logo
How will Trump's effort to revitalize coal play out in the nation's most productive coal fields?

How will Trump's effort to revitalize coal play out in the nation's most productive coal fields?

Yahoo05-05-2025

This article was originally published by Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment.
Jake BolsterInside Climate News
On a cool morning in late February, Mark Fix was up before the sun to watch the Tongue River on his ranch in southeast Montana. He was concerned that a breaching ice dam could put his cattle and property in the path of rushing water carrying plates of ice the size of a dinner table.
He was relieved to find that only his fencing and the riverbanks were damaged; his cattle were spooked but okay, he said. Across three decades of ranching on his property about 20 miles south of Miles City, Montana, Fix, who was born in Ekalaka, has grown accustomed to contending with threats from Mother Nature, but has also noticed them intensifying and accelerating.
'As I get older, it is harder to go through all of these unique climate change deals that we get hit with,' he said.
About 10 years ago, a tornado ripped through Fix's ranch, slashing through the roofs of his barn and home. He remembers winds reaching 100 miles per hour.
'I thought 'What the heck? We don't have this kind of stuff in Montana.''
In February, Northern Plains Resource Council, the Montana-based environmental organization Fix used to chair, joined other environmental groups and two tribes in a request filed with the U.S. District Court for Wyoming to allow them to join proceedings in a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management over two resource management plans the agency issued last year. The lawsuit, however, wasn't intended to fight the BLM's plans, but to make sure the agency defends them.
The plans, one in its Buffalo, Wyoming, office, the other in its Miles City, Montana, offices, directed the BLM to stop issuing new coal mining leases in the Powder River Basin, a mineral-rich formation straddling southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming.
The Northern Plains Resource Council was concerned that, with President Donald Trump back in the White House, the agency would not defend its resource management plans in court. It was joined by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, whose reservation lies atop the formation in southeast Montana, a group of environmental activists from the Navajo Nation, which holds mineral rights in the basin, and other environmental groups who shared that concern.
Then, in April, Trump signed an executive order aimed at rejuvenating U.S. coal, which has been hemorrhaging jobs and revenue for decades as mining has become more efficient, and utilities have switched to cheaper ways of generating electricity, like natural gas and, increasingly, even-cheaper wind and solar. He directed the Secretary of the Interior to prioritize coal leasing as 'the primary land use for the public lands with coal resources,' required federal agencies to consider 'revising or rescinding' federal actions that would transition the nation away from coal and signed a proclamation loosening air pollution restrictions for coal-fired power plants.
Coal mining appeared poised to make a comeback in the Powder River Basin.
A BLM spokesperson said in an email that the agency 'is currently in the process of reviewing these resource management plans, as directed by relevant Executive and Secretarial orders,' and added in a separate email that 'the BLM is committed to supporting the Trump administration's prioritization of responsible energy development to make life more affordable for every American family while showing the world the power of America's natural resources and innovation.'
Yet, burning coal is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity, behind only nuclear energy and gas-fired 'peaker plants,' according to one estimate.
The Trump administration is 'seeking to undo [the two resource management plans] and they want to promulgate a new decision consistent' with Trump's energy policy, said Melissa Hornbein, an attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, which is representing several of the parties seeking to intervene in the Montana and Wyoming suit. Since Trump was sworn in in January, Hornbein said the federal government has been filing motions to stay cases that would require the Trump administration to defend policies enacted when Biden was president, which could happen in the effort to preserve the BLM's Buffalo and Miles City resource management plans.
'We'll continue to try and defend these plans until, essentially, they no longer exist,' she said.
Wyoming is confident those plans will be replaced. In early March, state house lawmaker Scott Heiner, representing parts of Lincoln, Sweetwater and Unita counties in southwest Wyoming, told Cowboy State Daily that Wyoming was beginning to study building a new 'coal-fired plant' using $10 million in state-taxpayer dollars to help fund a yet-to-be-announced project.
'With the new administration, I think they will overturn that [resource management plan] in Buffalo [the BLM field office that halted new coal leases in northeast Wyoming] and I think there will be more opportunities to mine coal here in Wyoming,' he told Inside Climate News. Under Trump, Heiner sees 'a chance to revitalize coal mining.'
The Powder River Basin, where mining companies report billions in annual revenue and hundreds of millions in profit, produces 41 percent of U.S. coal, according to Energy Information Administration data from 2022. For decades, while coal from the Powder River Basin was shipped across the U.S. as fuel for electricity plants, communities in northeastern Wyoming benefited from the industry's tax revenue.
But, the tensions between coal's local benefits and its costliness, dirtiness and production of greenhouse gases warming the climate means it faces an uncertain future, even under the auspices of a friendly Trump administration, leading some communities in the region to begin trying to diversify their economy beyond the thermal coal industry.
Still, for many on the ground, that future still includes mining coal.
Defending 'good decisions'
Environmentalists and Native groups who want to see the latest BLM resource management plans remain in place say that the environmental harms that come from mining and burning coal disqualify its continued extraction.
