As Trump throws lifeline to coal plants, critics warn of higher costs and health risks

WASHINGTON (AP) — Before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the Biden administration and many electric utilities were building a future dominated by renewable energy. They aimed to replace coal, slashing greenhouse gases and reducing air pollution that kills more than a thousand people annually.

Dozens of coal plants — emitting as much planet-warming pollution as 27 million cars — were expected to be retired during Trump's second term. Now there may not be any more coal plants closing until after Trump leaves office, according to officials and the energy analysis company Enverus.

The United States is undergoing a dramatic shift in energy policy as Trump wields government's sweeping powers to benefit coal and suppress cleaner alternatives. It could lead to more expensive electricity and dirtier air and set back efforts to curb climate change, according to an Associated Press review of government data and interviews with experts.

Trump officials are using emergency powers to prevent five coal plants from closing. That’s raising ratepayer bills: Keeping one Michigan plant open for about seven months cost $135 million. They are using millions of dollars of taxpayer money to make repairs and extend the lives of other coal plants. They’re also slashing pollution limits to make it easier for plants to keep operating without costly upgrades.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said the goal for coal plants “is 100% stay open, no more retirements, no more shutting down.”

The actions far exceed Trump’s coal advocacy in his first term, when he relaxed some environmental regulations to give it a short-lived boost. The administration argues that coal produces badly needed power even during extreme weather, giving it an advantage over renewables that it says the Biden administration unwisely subsidized in the name of climate change.

“The Trump administration this time around is much more organized and strategic in trying to bring about a revival of coal,” said Robert Lifset, a University of Oklahoma professor of energy history. “You’re seeing almost like a whole-of-government approach.”

It's happening as electricity demand surges due to the colossal growth of data centers. One Indiana community oversaw construction of vast solar fields on farmland ahead of an expected retirement of the Schahfer Generating Station, a coal plant in Wheatfield, Indiana. Now the Trump administration is keeping that plant open, saying its power is critical.

“I was really emotional about it because finally they weren’t going to be a threat to our air and to our water anymore,” said Barbara Deardorff, an activist who grew up about 2 miles from the plant. “Since then, everything’s gone upside down.”

After World War II, U.S. electricity use rose alongside economic growth. The two trends split after the 2008 recession: The economy grew again, but electricity demand stayed flat, thanks in part to improved efficiency, said Seth Feaster with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which promotes renewable energy.

Utilities retired costly old plants in droves, replacing them with more efficient natural gas and renewables. Coal’s share of U.S. power generation dropped by more than half.

Schahfer's smokestacks had been a familiar backdrop among northern Indiana's fields since it was built in the 1970s. Then, in 2023, its operator foresaw a new future: the Northern Indiana Public Service Company said it would cut coal from 73% of its energy production to zero as it pursued renewables. Schahfer would be shut down.

As that date neared, the surrounding community was transforming. Solar panels were built on hundreds of acres of farmland nearby, a change in local character some regretted but others welcomed for the cleaner energy and new tax revenue.

Then in December, the Trump administration issued an emergency order to keep Schahfer operational, saying it's coal-generated power was essential to meet demand from extreme weather.

“Today, the policies that get in the way of a reasonable energy development and mess up the math are things focused around climate change,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in February during a news conference about electric grid reliability.

Not only is the coal plant remaining online, but Amazon has proposed a multibillion-dollar data center complex nearby powered by gas generators that would produce more than twice the power of the old coal facility. NIPSCO said an agreement with Amazon would protect customers.

“It's been a complete 180,” said Deardorff, who said her family will no longer be able to farm on land it has long leased near the plant.

Stopping retirements completely, as Burgum has suggested, would keep online some 34 gigawatts of coal power that was set to retire before 2029. And that threatens to stall a decades-long decline in pollution from coal that had sharply reduced deaths as plants retired or installed new equipment. Coal plants scheduled to retire under Trump emitted more than 130 million tons of carbon dioxide last year, plus tens of thousands of tons of health-damaging sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

“If we retire all the coal plants we could avoid those 2,000 deaths per year from coal. And if we keep the plants online and they keep burning coal, then we’re going to get those emissions and see those same health impacts,” said Lucas Henneman, an environmental engineer from George Mason University who led a government study of deaths from coal pollution.

Beyond the five plants ordered to stay open, the administration spent $175 million of taxpayer money on upgrades to extend the lives of seven other plants. It's considering applications for $350 million in similar spending.

Keeping the aging fleet of U.S. coal plants afloat ultimately could cost about $1 billion annually, said Michelle Bloodworth of the industry group America's Power. She said in an interview that the spending is justified, considering that “billions and billions” went to renewables.

The administration has broad discretion in deciding whether an emergency exists and can “order almost any change in operation of the electricity system,” the Congressional Research Service said in February.

That hasn't stopped legal challenges from five Democratic-led led states — Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan and Colorado.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said the Trump administration orders burden consumers with higher prices and obstruct sustainable energy.

“We are going from a trajectory where we were going to lead the world on clean energy to one where we are becoming an isolated petrostate,” said Bob Keefe, with the renewable energy tracking group E2. “It's costing jobs, it is costing investments, it is hurting us in the global marketplace and by the way it is resulting in higher electricity prices.”

Economists are skeptical coal's revival will last. No large U.S. coal plant has been built since 2013, although one is planned in Alaska. And aging coal plants don't make sense when solar is cheap, said Tufts University associate professor Steve Cicala.

Parts of Trump's agenda already have faltered. The largest federal coal lease sale in more than a decade flopped, and courts have rejected some of Trump's attempts to block wind power.

Yet industry executives remain bullish.

“It's our time,” said CEO Jimmy Brock with Core Natural Resources, one of the nation’s largest coal mining companies.

