasonable, and burdensome” attempts “to make all sorts of industries, including coal and more, disappear.” With demand for electricity poised to surge in the coming years, especially as tech companies make massive investments in artificial intelligence infrastructure, Zeldin said that the EPA’s new proposals will boost electricity generation and “make America the AI capital of the world.”

His argument was echoed by the slate of Republican lawmakers who followed him at the podium. The old rules “would have forced our most efficient and reliable power generation into early retirement, just as Ohio and the rest of the nation are seeing a historic rise in demand due to the AI revolution, new data centers, and a manufacturing resurgence,” said Representative Troy Balderson. “Between data centers, AI, and the growing domestic manufacturing base, the simple fact is we need more electrons on the grid to power all of this,” added Representative Robert Bresnahan of Pennsylvania.

But despite their vigorous agreement that as many energy sources as possible are needed to power America’s future and keep utility bills affordable, every single representative who spoke on Wednesday had, just weeks earlier, cast a vote for a major bill in Congress that will almost certainly have the opposite effect. Analysts say that the pending legislation, which has the Trump-inspired title “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” will slow the country’s buildout of new electricity sources and eventually lead the average U.S. household to incur hundreds of dollars in additional annual energy costs.

That’s because the new GOP legislation essentially repeals the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark 2022 law that has resulted in roughly $800 billion in investments in clean energy technologies. By rolling back regulations on coal-fired power, the GOP’s hope seems to be that some of those lost energy investments can be compensated by fossil fuels. However, analysts agree that this is highly unlikely, due largely to the sheer cost of new coal-fired power, as well as supply bottlenecks that have sharply limited the feasibility of new natural gas plants. Instead, the result will likely just be more expensive electricity.

“The economics of coal plants are the worst they’ve ever been,” said Robbie Orvis, a senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank. “Even just keeping existing coal plants online compared to building new renewables is more expensive.”

To justify its repeal of the greenhouse gas emissions rule for power plants, the EPA is arguing that the U.S. power sector is responsible for just 3 percent of global emissions, and as a result is not a “significant” contributor to air pollution, which is the threshold the Clean Air Act sets for when the government can regulate a stationary source of emissions. While the 3 percent figure is factually accurate, experts say the argument is misleading, especially given that the power sector is responsible for about a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions within the country.

“You’re dealing with something that has lots and lots and lots of sources, and you can’t just throw up your hands and say, ‘Well, this won’t achieve anything,’” said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit founded by former EPA enforcement attorneys.

If the U.S. power industry relies more on coal and natural gas relative to renewables, as Republicans appear to hope, those emissions could remain stubbornly high, especially as demand for power grows. What’s even more certain is that costs will continue to go up. The latest government inflation data shows that consumer electricity prices are already rising much more dramatically than overall consumer prices. In this environment, the technology companies building massive data centers to power cloud computing and AI have struggled to find adequate, cheap electricity. In fact, so many power-guzzling facilities are being built that lawmakers in Virginia, which is at the heart of the data center belt, have enacted legislation to prevent them from overwhelming the grid.

Since utilities have been unable to meet the power needs of tech players like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon Web Services, some of these companies have begun directly contracting with renewables developers and striking deals with nuclear power plant operators. A trade group representing these companies recently asked the Senate to revise the pending legislation so it restores some of the clean energy provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act, saying the U.S. needs “affordable and reliable power” in order to “maintain its leadership in AI.” Analysts say such leadership is threatened if the Trump administration continues to try to tip the scales toward fossil fuel sources that are not competitive with newer sources of energy.

“The current administration is picking technology winners and losers and making trade-offs,” said Orvis. “And the trade-off they want to make is: get rid of the clean energy tax incentives that are driving all of this new clean electricity onto the grid, which puts downward pressure on prices and will lower people’s rates.”

Orvis added that higher electricity costs raise the cost of doing business for manufacturers, including those at the leading edge of AI, making it more difficult to compete with China.

“We’re at a pivotal crossroads,” said Orvis. “We can either lean in and support the domestic growth of these industries by creating a policy environment with certainty, incentives, and support. Or we can do what the current administration is trying to do, and pull back on all of those things and allow China to step in.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/regulation/trump-epa-power-plant-rules-big-beautiful-bill/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

Energy policy analysts are in broad agreement about one consequence of major legislation that Republicans are currently pushing through Congress: It will raise energy prices for the average American household by hundreds of dollars, once all is said and done.