'For over 100 years we've been affected by different types of resource extraction on our land,' said Robyn Jackson, executive director with Diné C.A.R.E, an environmental nonprofit located in the southwest's four-corners region within the Navajo Nation.
Jackson, Diné, said any benefits from mineral extraction — typically from the Navajo leasing land to companies — pales in comparison to 'the cumulative impact of that to our air, our water, our land and the public health.'
Even though Jackson does not live near the Powder River Basin, she is worried about the Navajo's footprint there. Navajo Transitional Energy Company, an energy company whose sole shareholder is the Navajo Nation, has three coal mines in the Powder River Basin, where coal spreads below the Crow and Northern Cheyenne reservations in Montana.
'​​We're disappointed in the direction [NTEC is] taking of more fossil fuel development, of not limiting their carbon emissions — and especially with coal that does not seem to be a long-term source of revenue for our tribe' as demand for it continues to fall worldwide, Jackson said. 'They need to be addressing the climate crisis, not emitting more carbon emissions, not emitting more greenhouse gases. And, really, they should be finding other sources of revenue that are going to be sustainable in the long term.'
The notion that one tribe could be detrimentally affecting another is part of the reason Diné C.A.R.E. has moved to defend the BLM's decision to stop issuing future coal leases. NTEC's operations in the basin are 'exploitative towards other tribes and impacts their ancestral traditional lands, traditional cultural properties,' Jackson said.
The Northern Cheyenne, the Crow tribe and the Navajo Transitional Energy Company did not respond to interview requests.
Fix, the Montana rancher, is concerned that more coal mining will continue to worsen the effects of climate change, and he called the BLM's decision to stop issuing new leases in the region 'common sense' in a press release announcing the motion to intervene.
'This coal will probably never be developed because we're going to renewables,' he said. 'We got better ways to do things now than coal.'
While renewable energy has grown significantly in market share, natural gas has been the primary culprit for coal's declining demand over the last decade.
If the Trump administration moves to stay the case, or begin issuing new resource management plans in Miles City and Buffalo, a time-consuming endeavor, the environmental and tribal groups plan to continue fighting the permitting of new mines there.
'There were some good decisions that happened in the prior administration and we can't let that go,' Jackson said.
A mining rebirth?
There are some in the region who hope to see coal mining continue, even if it's never used to generate electricity. The current BLM management plans are 'not good plans for us,' said Rusty Bell, director of Gillette, Wyoming's office of economic transformation, who is working on diversifying the region's economy. Bell said that Campbell County had received a grant from the Economic Development Administration under President Biden to build the Wyoming Innovation Center in Gillette, which researches ways to use coal for commercially viable products, like bricks, instead of using it as fuel to generate electricity. Ending mining in the Powder River Basin contradicts that effort, Bell said.
'Why would they, you know, allow us to do research on our resource, and then tell us we can't use our resource?' asked Bell. 'It doesn't make sense.'
Travis Deti, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, agreed with Bell. 'We have to have access to our coal resource, and we have to have access to our resource far into the future,' he said.
Fix doesn't want Powder River Basin coal mined for uses beside combustion. 'A lot of our aquifers are in that coal,' he said. Mining removes water from the subsurface, limiting ranchers' ability to water their cattle nearby. 'It doesn't matter what you develop it for, you still end up taking the water away.'
Deti estimated that current mining operations in the basin will cover the demand for its coal for the next 15 years, but almost all of that supply is already spoken for. New mining would pave the way for another coal plant to come online in Wyoming.
'It's a pretty exciting time for the coal industry,' he said.
Such a facility would be the first new coal-fired plant built in the U.S. in over a decade, and would be the first in Wyoming to include carbon capture, potentially increasing the cost to consumers, but providing a new, marketable resource — carbon dioxide.
'CO2 is valuable, and it can be used,' Deti said. He pointed to 'enhanced oil recovery,' in which a company injects CO2 underground to stimulate an oldfield's production, as an example.
Deti said he does not necessarily believe carbon dioxide is contributing to climate change, but if limiting CO2 in electricity production is where the market is heading, 'there's no reason you can't do it' to continue digging up and burning coal, he said.
Fix does not share Deti's optimism.
'Trump came in and gave carte blanche authority to the big coal corporations and said 'the heck with all the little guys — all the guys working the land trying to make a living,'' Fix said. 'Corporate America gets a bye, and the rest of us are going to have a hell of a time.'
He worries that more mining in the area will drive multi-generational ranchers off the land, but found some solace in the tricky economics of coal, which may keep mining companies from opening up new pits in the Powder River Basin. And he had a message for Trump and federal land managers who want more coal mining in the Powder River Basin.
'Stop giving handouts to the corporate coal mines,' he said. 'Don't just take care of your rich friends. Take care of everyone.'
Jake Bolster reports on Wyoming and the West for Inside Climate News. Previously, he worked as a freelancer, covering climate change, energy, and the environment across the United States.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How much damage has Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme?
How much damage has Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme?

