A dirty move for a dirty fuel | Letter

The Trump administration is redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars originally earmarked for cleaning up industrial air pollution toward the construction and refurbishment of coal-fired power plants, a shift that has drawn sharp criticism from clean air advocates in Maine.

According to a report in The Washington Post, the administration has invoked the Defense Production Act, a law typically used to mobilize private industry for national security needs, to repurpose roughly $775 million in funding. Of that total, $350 million is slated for the construction of two new coal plants, with the remaining $425 million going toward modernizing older facilities still in operation.

The money was originally appropriated by Congress to help industries reduce harmful emissions, not to expand fossil fuel infrastructure. The administration's decision marks a significant departure from the original intent of those funds.

Maine has a long history of struggling with the health effects of coal-fired pollution drifting in from out-of-state power plants. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter released by coal combustion have been linked to worsening rates of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other lung conditions in communities across the state. Maine has no operating coal plants of its own, but emissions from facilities in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic have long traveled northward on prevailing winds.

Sam Saltonstall of Brunswick, writing in a letter to the editor of the Portland Press Herald, called the policy reversal "terrible" and accused the administration of committing "theft of taxpayer money" by redirecting cleanup funds to a fuel source that produces more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than oil or natural gas.

"Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel," Saltonstall wrote. "We must stop burning it, and increase production of renewable energy fast."

He urged readers to contact Maine's congressional delegation, including U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King, to oppose the move.

The Defense Production Act gives the President broad authority to direct private sector production and investment in support of national defense and security priorities. Its use for energy infrastructure projects has been relatively rare, though both the Trump and Biden administrations have invoked the law to accelerate manufacturing of batteries, critical minerals and other technologies deemed strategically important.

Environmental advocates have increasingly framed the continued operation and expansion of coal plants as a threat to both public health and climate goals. The United States has retired roughly 330 coal-fired generating units over the past decade and a half, a decline driven largely by competition from cheaper natural gas and the rapid growth of wind and solar power. President Trump has signaled since his 2024 campaign that he wants to reverse that trend, framing coal as a reliable baseload power source and a key sector for domestic employment.

Critics counter that coal's economic case has continued to weaken even as concerns about its health and environmental costs have grown. They argue that public dollars would be better spent on grid-scale renewables, battery storage and transmission upgrades rather than on a fuel source that scientists warn must be phased out rapidly to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The administration has not yet announced where the two new coal plants would be built or which existing facilities would receive modernization funding. Details of the awards are expected to be released by the Department of Energy in the coming weeks.

For Maine, where coastal communities are already contending with rising sea levels, warming Gulf of Maine waters and increasingly volatile weather, the debate over the country's energy mix carries particular weight. State officials have set goals to dramatically expand offshore wind and land-based renewables over the coming decade, but those plans depend in part on federal incentives and the direction of national energy policy.

Saltonstall's letter reflects a broader frustration among environmental advocates who say the administration's actions are at odds with both the will of Congress that originally approved the funding and with the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"Voters, and those who represent us in Washington, D.C., should howl," he wrote.

Maine's two senators, both of whom have at times broken with members of their respective parties on energy issues, have not yet publicly addressed the specific funding redirection. Representatives from Maine's two congressional districts have also not issued formal statements as of publication.