That’s because the legislation, which President Donald Trump has dubbed the One Big, Beautiful Bill, will repeal the vast majority of clean energy provisions contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which a Democrat-controlled Congress passed in 2022. That earlier law provided a wide array of financial incentives for the deployment of electricity sources like solar, wind, battery storage, and nuclear power, as well as support for consumers looking to buy zero- and low-emissions products like electric vehicles. Choking off support for those measures not only hobbles U.S. efforts to fight climate change — the IRA, if left intact, could single-handedly reduce the country’s carbon emissions by 40 percent — but it also means there are fewer new sources of energy for a country that has started to need more and more of it. And reduced supply coupled with increased demand means higher prices.

That’s the virtually unanimous conclusion of the academics and policy experts who have been trying to understand the likely effects of the rollback for the past few months, though each group of experts used different assumptions about the full extent of IRA repeal, given that the legislation is still being revised by the Senate. Part of the reason for this unanimity is that, once constructed, many newer energy sources like wind and solar don’t have substantial operating costs compared to traditional power plants that must be continuously supplied with fuel.

“Clean electricity has zero generation cost,” said Robbie Orvis, a senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank. “One of the dynamics is that less clean electricity gets built, and that makes power generation more expensive, because we’re relying more frequently on fossil fuels with higher generation costs.”

Orvis’ group calculated that those higher power generation costs from using coal or natural gas, along with other price increases stemming from IRA repeal, would result in household energy costs rising by more than $33 billion annually by 2035, compared to a scenario in which the IRA were left intact. That works out to roughly $250 more per year per household. Other analysts came to similar conclusions: The Rhodium Group, an independent policy analysis firm, estimates that average household costs could be as much as $290 higher per year by the same date. Princeton University’s ZERO Lab projects that energy costs could grow even higher: Their estimates show that, in a decade, annual household prices will be $270 to $415 higher under the GOP plan.

Energy Innovation’s analysis calculated the effects of repealing the IRA on energy bills and transportation costs across the nation. They found that if the tax credits for clean energy are taken away, utilities will increasingly rely on natural gas and coal, which have higher generation costs. These costs would then be passed on to customers. Additionally, as electric utilities’ demand for natural gas increases, the cost of the fossil fuel in the market will also rise, further raising household energy bills.

“Gas suppliers can’t respond immediately to large changes in the demand for gas,” said Orvis. “The change in gas demand is pretty large without the tax credits. So you’re really increasing the reliance on gas and therefore gas demand and gas prices.”

On the transportation front, the legislation passed by the House of Representatives eliminates IRA tax credits for electric vehicles and undoes the nation’s latest tailpipe standards, which limit the amount of pollution that new vehicles are allowed to emit. The result is a greater reliance on gasoline than would happen under the status quo — and more demand for gasoline means higher prices at the pump, per Orvis’ modeling.

These price spikes — and the electricity spikes in particular — won’t be felt uniformly across the nation. One key factor is how utilities in a state are regulated. Many states have just one utility that both generates power and provides it to electricity customers. But in so-called deregulated markets such as Texas and Pennsylvania, electricity providers compete on an open market to sell their power.

The rules around how utilities calculate and pass on the costs of generating electricity vary significantly between these two models. In regulated markets with just one provider, the cost of generating electricity and getting it to homes is averaged out and passed on to customers. But the competitive nature of deregulated markets means that customers can see wild fluctuations in price. During peak winter and summer, when demand for power is high, prices can be double or triple normal rates. As a result, customers in deregulated markets see more variation in their bills — because those bills closely track changes in the marginal cost of electricity. If those costs rise in a dramatic and systematic way because IRA repeal leads to fewer sources of energy, customers in deregulated markets will feel the full force of it. Customers in regulated markets like much of the Southeast, on the other hand, will be somewhat cushioned from the increase, because their costs reflect the average of all generation and transmission costs incurred by their utility.

“That helps minimize the impact of repealing IRA tax credits — though it also runs the opposite way and helps reduce savings when market prices go down,” said Jesse Jenkins, an associate professor at Princeton University who led the modeling conducted by the ZERO Lab, in an email.

