Executive Order to Roll Back Clean Power Plan Promises Change in Nation’s Generation Portfolio


Putting aside the climate change politics swirling around US President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” what does the order mean for the nation’s electric generation portfolio? Can the gradual decline in the role of coal-fired generation be reversed?

The executive order, released on March 28, 2017, calls for increased domestic energy production from coal, natural gas, nuclear material, and other domestic sources, explicitly balancing the need to “promote clean and safe development” of energy resources with “avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.” In addition to revoking various Obama-era executive orders on climate change and carbon emissions and rescinding various reports issued by federal agencies on these topics, the executive order also directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the Clean Power Plan in the context of the domestic production policy adopted in the executive order and to, “as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind” the rule.  

Although implementation of the executive order is likely to play out over several years, dismantling the Clean Power Plan will likely reduce the speed with which coal plants have been shutting down. But the Clean Power Plan is only one of several factors reducing the role of coal-powered generation in the United States.

While there certainly will be legal challenges to any efforts to roll back the Clean Power Plan, major elements of the rule are likely on their way out. For example, even without withdrawing its earlier finding that carbon emissions (and those of other climate change constituents) endanger the environment, EPA has broad room to reconsider what manner and method of controls are practically available and feasible. This could potentially result in a much narrower, “inside the fence” approach to reducing emissions from coal plants rather than the novel statewide approach adopted in the Clean Power Plan, which essentially called for carbon-emitting generation to secure corresponding offsetting zero-emission generation to achieve low overall average emission rates. EPA never maintained that such an approach was required under the Clean Air Act, merely that it was a permissible reading of the Clean Air Act to let EPA do so. Given the wide discretion that agencies have in determining how to tackle a given problem, challengers to a new approach that takes a narrower view of the Clean Air Act could face a very steep uphill court battle.

But even assuming the Trump administration’s EPA successfully recalibrates the Clean Power Plan, for several key reasons it is unlikely to do more than slow the speed at which coal-fired generation is shrinking as a portion of the nationwide generation portfolio.

For an industry sector such as coal, removing the threat posed by the Clean Power Plan is unquestionably a bright spot. But the executive order may benefit sectors that compete against coal (for example, by directing that petroleum, gas, and nuclear regulatory burdens be reduced), resulting in no comparative net advantage to coal producers and consumers. And even if the Clean Power Plan were fully withdrawn, the current economics of natural gas and renewable generation as well as increasingly restrictive state regulation mean that the executive order may only slow—not halt—the coal’s decline in our nation’s generation mix.


Copyright © 2025 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.
National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 94