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How much damage has Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme?

Israel's strikes on Iran have taken aim at its nuclear facilities, amid fears that the Islamic republic is seeking to develop nuclear weapons -- an accusation Tehran denies. Experts told AFP that while the attacks might have caused some damage to Iran's nuclear programme, they are unlikely to have delivered a fatal blow. - What is the extent of the damage? - Israel's operation included strikes on Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, and a uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, according to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), citing information from Iranian officials. IAEA said on Friday that a key, above-ground component of Iran's Natanz nuclear site had been destroyed, also citing Iranian officials. There was "extensive" damage to the site's power supply, according to a report from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a US-based organisation specialising in nuclear proliferation, which analysed satellite images. A loss of electricity to underground facilities can significantly damage the site's centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, the ISIS institute said. If backup power is lost, "at the least, the enrichment plant is rendered inoperable for the time being", it said. Iran has said the damage to Fordow, south of Tehran, was minor. But experts said it is impossible at this stage to determine the impact the strikes might have had on uranium stockpiles believed to be stored around the Isfahan site. Ali Vaez, International Crisis Group's Iran project director, told AFP that if Iran managed to transfer significant quantities to "secret facilities," then "the game is lost for Israel". - Can the programme be destroyed? - While "Israel can damage Iran's nuclear programme... it is unlikely to be able to destroy it", Vaez said, arguing that Israel does not have the massively powerful bombs needed "to destroy the fortified, bunkered facilities in Natanz and Fordow". Destroying those would require US military assistance, added Kelsey Davenport, an expert with the Arms Control Association. She also stressed that Israel's unprecedented attack cannot erase the expertise Iran had built up on nuclear weapons, despite killing nine Iranian nuclear scientists. - What are the risks to the Iranian population? - The IAEA has not detected any increase in radiation levels at the affected sites. "There is very little risk that attacks on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities would result in a harmful radiation release," said Davenport. But an attack on Bushehr, Iran's only nuclear power plant, could "have a serious impact on health and the environment", she added. After Israel launched its strikes, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that nuclear facilities "must never be attacked" and that targeting Iranian sites could have "grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond". - Is Iran close to developing a nuclear bomb? - After the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from a landmark deal that sought to curb Tehran's nuclear activities, Iran has gradually retreated from some of its obligations, particularly on uranium enrichment. As of mid-May, the country had an estimated 408.6 kilogrammes enriched to up to 60 percent -- just a short step from the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Iran theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for about 10 nuclear bombs, according to the definition by the Vienna-based IAEA. Iran is the only non nuclear-armed state producing uranium to this level of enrichment, according to the UN nuclear watchdog. While the IAEA has been critical of Iran's lack of cooperation with the UN body, it says that there is "no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme". Tehran has consistently denied ambitions to develop nuclear warheads. But Davenport warned the strikes could strengthen factions in Iran advocating for an atomic arsenal. "Israel's strikes set Iran back technically, but politically the strikes are pushing Iran closer to nuclear weapons," she said. anb/sr/djt/rmb