Associated Press journalists Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and M.K. Wildeman in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed.

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

FILE - A train sits near a coal pile, April 10, 2025, in Princeton, Ind. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File)

FILE - A bulldozer moves coal, April 10, 2025, in Princeton, Ind. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File)

FILE - American Electric Power's John Amos coal-fired power plant in Winfield, W.Va., is seen on the banks of the Kanawha River, March 22, 2026. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

A new reality is setting in for travelers worldwide: rising fees, fewer flight options and difficult decisions about whether a trip is worth the cost.

The culprit is volatile oil and jet fuel prices, which have spiked sharply since the war in the Middle East began and fighting near the narrow Strait of Hormuz created a chokepoint for global oil supplies.

“Volatility is the real story here,” said Shye Gilad, a former airline captain who now teaches at Georgetown University's business school. “Right now, the airlines are trying to make bets on what they think will happen in the future."

Airlines are responding cautiously, trimming schedules and adjusting prices in ways that experts say will ripple unevenly across the market but ultimately affect nearly every type of traveler.

Budget airlines and the price-conscious customers who rely on them are likely to feel the pinch first and most acutely, experts say, but even travelers in premium cabins won’t escape the higher prices and less convenient schedules.

Oil prices have swung wildly in recent weeks, briefly topping $119 a barrel at one point, and then plunging Wednesday below $95 after President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire in the Middle East that briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz. But the uncertainty behind those swings remains, especially after Iran closed the key artery for global oil shipments again in response to Israeli strikes in Lebanon.

“When prices move quickly in both directions, it’s very hard for airlines to make predictions,” Gilad said. "That’s why there’s a lag between oil market moves and what passengers see in ticket prices.”

In other words, even when oil prices drop, travelers may not see relief right away. Airlines can take months, sometimes even up to a year, to adjust fares and fees as they wait for energy markets to stabilize.

“At this level of fuel, it’s hard to call anything temporary," Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian told reporters this week after the Atlanta-based carrier raised its checked baggage fees.

Bastian said Wednesday as Delta kicked off the earnings season for U.S. airlines that the higher fuel prices are expected to add $2 billion in operating expenses in the second quarter alone.

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said in a recent memo to staff that if jet fuel prices stay elevated, it would mean an additional $11 billion in annual costs. That’s more than double what United earned in its most profitable year.

“For perspective,” he said, “in United’s best year ever, we made less than $5 billion.”

According to the International Air Transport Association, the average global jet fuel price rose to $209 per barrel last week, up from roughly $99 at the end of February when the war started.

Travelers from the U.S. to Hong Kong and New Delhi are paying the price.

U.S. carriers are embedding the higher operating costs into ticket prices and add-on fees. Delta, United, Southwest Airlines and JetBlue have all increased their checked baggage fees.

United has moved beyond add-ons to adjust pricing in its front cabins. The carrier said last week that it is bringing the “pay for what you want” approach already standard in economy to its premium cabins, turning perks like advanced seat selection and fully refundable tickets into optional extras.

Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific recently bumped fuel surcharges by roughly 34% across all routes, while Air India on Monday added up to $280 in fees to some flights. Emirates, Lufthansa and KLM have also adjusted fees or fares to keep pace with the price volatility.

For some travelers, it’s not just the cost — it’s the uncertainty that’s changing how they plan trips.

Bill Moorehouse, 50, a solutions director at a global provider of business and technology services, routinely travels for work every four to six weeks.

“When you have business trips and you have a carefully coordinated schedule, you don’t want unknowns and disruptions. And right now, it just feels like it’s more likely that things could go wrong and throw your trip off course,” the Cupertino, California, resident said.

For now, he’s staying closer to home.

“I think it’s a good time to do your spring cleaning and reconnect with friends locally.”

Airlines, meanwhile, are also adjusting how much they fly.

BNP Paribas estimates that global schedules for April have been cut roughly 5% compared with earlier plans. Most reductions are in the Middle East, the global investment bank said, though smaller cuts were also emerging in Europe, Asia and North America.

United Airlines is cutting about 5% of its planned flights in the near term, trimming less profitable routes and suspending some international service temporarily rather than “burning cash” on trips that can’t absorb the more expensive fuel costs. The airline's CEO said the cuts will target redeye flights and routes on historically slower travel days such as Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday.

Delta is scrapping plans to add more flights and seats this summer, leaving about 3.5% fewer seats than originally planned.

These moves show why major carriers are better positioned to weather the spike in fuel prices than low-cost carriers, whose “no frills” model leaves them with less flexibility to absorb unexpected costs. Bigger airlines can lean on dynamic pricing, sell more seats at higher fares or swap in larger planes on certain routes, letting them cut flights without losing overall capacity.

“Leisure travelers and budget conscious travelers are going to absolutely feel it first because it may make the difference between going and not going,” Gilad said.

It's already made the difference for Anna Del Vecchio. The 36-year-old Seattle resident has made it an annual springtime tradition to visit family in Philadelphia before flying to Paris to see friends she met as a teenager during a volunteer internship.

Her credit card points typically cover the roundtrip flight, but ticket prices now hover around $1,400 — nearly double what she has paid in past years.

“It wasn’t even scratching the surface for the flight this time," she said, “so I decided to delay the trip.”

But if airfare tops $1,500, she might not be able to make a journey she hasn't missed in years.

“It might be the kind of thing where it just ends up being that I have to travel less.”

Travelers wait in a lines to get through security at LaGuardia Airport in New York, Monday, March 30, 2026. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Stained-glass windows cast colorful shadows on the floor as travelers walk through LaGuardia Airport in New York, Monday, March 30, 2026. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)