Trump is making coal plants even dirtier as AI demands more energy

The News

On February 20, 2026, the Trump administration repealed the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were established during the Biden era to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants. This decision came at a time when electricity demand in the United States is increasing due to growing energy needs of artificial intelligence systems and data centers. The Verge reported on this development, highlighting its implications for environmental health.

The Context

The repealing of MATS by the Trump administration marks a significant rollback of environmental regulations that were put in place during the Obama-Biden era to protect public health from harmful pollutants emitted by coal plants. Under former President Donald Trump’s first term (2017-2021), there was already a trend towards deregulation, particularly in the energy sector. The current second administration, which began in 2025, continues this trajectory with renewed vigor.

The pushback against environmental regulations has been consistent throughout Trump's tenure. In his first term, he successfully rolled back numerous Obama-era policies designed to curb emissions and protect natural resources. These included the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to limit carbon pollution from power plants, and the Waters of the United States rule, which sought to protect streams and wetlands. The second term has seen a continuation of these efforts, with a particular focus on deregulating industries heavily reliant on coal.

The timing of MATS repeal is noteworthy because it coincides with increasing electricity demand driven by rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology. As AI systems become more sophisticated, they require vast amounts of computational power and energy. This surge in demand for electricity places additional pressure on the nation's power grid, which relies heavily on coal-fired plants to meet base load requirements.

The repeal of MATS reflects a broader trend under Trump’s leadership where economic considerations often take precedence over environmental concerns. The administration argues that these regulations stifle job creation and hinder industrial competitiveness by imposing undue costs on businesses. However, critics argue that the long-term benefits of protecting public health and natural resources outweigh any short-term economic gains.

Why It Matters

The repeal of MATS has significant implications for both environmental health and energy policy in the United States. By allowing coal plants to emit higher levels of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other toxic pollutants, the decision poses serious risks to public health, particularly in communities near these facilities. Mercury emissions, for instance, can lead to neurological damage, developmental delays, and respiratory issues, especially among children and pregnant women.

Moreover, the rollback of MATS undermines efforts to combat climate change by increasing reliance on coal, which is one of the dirtiest sources of energy when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. This decision could exacerbate global warming trends and contribute to more severe weather events, further straining already overburdened infrastructure systems.

From an industry perspective, however, the repeal offers respite for coal companies that have struggled under stringent environmental regulations. It signals a regulatory environment more favorable to their operations, potentially spurring investment and job creation in sectors reliant on coal-fired power generation. However, this short-term economic boost comes at significant long-term costs related to public health and environmental sustainability.

The growing demand for electricity due to AI expansion complicates the equation further. As data centers and computational facilities continue to proliferate, their energy needs will only increase, placing additional pressure on existing power infrastructure. This scenario makes it crucial to balance short-term economic gains with longer-term considerations regarding air quality, public health, and environmental conservation.

The Bigger Picture

The Trump administration's decision to repeal MATS is part of a broader trend in global politics where populist leaders are increasingly prioritizing economic growth over environmental protection. In the United States, this shift has been evident since 2017 when President Donald Trump first took office, and it continues under his second term.

Internationally, similar trends can be observed as other nations grapple with balancing economic development against ecological concerns. For instance, China's rapid industrialization over the past few decades has seen significant increases in air pollution levels, leading to public health crises and widespread activism for cleaner energy solutions. However, as China moves towards a more sustainable growth model under its current leadership, it also faces challenges from domestic industries resistant to change.

The context of increasing electricity demand driven by AI technology adds another layer to this discussion. As countries around the world invest heavily in digital infrastructure to support emerging technologies like machine learning and robotics, they must contend with rising energy consumption patterns. This underscores a broader debate about how best to reconcile technological advancement with environmental stewardship—a challenge that is likely to intensify as more nations seek to leverage AI for economic gains.

BlogIA Analysis

While the immediate focus of this news centers on the repeal of MATS and its implications for coal-fired power plants, it also highlights a larger issue regarding the intersection between technology development and environmental sustainability. The surge in electricity demand driven by AI technologies underscores the need for more sustainable energy solutions that can support technological progress without compromising public health or exacerbating climate change.

Moreover, this decision raises questions about the balance between short-term economic benefits and long-term environmental costs. Critics argue that the administration’s approach prioritizes immediate gains at the expense of future well-being, potentially setting back efforts to transition towards cleaner forms of energy production.

BlogIA tracks trends in GPU pricing, job market dynamics within AI development, and new model releases—all factors contributing to increased computational demands on power grids. As these trends continue to evolve, it is crucial for policymakers to consider both technological advancements and their environmental impact when shaping future regulations.

Looking ahead, the key question remains: How will global leaders navigate the delicate balance between fostering innovation in technology while safeguarding public health and natural resources? The decisions made now could have far-reaching consequences for generations to come.

References