Trump's long-sought military parade becomes reality
Trump's long-sought military parade becomes reality

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Trump's long-sought military parade becomes reality

WASHINGTONThousands of troops will descend on Washington, D.C., on Saturday, accompanied by dozens of tanks and helicopters overhead, as President Donald Trump stages a high-profile spectacle to mark the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump, whose 79th birthday falls on the same day, has long pushed for a military parade in the nation's capital — an idea that was swatted down during his first term by Pentagon officials. Now, with full control of government and an administration stacked with loyalists, Trump is getting the grandiose show of force he's always envisioned, even if it is drawing critics. It's among the starkest examples yet of Trump flexing his role as commander-in-chief since taking office. As the festivities unfold in Washington, some of Trump's opponents are set to gather across the nation as part of "No Kings Day" demonstrations to protest Trump administration policies. Protests are scheduled in nearly 2,000 towns and cities across the United States, according to the event's website. It will be a vivid split screen, and comes against the backdrop of ongoing tensions in Los Angeles that have escalated since Trump deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration enforcement polices. In a stark warning, Trump earlier this week said that any D.C. protesters will be met with "very big force." Security officials said they were not anticipating widespread counterprotests in D.C., but they were monitoring any possible activity. The parade also comes amid escalating tensions in the Middle East, following Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites, and Iran's retaliatory attacks. Throughout the day, there will be military demonstrations and a wreath laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The parade will feature thousands of soldiers and dozens of tanks — and there will be a fireworks show at night. It could be the largest military parade in Washington, D.C., since 1991, when President George H. W. Bush held a military parade at the conclusion of the Gulf War. "It'll give downtown Moscow or downtown Beijing vibes, it'll feel like a whole nother authoritarian, communist country," Arizona-based Republican strategist Barrett Marson told CNBC. One particular sticking point for critics of the event, including some Republicans, is its high price tag. Altogether, the event could cost up to $45 million, according to an Army spokesperson. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said he would not "spend the money" on the event if it were up to him, NBC News reports. Most U.S. adults tend to agree, according to a poll out Thursday from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that found that 60% of adults surveyed said the military parade is not a good use of government funds. But for Trump, the cost is "peanuts compared to the value of doing it," he said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" last month. "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world," Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker. "And we're going to celebrate it." This is a developing story and will be updated throughout the day.

