One of the many things Donald Trump promised during his campaign was that he would boost the country鈥檚 coal industry. Soon after he won the presidency, though, it became clear to some experts that the future of coal in the U.S. was dim; that natural gas, wind and solar were pushing it out of the market.
The coal industry found an ally in Trump鈥檚 pick to helm the Department of Energy: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
This month, the typically free-market-minded Perry has pushed a policy that UC-Berkeley鈥檚 says may be the only viable way to save coal 鈥� and it looks like the administration agreed.
The proposal would federally subsidize coal and nuclear power, and it鈥檚 a dramatic reversal from a man who had spent his political career extolling the virtues of market competition.
But Perry has changed his tune, it appears.
鈥淭he idea that there is a free market in the energy industry is a fallacy,鈥� he told a congressional subcommittee .
He argued coal and nuclear power are the only two electricity-generators with power sources that can be stored on-site. That could be valuable to keep the grid running in the event of a natural disaster or attack, so propping up nuclear and coal facilities would be a matter of national security.
Borenstein says he鈥檚 not buying it.
鈥淭he Trump administration has manufactured a special [value] that coal and nuclear provide,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he problem is there isn鈥檛 a study that shows it鈥檚 incredibly valuable and, in fact, the earlier version of the Department of Energy study of resiliency 鈥� actually said it wasn鈥檛 incredibly valuable.鈥�
A bipartisan group of former commissioners for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 鈥� the group tasked with implementing the subsidies 鈥� has come out against it, as well. The natural gas industry argues it is unfair, too.
But environmentalists argue that, if coal and nuclear power鈥檚 negative environmental impacts aren鈥檛 priced into its cost, their potentially positive qualities shouldn鈥檛 be subsidized either.
In Texas, there鈥檚 one other catch: The subsidies wouldn鈥檛 apply here, because the group that regulates the Texas grid 鈥� the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 鈥� operates independently of FERC.
鈥淭he thing with ERCOT is because its self-contained within Texas, it鈥檚 not under federal jurisdiction,鈥� said , a fellow at UT鈥檚 Energy Institute. 鈥淪o any rule that FERC made that may prop up coal or nuclear plants would not apply here in Texas.鈥�
So what are the odds that the subsidies take effect?
Lawyers at Harvard鈥檚 Environmental Policy Initiative have called the plan FERC could also try to block or stall it through administrative procedure, and U.S. lawmakers could revolt and pass legislation to reverse it.
But Bornstein, who thought subsidies were unlikely last year, says he thinks they鈥檙e a least slightly more likely now.
鈥淭he way they鈥檙e doing it is administratively, not through Congress,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o they may have a shot at it because the president gets to appoint the commissioners of FERC, and he is likely to appoint people who do what he says.鈥�
Copyright 2020 KUT 90.5. To see more, visit . 9(MDAxODQzOTgwMDEyMTcyNjI4MTAxYWQyMw004))
