Trump-appointed regulators reject plan to rescue coal and nuclear plants

Trump-appointed regulators reject plan to rescue coal and nuclear plants
So remember this thread I wrote awhile back where I said that Trump won't be bringing coal jobs back to the States? Well it looks like a bunch of Trump appointed regulators agree with me. Apparently the logistics of supplying a subsidy to the coal and nuclear industry are daft and would result in prices going up for consumers.

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 plants 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.

The plan, however, 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, while raising rates for consumers.

“The Commission’s endorsement of markets does not conflict with its oversight of reliability, and the Commission has been able to focus on both without compromising its commitment to either,” the FERC said in an order.

Rick Perry is trying to spin it like creating a national dialog was his goal all along, but I don't believe him for a second.

Perry issued a statement saying that “as intended, my proposal initiated a national debate on the resiliency of our electric system.”

Most analysists agree with me too.

“This outright rejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear shows that Commissioners of both parties have little interest in manipulating electricity markets in favor of any fuel source,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former consultant at the Obama-era Energy Department, now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy.

“The law and common sense prevailed over special interests today,” John Moore, director of the Sustainable FERC Project Coalition, said in a statement. “The FERC correctly found that the Department of Energy’s proposal violated the basic requirements of the Federal Power Act. Secretary Perry’s plan would have subsidized coal and nuclear plants with a 90-day fuel supply yet Perry never explained why those plants were inherently more reliable or resilient.”

Although the FERC could issue a new order after submissions by regional grid operators, the language in the current order suggested it would stand by the trend toward free competitive electricity markets.

“This is really FERC saying that any change we make to the grid is going to be grounded in fact,” Greg Wetstone, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said in an interview. “This is shifting to a real-world process based on what’s actually happening to the nation’s grid, and that’s great news for renewable energy.”

Goes to show, rhetoric and words mean nothing in the face of reality and reality has been saying since before Trump even decided to run for President that the coal industry is on its way out. We need to embrace that demise and help those workers transition to new careers, not prop up a dying industry thereby creating a money sink that only goes to enrich special interests while jacking prices up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not in favor of any subsidies. If coal can survive on its own, fine. If it cant. then thats the way things go.

But forcing obscene regulations on coal, or subsidizing forms of energy that compete with coal is equally wrong.

a reply to: Grambler

Well the market is trending towards renewable energies. It has been for awhile regardless of subsidy direction. Coal is dirty and creates lots of environmental problems. Most Americans don't want to deal with that anymore.

We have renewable here 2 nuke plants within 20 miles running 24-7-365 and creating nearly 4000 great paying jobs. Only issue is the occasional protester that gets arrested or ran over trying to stop traffic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Most Americans don't understand the true cost of renewables.

From your op...

“This outright rejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear shows that Commissioners of both parties have little interest in manipulating electricity markets in favor of any fuel source,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former consultant at the Obama-era Energy Department, now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy.

Gee that is in no way a straight up lie...

www.nationalreview.com...

There’s no doubt that wind-energy capacity has grown substantially in recent years. But that growth has been fueled not by consumer demand, but by billions of dollars’ worth of taxpayer money. According to data from Subsidy Tracker — a database maintained by Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C.–based organization that promotes “corporate and government accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families” — the total value of the subsidies given to the biggest players in the U.S. wind industry is now $176 billion.

That’s an astounding level of subsidy. In 2014 and 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration, during times of peak demand, the average wholesale price of electricity was about $50 per megawatt-hour. Last winter in Texas, peak wholesale electricity prices averaged $21 per megawatt hour. Thus, on the national level, wind-energy subsidies are worth nearly half the cost of wholesale power, and in the Texas market, those subsidies can actually exceed the wholesale price of electricity.

The only "reason" coal is on its way out was because obama decided it was, and they weaponized the epa to make it so. The actual numbers do not match the statements in your op.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The only "reason" coal is on its way out was because obama decided it was, and they weaponized the epa to make it so. The actual numbers do not match the statements in your op.