Global Food Aid Matters to U.S. Workers and Manufacturers
Global Food Aid Matters to U.S. Workers and Manufacturers

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Global Food Aid Matters to U.S. Workers and Manufacturers

As the CEO of a Charlotte, NC-based Design-Build firm, I have had firsthand involvement with the investment of billions of dollars in U.S.-based manufacturing facilities, and the thousands of jobs these facilities have created across our country. So, why would I have a connection to, or even care about, food aid sent to countries across the globe? My company works directly with the producer of a product that saves the lives of severely malnourished children worldwide: Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF). These 'RUTFs' are simple, wallet-sized foil packets of mostly peanut butter, whey, and vitamins. Like a turbocharged but squeezable protein bar, this small but mighty, nutrient-dense food revives and nourishes children who otherwise might die. This product is intended for children facing severe malnourishment and starvation. Regardless of why this is occurring, the fact remains that these children lack basic staples that we in America, a global top food producer, take for granted. Unfortunately, the production and distribution of RUTF is under threat due to changes being made by the Trump administration. There is definitely merit to evaluating how taxpayer funds are being used. However, I believe it is critical that we not disrupt the flow of lifesaving products like RUTF. While it may now seem that this is just another 'tug on the heart strings' article, urging the U.S. government to spend dollars to save the world, I encourage you to read on. I do believe in assisting those in need, wherever they may live. But there is another side to this story that affects U.S. workers, farmers, and business interests. In fact, the RUTF aid program aligns with the Trump administration's stated goal of realigning U.S. foreign aid to support humanitarian and national interests, such as local industries, workers, and economies. My firm, A M King, is a classic American business success story. Started more than 20 years ago in one room as a bootstraps local job-creating enterprise, today we are 100% employee-owned, with 80 team members in highly paid professional jobs, and have generated more than $2.5 billion in revenue since our inception. Our specialty is designing and building food processing and food-storage facilities across the United States. That's what brought me to RUTF, professionally and personally. We have worked with an RUTF manufacturer, MANA Nutrition, to improve its Georgia production facilities. This nonprofit corporation buys 2 million pounds of peanuts a month from local farmers. From its 135,000 square-foot Fitzgerald production and warehouse facility, MANA Nutrition can produce 500,000 pounds of RUTF product per day and feed 10 million children a year. The facility also brings vital jobs to the community, supporting the economy and providing opportunities for families across the region. I believe this is what the Trump administration means by supporting U.S. manufacturing. Over the past several years of working closely with MANA Nutrition, I've come to know, understand, and appreciate their purpose, mission, and business. In my 40-year career of working with some of the nation's largest companies and a range of CEOs, I can truly say MANA Nutrition is a company founded on a noble cause, with a desire to change the world for the better. It's also a well-managed company, focused on efficient, effective business principles. Team members are all dedicated professionals who work hard and expect little in return. Mark Moore, MANA Nutrition's founder and CEO, was a missionary in Africa for many years. He knows the need from personal experience. He and others who fund this cause have made it their mission to end malnourishment. All funding to develop and build MANA Nutrition's production facilities comes from private donors. This is not a company seeking government handouts to build and sustain a business. I also know non-profits. I can discern when their mission is true and if their management is ethical. I also believe a non-profit should operate like a successful business, with efficiency and accountability. MANA Nutrition is one of these organizations. The only money MANA receives from USAID is to buy its RUTF product, which is then used only for humanitarian purposes. Lest anyone wonder, while MANA Nutrition is a customer, my support for continuing the production and distribution of RUTF is in no way an indirect business plea. My company is well-established and financially strong. My goal is to see MANA's mission and purpose continue, knowing they save lives every day with the product they produce. If RUTF funding isn't reinstated, MANA Nutrition may have to shut down, hurting not only the producer and their farmers, but their workers, community, and supply chain businesses. Most of all, it will impact those children who depend on America's big heart. As an entrepreneur, business founder, and a CEO, I understand the goal of ensuring U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, including on foreign aid. I also recognize that worthy investments that serve our national interests, even if they have broad bipartisan support, sometimes get caught up and canceled in efforts to make government work better. RUTF is worth saving. I'm urging the White House and Congress to keep funding the production and distribution of RUTF, for the benefit of American farmers and workers and children all over the world. Brian T. King is founder and CEO of A M King.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store