The Colstrip Plant’s coal ash ponds are not sufficiently bonded for how much they will cost to clean up. Coal is one of the most expensive, polluting fuel sources.
by Anne Hedges
As the saying goes, “the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones,” and neither are we moving away from coal because we’ve run out of coal. And yet, Pres. Donald Trump is trying to revive the dying industry with Executive Orders (EOs) and presidential pardons for toxic polluters, including coal mining corporations and NorthWestern Energy.
On his first day in office, Pres. Trump signed an EO declaring an energy emergency and directed federal agencies to do everything possible to expedite the “leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources,” particularly on federal lands. Of course, his definition of energy resources excluded the most affordable, clean, and abundant energy resources on earth today – wind and solar.
While Pres. Trump was elevating fossil fuels, he was also signing EOs targeting wind energy. One EO stopped off-shore wind projects and put the brakes on wind development across the country. His actions threatened the vibrant wind energy industry and the enormous opportunity we have for further clean energy development in Montana.
In late March, polluters were told they could email the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting exemptions from toxic air pollution standards. On April 8, Pres. Trump issued another series of EOs and proclamations aimed at coal. He granted scores of industrial polluters a two-year waiver from toxic air pollution standards, including the Colstrip power plant, which has the highest rate of toxic emissions of any coal plant in the country. The waiver was issued with complete disregard for technology, public health, aquatic resources or wildlife. As a result, people near and downwind from the Colstrip plant will continue to experience higher levels of lead and arsenic than other coal communities in the nation. While every similar power plant in the country has already installed pollution controls limiting toxic air pollution, Montanans will pay the price of this delay with their health, water resources, aquatic life, and wildlife.
The EO didn’t just grant a two-year waiver from toxic air pollution requirements; It also directed EPA to revise the rule and eliminate the requirement that these plants reduce toxic pollution – even if they have the ability to do so. This puts Montanans’ health in the crosshairs despite technology being readily available to protect people from air toxins.
Other EOs claimed that “[c]oal is abundant and cost-effective, and can be used in any weather condition.” First, the plant is only cost-effective compared to nuclear and NorthWestern’s new gold-plated methane gas plant near Laurel. The Colstrip plant is anything but cost-effective, especially when you consider the annual cost of fuel, maintenance, and operations, and eventual cost of cleanup. The EO also ignores the Colstrip plant’s abysmal record of operations during times of extreme weather. In recent years, the plant has been partially or entirely offline during extreme weather events, costing customers a fortune because NorthWestern had to buy power from the market when it was the most expensive.
Some of the EOs try to claim that reopening closed coal plants or extending the life of uneconomic plants is a matter of “energy security.” But these EOs encourage the overseas sale of coal and do nothing to stop the flow of oil and gas resources to overseas markets. If energy security were the concern, the orders would have mandated increased production of renewable energy resources and prohibited the export of coal, oil, and gas. But instead, the orders did the opposite.
One of the EOs directed the Department of Interior (DOI) to prioritize and expedite coal leasing on public lands despite the dramatic decline in coal production over the last 20 years due to competition with cleaner resources. In response, the Interior Secretary issued orders to the agency to approve the environmental impact statement for new coal mine expansions within 28 days, ignoring the time it takes to determine baseline conditions, analyze water resources, consider community impacts and concerns, or protect public health and water resources.
There have even been rumors of EOs that would target nonprofits that work on environmental issues, promote climate action, or oppose the bolstering of the coal industry. Rest assured that, in the case of such an EO, MEIC will continue to advocate for clean air, clean water, sustainable communities, justice, and a livable climate. We will speak out against those who weaponize authority, and we stand firmly united with our fellow environmentalists and nonprofit advocates who work to provide vital services across this country.
Ultimately, these energy EOs are just a wishlist for an uncompetitive industry and a power-hungry administration. Most of the published orders will be implemented through rules adopted by the EPA and DOI. These and future rules will be subject to judicial challenge where courts will hopefully hold the administration in check and require it to comply with the laws adopted by Congress and signed by previous Presidents.
This article was published in the June 2025 issue of Down To Earth.
