How Trump’s order to have the military buy coal would actually work
Is this competence or optics?
President Donald Trump says the military will start "buying a lot of coal" as part of a new push to boost domestic coal production and strengthen what he describes as the reliability of the U.S. power grid. Turning that pledge into reality, however, will require navigating Pentagon procurement rules, congressional funding limits and the physical constraints of the electric grid.
A new executive order, signed Wednesday, directs the secretary of war to "seek to procure" power from coal-fired facilities through long-term power purchase agreements serving military installations and other mission-critical facilities. It also calls on the Department of Energy to help keep certain coal plants online.
But executive orders set policy direction — they do not automatically create new funding or rewrite electricity market rules. The order itself states that implementation must be consistent with applicable law and "subject to the availability of appropriations."
"Executive orders can’t drive appropriations," said Jerry McGinn, a former Pentagon official and now executive director of the Baroni Center for Government Contracting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
LIZ PEEK: TRUMP WHITE HOUSE FIRED UP ABOUT KING COAL’S RETURN TO POWER
What the War Department can do is direct its contracting offices to pursue agreements with coal-fired plants where feasible.
The military routinely enters into long-term electricity supply agreements to power individual installations, including projects at bases such as Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and Fort Cavazos in Texas, where on-site generation has been developed through third-party contracts.
In theory, it could structure deals with nearby coal facilities if officials determine the contracts enhance grid reliability, fuel security or mission assurance — priorities outlined in the order.
"They have a great amount of flexibility," McGinn said, noting that energy sourcing decisions would depend on what is workable at individual installations.
That flexibility, however, operates base by base — not nationwide.
The War Department does not regulate regional electricity markets. It can sign contracts for power serving specific installations, but it does not set dispatch rules for grid operators or dictate fuel choices for civilian utilities.
Most military bases are connected to regional grids, where electricity from multiple sources — natural gas, nuclear, renewables and coal — is pooled together and dispatched according to market rules. Even if the Pentagon signs a contract with a specific coal plant, the …
Is this competence or optics?
President Donald Trump says the military will start "buying a lot of coal" as part of a new push to boost domestic coal production and strengthen what he describes as the reliability of the U.S. power grid. Turning that pledge into reality, however, will require navigating Pentagon procurement rules, congressional funding limits and the physical constraints of the electric grid.
A new executive order, signed Wednesday, directs the secretary of war to "seek to procure" power from coal-fired facilities through long-term power purchase agreements serving military installations and other mission-critical facilities. It also calls on the Department of Energy to help keep certain coal plants online.
But executive orders set policy direction — they do not automatically create new funding or rewrite electricity market rules. The order itself states that implementation must be consistent with applicable law and "subject to the availability of appropriations."
"Executive orders can’t drive appropriations," said Jerry McGinn, a former Pentagon official and now executive director of the Baroni Center for Government Contracting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
LIZ PEEK: TRUMP WHITE HOUSE FIRED UP ABOUT KING COAL’S RETURN TO POWER
What the War Department can do is direct its contracting offices to pursue agreements with coal-fired plants where feasible.
The military routinely enters into long-term electricity supply agreements to power individual installations, including projects at bases such as Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and Fort Cavazos in Texas, where on-site generation has been developed through third-party contracts.
In theory, it could structure deals with nearby coal facilities if officials determine the contracts enhance grid reliability, fuel security or mission assurance — priorities outlined in the order.
"They have a great amount of flexibility," McGinn said, noting that energy sourcing decisions would depend on what is workable at individual installations.
That flexibility, however, operates base by base — not nationwide.
The War Department does not regulate regional electricity markets. It can sign contracts for power serving specific installations, but it does not set dispatch rules for grid operators or dictate fuel choices for civilian utilities.
Most military bases are connected to regional grids, where electricity from multiple sources — natural gas, nuclear, renewables and coal — is pooled together and dispatched according to market rules. Even if the Pentagon signs a contract with a specific coal plant, the …
How Trump’s order to have the military buy coal would actually work
Is this competence or optics?
President Donald Trump says the military will start "buying a lot of coal" as part of a new push to boost domestic coal production and strengthen what he describes as the reliability of the U.S. power grid. Turning that pledge into reality, however, will require navigating Pentagon procurement rules, congressional funding limits and the physical constraints of the electric grid.
A new executive order, signed Wednesday, directs the secretary of war to "seek to procure" power from coal-fired facilities through long-term power purchase agreements serving military installations and other mission-critical facilities. It also calls on the Department of Energy to help keep certain coal plants online.
But executive orders set policy direction — they do not automatically create new funding or rewrite electricity market rules. The order itself states that implementation must be consistent with applicable law and "subject to the availability of appropriations."
"Executive orders can’t drive appropriations," said Jerry McGinn, a former Pentagon official and now executive director of the Baroni Center for Government Contracting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
LIZ PEEK: TRUMP WHITE HOUSE FIRED UP ABOUT KING COAL’S RETURN TO POWER
What the War Department can do is direct its contracting offices to pursue agreements with coal-fired plants where feasible.
The military routinely enters into long-term electricity supply agreements to power individual installations, including projects at bases such as Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and Fort Cavazos in Texas, where on-site generation has been developed through third-party contracts.
In theory, it could structure deals with nearby coal facilities if officials determine the contracts enhance grid reliability, fuel security or mission assurance — priorities outlined in the order.
"They have a great amount of flexibility," McGinn said, noting that energy sourcing decisions would depend on what is workable at individual installations.
That flexibility, however, operates base by base — not nationwide.
The War Department does not regulate regional electricity markets. It can sign contracts for power serving specific installations, but it does not set dispatch rules for grid operators or dictate fuel choices for civilian utilities.
Most military bases are connected to regional grids, where electricity from multiple sources — natural gas, nuclear, renewables and coal — is pooled together and dispatched according to market rules. Even if the Pentagon signs a contract with a specific coal plant, the …
