Ken Silverstein: AI will test Trump's EPA repeal strategy (ÂÒÂ×ÄÚÉä)

However, his plan collides with market realities. Coal peaked in 2006, and no utility intends to build additional coal plants. At best, the administration might extend the life of older facilities, but those are expensive compared to renewable sources. Natural gas faces its own bottleneck: developers say supply chains for new combined-cycle plants are backed up for five years.

That leaves solar-plus-storage as the most affordable and deployable option today. Yet, Trump’s energy bill eliminates many of the incentives that allowed solar and wind to scale in the first place. “Solar has been severely disadvantaged, which is unfortunate,� said Clinton Vance, head of the U.S. energy practice at Denton. “Now we have an unprecedented increase in demand from AI data centers.�

The economics are clear. According to research by financial advisory firm Lazard, the most expensive energy form from build out to operation over their lifespan is gas peaking plants. That is followed by nuclear and coal.

If the federal government repeals — or even slows — the Endangerment Finding, it could undermine the cleanest and most affordable energy sources while supporting the dirtiest ones. Supporters claim this would lower regulatory costs.

However, opponents caution that it could destabilize the legal foundation built over two decades of energy investment and business planning.

That tension is showing up in corporate strategy. A 2024 Climate Impact Partners report found that 45% of Fortune Global 500 companies now have net-zero targets, up from 39% in 2023. U.S. firms from Microsoft to GM have tied their long-term competitiveness to emissions reductions.

“For nearly two decades, businesses across the U.S. have directed investment and charted long-term plans based on the widespread understanding that the EPA can and should set rules to address climate pollution,� said Anne Kelly, vice president of government relations at Ceres. “Any move to undo this vital policy foundation would send shockwaves throughout the economy.�

That shock wouldn’t be confined to boardrooms. Courts have consistently upheld the Endangerment Finding since the Supreme Court’s 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision. To replace it, regulators would need to present new data contradicting the strong scientific consensus — an uphill battle, considering a 2021 review of climate research found 99.9% of studies link warming to human activity.

Repealing the finding would also introduce years of legal and regulatory uncertainty, just as the grid faces its most significant challenge in a generation.

Utilities are under pressure to keep the lights on for data centers, manufacturers and households, even as they work to shift their fleets to cleaner sources. Investors and regulators rely on clear signals to make multi-billion-dollar investments in infrastructure that lasts for decades.

“Oil and natural gas cannot keep pace with the surge in load growth driven by AI and data centers because they cannot scale quickly enough. U.S. electricity demand has stayed steady for 20 years, but AI is changing that. Data centers are now the biggest source of new load growth. The only scalable, sustainable solution is solar and storage,� said Mike Hall, CEO of Anza.

Ultimately, the debate is more about practicality than ideology. The United States needs to support a 21st-century economy by keeping energy affordable and emissions low. This involves investing in manufacturing, broadband, job training — and, most important, a reliable grid.

AI may be the technology of the future, but it is directly confronting yesterday’s energy debates. Trump’s EPA gamble is an obstacle to progress — a move that seeks to derail the energy transition, which in turn threatens America’s global standing and economic fortunes.