ICYMI: Opposition builds against efforts to bail out coal and nuclear plants

Propping up failing coal and nuclear plants in the name of national security is a disgraceful sham
“It’s a preposterous idea. Continuing to operate financially nonviable power plants and forcing grid operators to buy power they don’t need or want is an unacceptable governmental intrusion into the power market that, by one analysis, would needlessly cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars.” - Editorial Board

Trump’s latest attempt to protect coal looks positively socialist

 “Americans could pay hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, more every year for energy if bailouts given to inefficient power plants.” - Editorial Board

Rick Perry’s Obama Imitation

“Mandating that grid operators buy more expensive coal and nuclear power would raise consumer prices and could reduce natural gas production that has been a boon to many states. And note to Mr. Trump: Energy is one of the biggest costs for steel and aluminum manufacturers. The government rescue for coal and nuclear is as politically abusive as Mr. Obama’s lawless policy to punish fossil fuels.” – Editorial Board

Bailing Out the Coal Industry Will Hurt Consumers
“President Trump’s plan to subsidize money-losing coal and nuclear plants makes no economic sense and runs counter to the free market ideology of the party he leads. But it will make the operators of those plants very happy while consumers across the country foot what could be an extraordinarily expensive bill.” - Jeff Nesbit, Climate Nexus

White House Bailout of Coal Stamps Coal As a Loser

"Any federal intervention to order customers to buy electricity from specific power plants would be damaging to the markets – and ultimately to the consumer." - Allan Golombek, White House Writers Group

Americans Will Pay a High Price to Save Coal
“Keeping these inefficient plants open is going to put utility customers out of pocket.” - Editorial Board

Perry vs. Texas: Coal bailout will sell out wind and natural gas

“Gov. Perry would have sneered at the blatant government intervention in the free market that Secretary Perry insists is necessary, and he would have scoffed at the ‘national security’ rationale offered up by the White House.” - Editorial Board

There are good reasons why coal is in decline

“Trump’s latest attempt to save the coal industry could be compared to a president stepping in to rescue buggy-makers after the rise of automobiles, or demanding that people travel cross-country by passenger train rather than on airplanes.” – Editorial Board

Subsidies for coal and nuclear will harm taxpayers, ratepayers, and the free market

“The policy under consideration by the Trump administration, while likely well-intentioned, simply has no good in it. It is not conservative, it is not market-based, and it offers no benefit to the public. It should be abandoned.” – Philip Rosetti, American Action Forum

Trump planning unprecedented intervention in electricity markets
“Trump's order would forever alter the established model of U.S. electric power markets, since investments based on market-clearing prices are predicated on the promise that governments will not intervene to reward particular constituents (e.g., coal-mine owners). Trump's latest directive is part of a larger effort to upend the free-market system the U.S. has developed for electric power over the past 20 years.” – Jay Apt, Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business

###