Rick Perry’s plan to subsidize coal plants hits roadblock; FERC chief seeks delay

[TomSea]

Rick Perry’s plan to subsidize coal plants hits roadblock; FERC chief seeks delay
The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s highly controversial plan to subsidize coal and nuclear power plants hit a roadblock late Thursday when the newly installed chief of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said he wants to postpone a decision on the proposal until after the new year.

The initiative, known as the Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule, would offer financial incentives to facilities that keep at least 90 days’ worth of fuel on site. The idea is widely viewed as an effort to promote more coal development in this country, and to offer financial rewards to utilities that stockpile coal at their plants.

Mr. Perry published the rule in the Federal Register on Oct. 10, and a decision was supposed to be made within 60 days.

Read more at: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/8/rick-perrys-plan-subsidize-coal-plants-hits-roadbl/

[Suppressed]

Subsidies for coal. Just great.

[Cyber Liberty]

Subsidies for coal. Just great.

Subsidies for coal make no sense.  Nuclear does, to a degree because the cost of enviro lawsuits and regulations that can be added between the start and end of a construction.  The result has been to chill any desire to invest in a nuke plant by anything smaller than a government...try and build one.  Nobody knows what it will cost.

[Sanguine]

I don't particularly like or dislike Perry, but I hope that anyone who still thought of him as a conservative or deep thinker has been disabused of that notion.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't particularly like or dislike Perry, but I hope that anyone who still thought of him as a conservative or deep thinker has been disabused of that notion.

 

(Deep thinker:  "Oops.")

[Suppressed]

I don't particularly like or dislike Perry, but I hope that anyone who still thought of him as a conservative or deep thinker has been disabused of that notion.

So 2015 of you!

My dear @Sanguine...don't you know that Crony Capitalism is now considered "conservative"?

[Sanguine]

So 2015 of you!

My dear @Sanguine...don't you know that Crony Capitalism is now considered "conservative"?

Funny in a painful kind of way.

[TomSea]

In defense of Perry, some leaders have to actually make the government work, the economy work. They don't have the luxury of sitting back in a committee room proving to everyone how conservative they are and not getting things done to put it bluntly.

[Sanguine]

In defense of Perry, some leaders have to actually make the government work, the economy work. They don't have the luxury of sitting back in a committee room proving to everyone how conservative they are and not getting things done to put it bluntly.

And, you think that taking money from people to subsidize coal fired plants is "make(ing) the government work, the economy work"?  That's, um, an interesting way of seeing things. 

[Cyber Liberty]

And, you think that taking money from people to subsidize coal fired plants is "make(ing) the government work, the economy work"?  That's, um, an interesting way of seeing things.

I really don't think coal-fired plants were the primary thrust of this....

[Suppressed]

Well, I have to admit, I didn't file a comment during the public-comment period on this one, so I really shouldn't complain.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I really don't think coal-fired plants were the primary thrust of this....

Agreed.  The thrust is to ensure a stable baseload capability that the renewables cannot offer. 
 http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,283775.msg1468746.html#msg1468746

Germany is adrift because of that.  Even New York state sees it as it subsidizes evil nuclear power in order to survive.

I just wish the answer were not to subsidize any energy industries at all and let the market decide.

[thackney]

Agreed.  The thrust is to ensure a stable baseload capability that the renewables cannot offer. 
 http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,283775.msg1468746.html#msg1468746

Germany is adrift because of that.  Even New York state sees it as it subsidizes evil nuclear power in order to survive.

I just wish the answer were not to subsidize any energy industries at all and let the market decide.

Government created part of the problem by forcing purchase of solar & wind at the same price as dispatchable power sources, sources that can be turned on and off to meet demand requirements.  Instead they have to pay "full" price regardless if the system needs power at that moment or not.

[Bigun]

Government created part of the problem by forcing purchase of solar & wind at the same price as dispatchable power sources, sources that can be turned on and off to meet demand requirements.  Instead they have to pay "full" price regardless if the system needs power at that moment or not.

The government screws up nearly everything it touches.  And I think I could have been less kind and excluded the word nearly from that.

[Fishrrman]

Isailed wrote:
"I just wish the answer were not to subsidize any energy industries at all and let the market decide."

I sense that if it was "up to the market to decide", it would decide in favor of coal:
- cheap
- a nearly-endless supply
- transportable anywhere by train or barge
- stockpile-able (can't do that with natural gas)
- can be burned "cleanly enough"
- plants can be built quickly and cheaply

[Suppressed]

Isailed wrote:
"I just wish the answer were not to subsidize any energy industries at all and let the market decide."

I sense that if it was "up to the market to decide", it would decide in favor of coal:
- cheap
- a nearly-endless supply
- transportable anywhere by train or barge
- stockpile-able (can't do that with natural gas)
- can be burned "cleanly enough"
- plants can be built quickly and cheaply

Well, it kinda depends on defining subsidies. If coal had to truly cover the costs of the effects on children from mercury deposition downwind, then they'd be voluntarily and proactively installing emission controls. But since there's no way to assess such damages in practical terms, regulatory controls are necessary.  And enforcement of them is on the taxpayers' back.

[Frank Cannon]

This is FERCing unbelievable.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, it kinda depends on defining subsidies. If coal had to truly cover the costs of the effects on children from mercury deposition downwind, then they'd be voluntarily and proactively installing emission controls. But since there's no way to assess such damages in practical terms, regulatory controls are necessary.  And enforcement of them is on the taxpayers' back.

Does that mean the taxes and regulations are arbitrary, because there's no practical way to assess the damage?

[Bigun]

Does that mean the taxes and regulations are arbitrary, because there's no practical way to assess the damage?

It generally means that the competition has found a way to get a leg up on the competition and paid off enough legislators to get it mandated!

[Suppressed]

@Cyber Liberty

Does that mean the taxes and regulations are arbitrary, because there's no practical way to assess the damage?

Not wholly, as the damages are an inequality function ("greater than" X).

They are arbitrary in the way police and fire protection is charged arbitrarily, with all being taxed for protection.  But the actual costs are not arbitrary, if standards are to be met, as each individual facility's cost is based upon their own costs to meet the standard.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Not wholly, as the damages are an inequality function ("greater than" X).

They are arbitrary in the way police and fire protection is charged arbitrarily, with all being taxed for protection.  But the actual costs are not arbitrary, if standards are to be met, as each individual facility's cost is based upon their own costs to meet the standard.

I see...that makes sense.  I'm concerned because when there is government interference to the market, unrelated factors like bureaucratic preferences can come into play, where some parties get better treatment than others to effect market conditions.  We've seen this a lot lately with "renewables."

Personally, I see no reason to ever subsidize coal plants, they're a pretty stable commodity, but I do see a need to do something with nuclear, because the no-nukes fanatics have applied that government pressure to make them impossible to build.