These rising costs will come on top of U.S. energy bills that are already ticking upward. Electricity prices have been steadily rising since 2020, and the federal Energy Information Administration recently forecasted that that trend is likely to continue through 2026. Prices have increased for a variety of reasons, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupting global oil and gas supply chains, extreme heat and other weather shocks, costly maintenance needed to protected the grid from wildfires, and the buildout of additional capacity to meet growing demand. U.S. electricity demand is beginning to rise for the first time in decades, thanks to the construction of new manufacturing facilities and data centers, which support operations like cloud computing and artificial intelligence, as well as the growing adoption of electric vehicles.

Orvis said that the IRA has been helping meet that demand and maintain the country’s competitive advantage with China, one of the Trump administration’s stated goals. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill would undermine that progress by reducing the amount of energy available for new manufacturing and AI development — and making the electricity that’s left more expensive for everyone.

“The ironic thing is that what’s in the bill, the net results of it will be completely contradictory to what the [Trump] administration’s stated policy priorities are and will cede a lot of the AI development and the manufacturing to China specifically,” said Orvis. “That’s the important macro context for everything that’s happening now — and some of the un-modelable implications in the long run.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/politics/trump-big-beautiful-bill-congress-energy-costs/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The summer of 2021 was brutal for residents of the Pacific Northwest. Cities across the region from Portland, Oregon, to Quillayute, Washington, broke temperature records by several degrees. In Washington, as the searing heat wave settled over the state, 125 people died from heat-related illnesses such as strokes and heart attacks, making it the deadliest weather event in the state’s history.

"This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

As officials recognized the heat wave’s disproportionate effect on low-income and unhoused people unable to access air-conditioning, they made a crucial change to the state’s energy assistance program. Since the early 1980s, states, tribes, and territories have received funds each year to help low-income people pay their electricity bills and install energy-efficiency upgrades through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Congress appropriates funds for the program, and the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, doles it out to states in late fall. Until the summer of 2021, the initiative primarily provided heating assistance during Washington’s cold winter months. But that year, officials expanded the program to cover cooling expenses.

Last year, Congress appropriated $4.1 billion for the effort, and HHS disbursed 90 percent of the funds. But the program is now in jeopardy.

Earlier this month, HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., laid off 10,000 employees, including the roughly dozen or so people tasked with running LIHEAP. The agency was supposed to send out an additional $378 million this year, but those funds are now stuck in federal coffers without the staff needed to move the money out.

LIHEAP helps roughly 6 million people survive freezing winters and blistering summers, many of whom face greater risks now that the year’s warm season has already brought unusually high temperatures. Residents of Phoenix are expected to have their first 100-degree high any day now.

“We’re seeing the warm-weather states really coming up short with the funding necessary to assist people in the summer with extreme heat,” said one of the HHS employees who worked on the LIHEAP program and was recently laid off. Losing the people that ran the program is “absolutely devastating,” they said, because agency staff helped states and tribes understand the flexibilities in the program to serve people effectively, assistance that became extremely important with increasingly erratic weather patterns across the country.

In typical years, once Congress appropriates LIHEAP funds, HHS distributes the money in the fall in time for the colder months. States and other entities then make critical decisions about how much they spend during the winter and how much they save for the summer.

The need for LIHEAP funds has always been greater than what has been available. Only about 1 in 5 households that meet the program’s eligibility requirements receive funds. As a result, states often run out of money by the summer. At least a quarter of LIHEAP grant recipients run out of money at some point during the year, the former employee said.

“That remaining 10 percent would be really important to establish cooling assistance during the hot summer months, which is increasingly important,” said Katrina Metzler, executive director of the National Energy and Utility Affordability Coalition, a group of nonprofits and utilities that advances the needs of low-income people. “If LIHEAP were to disappear, people would die in their homes. That’s the most critical issue. It saves people.”

In addition to Washington, many other states have expanded their programs to provide both heating and cooling programs. Arizona, Texas, and Oregon now offer year-round cooling assistance.

HHS staff plays a crucial role in running LIHEAP. They assess how much each state, tribe, and territory will receive. They set rules for how the money could be used. They audit local programs to ensure funds are being spent as intended. All that may now be lost.

But according to Metzler, there are some steps that HHS could take to ensure that the program continues to be administered as Congress intended. First, and most obvious, the agency could reinstate those who were fired. Short of that, the agency could move the program to another department within HHS or contract out the responsibilities.

But ultimately, Metzler continued, LIHEAP funds need to be distributed so those in need can access it. “Replacing the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is a nearly impossible task,” she said. States “can’t have enough bake sales to replace” it.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/extreme-heat/trump-energy-assistance-liheap-rising-heat/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org