American energy is fueled by freedom, not bailouts
By Jeff Stier
A leaked memo circulating in the White House calls for electricity consumers to bail out struggling coal and nuclear plants by mandating that a portion of energy be purchased from certain failing suppliers.
This proposal doesn’t make sense. Following through would undermine the market-driven forces that have boosted U.S. energy production, saved money for consumers, and helped the environment.
Since President Trump took office, the U.S. Department of Energy has supported an ‘”all of the above” approach to domestic energy production.
This is a smart strategy. It promotes economic growth by ensuring that demand is driven by consumers, not political trends. The administration’s expressed intention has been to resist the temptation to “discriminate against any of our fuels,” as energy secretary Rick Perry has explained.
Or so we thought. There are two possible explanations.
Perhaps the administration is all too willing to misuse government power to enrich political allies. Trump has asked for a plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants that have currently become economically uncompetitive.
Or maybe the administration’s error is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of energy economics. Coal and nuclear, as much as they’ve been maligned, aren’t in need of protection. Rather, the very market forces the Trump administration seeks to sacrifice here are becoming endangered.
According to the Brattle Group, a research firm, the White House proposal would force electricity consumers to give coal and nuclear companies nearly $17 billion annually.
To defend this plan, some Trump officials cite national security. Rapid depletion of coal and nuclear is “impacting the resilience of our power grid,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders recently claimed.
But other Trump officials flatly reject such defenses. Indeed, an official responsible for overseeing the electric grid has said, “There is no immediate calamity or threat of the ongoing ability of the bulk power system to operate and serve needs.”‘
Since Trump took office, at least 25 coal plants have shut down, edged out by cheaper and environmentally sound alternatives like natural gas. Such is the reality of a market-based economy. Eventually, uncompetitive companies, and even uncompetitive industries, go out of business.
The United States has plenty of resources available to ensure a secure power grid. There’s no need to keep failing coal and nuclear plants online.
In the case of coal, there’s an environmental cost as well. Overall, U.S. carbon emissions have declined nearly 20 percent since 2005, thanks largely to the replacement of dirty coal-fired plants with cleaner-burning natural gas plants.
Coal, the most carbon-intensive form of power, is responsible for 67 percent of carbon emissions, even though it accounts for only 32 percent of electrical generation. One study suggests that the added air pollution caused by a coal bailout would cause 353 to 815 premature deaths over two years.
Government favoritism would also raise consumer electricity bills. Over the past decade, as hundreds of coal plants shut down, electricity prices have fallen, thanks in large part to a revolution in shale gas and renewable energy.
A real “all of the above” energy strategy would lower prices for electricity by letting the market decide the most efficient way to generate it. Such an approach has served the country well since its founding.
America’s diverse energy resources have evolved, innovated, and grown thanks to market principles. Government interference that picks winners and losers would destroy it.
Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “American energy is fueled by freedom, not bailouts”
PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power miss renewable energy opportunities
EnergySolutions seeks yet another exemption for depleted uranium
