Trump Administration's Coal Industry Support Sparks Legal Challenges

President Trump ran for office promising to restore a future for coal in the U.S. He now has new hardware confirming his status as a top industry ally: a trophy hailing him as the "Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal."

Trump received the statue — a bronze coal miner bearing a pickax — from an industry lobbying group earlier this month, just before signing an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Defense to purchase additional electricity from coal plants.

"We're going to be buying a lot of coal through the military now," Trump said. "It's going to be less expensive and actually much more effective than what we have been using for many, many years."

The order marks the Trump administration's latest move to boost the coal industry. Over the last two decades, utilities have closed hundreds of coal-fired power plants in favor of cheaper options like wind, solar and natural gas. The shift has cut U.S. carbon emissions and air pollution.

But since returning to office, the administration has issued emergency orders to keep eight coal units operating past their planned retirement dates, arguing that their closure would raise power bills and threaten grid stability. Environmental groups and several states have challenged the orders, saying the retirements are part of a planned transition, not a crisis.

Now, the administration is also facing pushback from two Colorado utilities, which say the federal government's order is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.

"Their claim is that they had planned to retire this plant, and they had been making preparations to retire the plant for some time," says Ari Peskoe, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. "All of that is effectively commandeering the property, private property, of these entities."

The dispute centers on Craig Station, a hulking three-unit power complex towering over the high deserts of northwest Colorado. Electricity from the station powers mostly rural communities across the Western U.S.

In 2016, operators of the complex decided that closing Craig 1, the station's oldest coal-fired unit, was the most cost-effective option to serve its customers and meet air quality requirements. Then, just a day before the scheduled closure at the end of 2025, the federal government issued an order to keep the plant open and available for 90 days.

Colorado's attorney general and environmental groups challenged the order in late January. The next day, the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and the Platte River Power Authority — co-owners of the power plant — filed a petition asking the U.S. Department of Energy to reconsider.

In the request, Tri-State and Platte River say they've built sufficient solar and wind farms, and no longer need Craig 1. By forcing the power plant to stay open, the plant owners say they've been forced to buy coal and invest in maintaining the facility, unnecessary expenses that amount to an "uncompensated taking" of their property in violation of the Constitution.

The U.S. Department of Energy declined an interview request for this story. In an emailed statement, Caroline Murzin, an agency spokesperson, said the U.S. needs vast amounts of additional electricity generation to support domestic manufacturing and the ongoing artificial intelligence boom.

"Thanks to President Trump's leadership, the Energy Department is unleashing energy dominance to reduce energy costs for American families and strengthen the electric grid," Murzin said.

In a press release, Tri-State CEO Duane Highly said ratepayers will shoulder the cost of keeping Craig 1 running. Tri-State and Platte River executives declined an interview to explain their objections further.

Environmental groups have rushed to calculate the extent of those expenses. An analysis conducted for the Sierra Club by Grid Strategies, an energy consulting firm, found it could cost from $85 million to $150 million annually to keep Craig 1 operating at its average output levels. That's in addition to expenses for the new wind, solar and transmission projects.

"Customers will essentially be paying twice," says Matt Gerhart, a senior attorney for the Sierra Club. "They'll be paying for the resources that were intended to replace Craig 1, and now they'll also be paying for the cost to keep Craig 1 open."

The federal government can intervene in power plant operations under the Federal Power Act.

Before Trump returned to the White House, however, the Energy Department mainly invoked its authority during wars and extreme weather events, such as hurricanes or cold snaps, according to a recent analysis conducted by the Congressional Research Service.

In Colorado, Tri-State and Platte River contend that there's no situation to justify an emergency order. In Michigan, environmental groups have filed a court challenge on similar grounds, focused on a coal plant outside Grand Rapids kept open since May 2025.

That court decision is expected sometime next summer, says Peskoe, and could determine whether the Trump administration is acting within the boundaries of federal law by forcing coal plants to stay open.