This is a lie.
Coal Country's Decline Has a Long History

Though that link is unnecessary because the other thread I linked in my OP proved this already.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

Well the market is trending towards renewable energies. It has been for awhile regardless of subsidy direction. Coal is dirty and creates lots of environmental problems. Most Americans don't want to deal with that anymore.

No it isn't .
What renewable energy replacements?
The last I heard was Obama bailing out the green energy companies with Billions of tax dollars
They all failed.
Where do you think a lot of those billions went
Right back into Obama's back pocket...passed along "under the table"

a reply to: Gothmog

No it isn't .
What renewable energy replacements?

Yeah just blindly disagree with me but provide no logical reasons why.

Right back into Obama's back pocket...passed along "under the table"

Prove it

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Stats from 2 states make your case? What utter bs. The article you posted shows automation as the enemy.
Your op was about subsidies was it not?
Nothing to refute the info I posted?
You do understand the wind companies make enough from those subsidies to pay other energy providers to keep their plants off and pay them to take wind energy and then get the energy free?
If that is not "choosing a winner in energy markets" I dont know what is.

a reply to: Grambler

I think it's a much greater conversation than this.

Firstly regulations are for the safety of the product..The fact of the matter is poisoning the well is extremely costly and these folks have not been made accountable for their actions historically. Once the damage is done there simply isn't much you can do to reverse the effects. They evendors cross state lines and in some cases international lines.

Second investing in the development of new technology is what keeps the is ahead of the global market. We did it with Intel, nuke power, oil and gas, coal etc..

If we have the ability to produce cleaner, home grown energy and export the product the discussion is a little deeper than black and white.

The accountability of funding and the benefit it brings the public are certainly a thing to consider.

a reply to: shooterbrody

There are many factors involved in the decline of coal, but my most salient point to you was that your claim that coal is in decline because of Obama is a flat out lie.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The only "reason" coal is on its way out was because obama decided it was, and they weaponized the epa to make it so. The actual numbers do not match the statements in your op.

This is a lie.
Coal Country's Decline Has a Long History

Though that link is unnecessary because the other thread I linked in my OP proved this already.

Yeah , links from where ????
One US rag and one "Atlantic" ?

And you OP stated "bailing out " of the coal companies.
Big difference than what you put down "you thought" in the OP,
Yet Obama pulled a sleight of hand , bailed out the green energy companies with billions of tax dollars knowing they had already failed...

Created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine

Not anything as being relevant to "news"

The Atlantic

a reply to: shooterbrody

Personally the advancement of cleaner technology and it's development stages are well worth the subsidy.

Jobs are completely irrelevant. The same reason we don't keep buggy whip industry with subsidies.

Coal is just an old pollution environmental disaster hassle that should be phased out. Most people in coal country would love other jobs anyway.

a reply to: Gothmog

Coming from someone who just told me no without proving his point I really am not going to trust much of what you say. If all you can do is character assassinate my sources and not actually address the content within then there isn't anything for us to discuss. At least not politely and this thread isn't in the mud pit.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
From your op....

“This outright rejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear shows that Commissioners of both parties have little interest in manipulating electricity markets in favor of any fuel source,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former consultant at the Obama-era Energy Department, now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy.

Which is a demonstrated outright lie as wind power is subsidized to the tune of $176 billion.

Take away the subsides and lets see where the market goes.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Take it up with Paul Bledsoe. He said that. Not me.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
From your op....

“This outright rejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear shows that Commissioners of both parties have little interest in manipulating electricity markets in favor of any fuel source,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former consultant at the Obama-era Energy Department, now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy.

Which is a demonstrated outright lie as wind power is subsidized to the tune of $176 billion.

Take away the subsides and lets see where the market goes.

Take away the subsidies is a strawman argument.

How many subsidies do their competitors get in the development stage of their product?

a reply to: luthier

Personally the advancement of cleaner technology and it's development stages are well worth the subsidy.

If the people at ferc felt that way they should have stated it. They look to a "market" approach which is total bs when subsudes are provided to wind power but not the others.

Coal production in america is declining but oil production is growing.

money.cnn.com...

And the coal we are not burning here is going to China and getting burnt.

www.google.com...

But at least we feel green, I guess