Trump-appointed regulators reject plan to rescue coal and nuclear plants
Source: Washington Post
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power struggling in competitive electricity markets.
The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding.
At the same time, the commission said that it shared Perrys stated goal of strengthening the resilience of the electricity grid and it directed regional transmission operators to provide information to help the commission examine the matter holistically. The operators have 60 days to submit materials.
Perrys proposal was widely seen as an effort to alter the balance of competitive electricity markets that federal regulators have been cultivating since the late 1980s. And critics said that it would have largely helped a handful of coal and nuclear companies, including the utility FirstEnergy and coal mining firm Murray Energy.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/08/trump-appointed-regulators-reject-plan-to-rescue-coal-and-nuclear-plants/?utm_term=.c52facaf54b3
Vinca
(50,303 posts)Dancin' Rick Perry wants to take us back to the future.
BumRushDaShow
(129,431 posts)To bring back coal jobs!
Nitram
(22,869 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,694 posts)Is it possible that some folks in government don't always act in a partisan way?
My gawd, these folks are actually doing their jobs!
BumRushDaShow
(129,431 posts)are they looking at all that oil out there instead?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,694 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,431 posts)Drilling up and down every coast being proposed.
Perry is an oil man and the thing about "coal" was ALL lip service to their base. Perry took the faux Drumpf position of saying - "See we support coal". Now he can say "I tried".
toddwv
(2,830 posts)However
FERC is composed of five commissioners who are nominated by the U.S. President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. There may be no more than three commissioners of one political party serving on the commission at any given time.[1]
Other energy sectors are represented so it's not like they're going to willingly cut their own profits to help out competitors.
modrepub
(3,502 posts)From my understanding the plan would have added additional charges to your utility bill that would have subsidized coal and nuclear plants to help keep the remaining plants operating. The resiliency argument says that having more than one type of energy provider makes the grid less likely to fail due to some unforeseen circumstance. Studies on the PJM grid indicate the grid would be stable even if a majority of electricity providers would use cheaper and more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants.
One of the main reasons many coal plants have shut down over the last decade is that they are generally more expensive to run. Title V fees for the largest coal plants in my state run $750k/year while a comperable combined cycle gas plant pays $15k/yr (Title V fees are generally based on plant emissions and coal plants, even with controls, are many times greater than natural gas plants). When power companies proposed building more coal plants or try to upgrade existing ones most utility boards wouldn't go along since the additional costs would have been passed onto consumers. One case where the market is causing the switch not regulations.
Phoenix61
(17,018 posts)I had to read it a couple of times to make sure. Sad that's where we're at, shocked when a Twilter appointee actually does their job.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)"Oops..."
pecosbob
(7,543 posts)louis-t
(23,297 posts)jpak
(41,759 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,899 posts)Time to fire those five and get some toadies in the job.