Are they? It could be a tax to offset the externalities that are currently being socialized by keeping other coal plants running to sustain existing homes, farms, factories, etc.

But all the industries that consume any electricity are already "keeping other coal plants running".

If you abitrarily decice a metal processing factory is "worth it" while an AI datacenter isn't, then yes, it's planned economy.

And yeah, I know the governments already tax different industries differently. I think these policies are hardly justified and mostly "redistribution by lobbying".

Arguably some industries make us all richer than others. So we incentivize those with more collective benefit, say manufacturing or farming, and disincentivize those with more collective costs, say gambling or tobacco.

That’s already being done, and the taxes/limits on co2 pollution will be increasing. So nothing new here.

What you’re implicitly suggesting is government allowing/banning certain uses of technology because they are deemed not worthy. That is an autocratic style of thinking.

We as a society can decide we don't want our air to become toxic to prop up convoluted gambling schemes. It's only autocratic if it's decided by a single person.

Maybe it’s time to build new power plants, preferably nuclear, and continue efforts to learn about and expand efficient energy sources. No society has ever advanced without ample energy supplies.

Shouldn't that be factored into the price of electricity? I think the market economy ideal is that if houses can't afford enough electricity for heating, then they need to be insulated and/or install heat pumps, etc.

Or just good ol’ laws and regulations.

If negative externalities are an issue, just tax those and let people decide if the investment is still worth it.