• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Extreme Warming Ahead Even as Worst-Case Scenarios Grow ‘Obsolete’ January 23, 2023
Notley Scorches Federal Just Transition Bill as Fossil CEO Calls for Oilsands Boom January 23, 2023
IRON OXIDE: New Battery Brings Long-Duration Storage to Grids, 750 Jobs to West Virginia January 23, 2023
BREAKING: GFANZ Banks, Investors Pour Hundreds of Billions into Fossil Fuels January 17, 2023
Next
Prev

From Exxon to Etsy to PJM, Perry Coal Bailout Draws Sustained Opposition

October 29, 2017
Reading time: 4 minutes

Department of Energy/Flickr

Department of Energy/Flickr

 

The fierce pushback against U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s proposed coal and nuclear bailout continued last week with two of the country’s biggest grid operators, tech companies Microsoft and Apple, and even ExxonMobil coming out against the plan.

In late September, Perry asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to guarantee the profitability of generating facilities that keep more than 90 days of fuel onsite, prompting one critic to compare the attempt at a massive coal and nuclear bailout to “subsidizing bacon for its nutritional content”. Since then, the criticism from industry giants, including some steadfast Trump administration allies, has continued unabated.

  • Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
  • Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
  • The Weekender: The climate news you need.
New!
Subscribe

“I don’t know how this proposal could be implemented without a detrimental impact on the market,” said Andrew Ott, CEO of PJM Interconnection LLC, the country’s biggest independent grid operator. According to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Ott said the “federal proposal to subsidize the owners of old nuclear and coal plants is unworkable and would not even be legal”. Bloomberg notes that “the plan has drawn ire from a wide coalition of natural gas producers, renewable energy generators, and public utilities, which argue that such an approach would distort markets, inhibit competition, and raise consumer prices,” prompting the Washington Post to describe the opposition as a coalition of strange bedfellows.

“This is the first time we’ve filed a motion in conjunction” with the American Petroleum Institute, acknowledged Gil Jenkins, spokesperson for the American Council On Renewable Energy. “It’s unprecedented. Just as this very action taken by DOE.”

The purpose of Perry’s proposal was to help aging coal and nuclear plants “compete with new ultra-efficient gas turbine power plants—which are about twice as efficient—but which rely on pipeline gas rather than fuel onsite,” the Plain Dealer notes. “In other words, the DOE wants PJM’s fiercely competitive markets to accept higher-priced power from old coal and nuclear plants at whatever it cost to generate—plus a profit—the way the old plants did business before deregulation.”

The paper might also have pointed to tough competition from increasingly affordable and popular solar, wind, energy efficiency, and energy storage systems.

But the plan isn’t sitting at all well with regional transmission organizations that have been working in a more competitive market for the last couple of decades. Bloomberg notes that the comments from PJM’s Ott “echo concerns raised by other grid operators, which on Monday asked the commission to reject Perry’s proposal. The New York Independent System Operator, ISO New England, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator filed comments jointly with a coalition of organizations that wouldn’t be affected,” including the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the California Independent System Operator (CISO), and the Southwest Power Pool.

“The proposal threatens to undermine price formation and competition in the nation’s organized electricity markets,” they said, adding that the plan would undermine grid reliability rather than supporting it.

While the Plain Dealer says Perry designed the plan at the behest of traditional utility companies like Ohio-based FirstEnergy, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported last week that the troubled power producer, currently in restructuring talks with its major creditors, will dump its coal and nuclear plants regardless.

“I want to be very clear,” CEO Chuck Jones said Friday. “We have no interest in maintaining generating assets that have commodity exposure, and we’re moving forward with exiting the commodity-exposed business.” He added that “I don’t think the DOE initiative has anything to do with FirstEnergy, despite what’s been reported in some of the media”—which the Post-Gazette interpreted as a reference to Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray’s recent, unsuccessful plea to the White House for emergency relief for FirstEnergy coal plants.

Beyond the utility sector, the Financial Times [subs req’d] lists Microsoft, Walmart, ExxonMobil, General Electric, and Apple among the 680 intervenors—from Exxon to online craft retailer Etsy—that expressed their opposition to the Perry plan as the initial deadline for comments passed last week. Bloomberg says Exxon, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and Devon Energy Corporation all “stressed the reliability and low cost of natural gas, while the Solar Energy Industries Association warned that coal and nuclear plants are not immune to unexpected outages.”

The Times notes that “about 43 gigawatts of coal-fired generation capacity was retired in the U.S. between 2012 and 2016, to be replaced by 40 GW of gas-fired plants, 56 GW of wind and solar capacity, and just 4.7 GW of new coal plants. Five nuclear plants have shut since 2013, with about 5 GW of capacity.”



in Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

EcoAnalytics
Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion

Albertans Want a Just Transition, Despite Premier’s Grumbling

January 23, 2023
188
Climate Denial & Greenwashing

Exxon Had the Right Global Warming Numbers Through Decades of Denial: Study

January 17, 2023
223
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories/flickr
Hydrogen

Hydrogen Patents Reveal Shift Toward Cleaner Technologies

January 16, 2023
89

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

RL0919/wikimedia commons

Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing

January 23, 2023
2.1k
@tongbingxue/Twitter

Extreme Warming Ahead Even as Worst-Case Scenarios Grow ‘Obsolete’

January 23, 2023
269
Rachel Notley/Facebook

Notley Scorches Federal Just Transition Bill as Fossil CEO Calls for Oilsands Boom

January 23, 2023
255
James Vincent Wardhaugh/flickr

Canada Sidelines Ontario’s Ring of Fire, Approves Separate Mining Project

December 4, 2022
379
Weirton, WV by Jon Dawson/flickr

IRON OXIDE: New Battery Brings Long-Duration Storage to Grids, 750 Jobs to West Virginia

January 23, 2023
493
United Nations

Salvage of $20B ‘Floating Time Bomb’ Delayed by Rising Cost of Oil Tankers

January 27, 2023
12

Recent Posts

EcoAnalytics

Albertans Want a Just Transition, Despite Premier’s Grumbling

January 23, 2023
188
Sergio Boscaino/flickr

Dubai Mulls Quitting C40 Cities Over ‘Costly’ Climate Target

January 24, 2023
84
hangela/pixabay

New UK Coal Mine Faces Two Legal Challenges

January 24, 2023
43

Gas Stoves Enter U.S. Climate Culture War, Become ‘Bellwether’ for Industry

January 22, 2023
73
Jeff Hitchcock/flickr.

BREAKING: GFANZ Banks, Investors Pour Hundreds of Billions into Fossil Fuels

January 23, 2023
494

Exxon Had the Right Global Warming Numbers Through Decades of Denial: Study

January 17, 2023
223
Next Post
Alexandra Mendes/Facebook

Liberal MP Shuts Down Fossil Subsidies Hearing as Research Pinpoints Low Tax Rate Per Barrel

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}