Siemens steps in to save Clyde windfarm

Frisco 100% Renewable Electricity Goal outlines decarbonization via Xcel Energy, wind, solar, and battery storage, enabling beneficial electrification and a smarter grid for 100% municipal power by 2025 and community-wide clean electricity by 2035.

Key Points

Frisco targets 100% renewable electricity: municipal by 2025, community by 2035, via Xcel decarbonization.

✅ Municipal operations to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2025

✅ Community-wide electricity to be 100% carbon-free by 2035

✅ Partnerships: Xcel Energy, wind, solar, storage, grid markets

Frisco has now set a goal of 100-per-cent renewable energy, joining communities on the road to 100% renewables across the country. But unlike some other resolutions adopted in the last decade, this one isn't purely aspirational. It's swimming with a strong current.

With the resolution adopted last week by the town council, Frisco joins 10 other Colorado towns and cities, plus Pueblo and Summit counties, a trend reflected in tracking progress on clean energy targets reports nationwide, in adopting 100-per-cent goals.

The goal is to get the municipality's electricity to 100-per-cent by 2025 and the community altogether by 2035, a timeline aligned with scenarios showing zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible in North America.

Decarbonizing electricity will be far easier than transportation, and transportation far easier than buildings. Many see carbon-free electricity as being crucial to both, a concept called "beneficial electrification," and point to ways to meet decarbonization goals that leverage electrified end uses.

Electricity for Frisco comes from Xcel Energy, an investor-owned utility that is making giant steps toward decarbonizing its power supply.

Xcel first announced plans to close its work-horse power plants early to take advantage of now-cheap wind and solar resources plus what will be the largest battery storage project east of the Rocky Mountains. All this will be accomplished by 2026 and will put Xcel at 55 per cent renewable generation in Colorado.

In December, a week after Frisco launched the process that produced the resolution, Xcel announced further steps, an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 as compared to 2050 levels. By 2050, the company vows to be 100 per cent "carbon-free" energy by 2050.

Frisco's non-binding goals were triggered by Fran Long, who is retired and living in Frisco. For eight years, though, he worked for Xcel in helping shape its response to the declining prices of renewables. In his retirement, he has also helped put together the aspirational goal adopted by Breckenridge for 100-per-cent renewables.

A task force that Long led identified a three-pronged approach. First, the city government must lead by example. The resolution calls for the town to spend $25,000 to $50,000 annually during the next several years to improve energy efficiency in its municipal facilities. Then, through an Xcel program called Renewable Connect, it can pay an added cost to allow it to say it uses 100-per-cent electricity from renewable sources.

Beyond that, Frisco wants to work with high-end businesses to encourage buying output from solar gardens or other devices that will allow them to proclaim 100-per-cent renewable energy. The task force also recommends a marketing program directed to homes and smaller businesses.

Goals of 100-per-cent renewable electricity are problematic, given why the grid isn't 100% renewable today for technical and economic reasons. Aspen Electric, which provides electricity for about two-thirds of the town, by 2015 had secured enough wind and hydro, mostly from distant locations, to allow it to proclaim 100 per cent renewables.

In fact, some of those electrons in Aspen almost certainly originate in coal or gas plants. That doesn't make Aspen's claim wrong. But the fact remains that nobody has figured out how, at least at affordable cost, to deliver 100-per-cent clean energy on a broad basis.

Xcel Energy, which supplies more than 60 per cent of electricity in Colorado, one of six states in which it operates, has a taller challenge. But it is a very different utility than it was in 2004, when it spent heavily in advertising to oppose a mandate that it would have to achieve 10 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Once it lost the election, though, Xcel set out to comply. Integrating renewables proved far more easily than was feared. It has more than doubled the original mandate for 2020. Wind delivers 82 per cent of that generation, with another 18 per cent coming from community, rooftop, and utility-scale solar.

The company has become steadily more proficient at juggling different intermittent power supplies while ensuring lights and computers remain on. This is partly the result of practice but also of relatively minor technological wrinkles, such as improved weather forecasting, according to an Energy News Network story published in March.

For example, a Boulder company, Global Weather corporation, projects wind—and hence electrical production—from turbines for 10 days ahead. It updates its forecasts every 15 minutes.

Forecasts have become so good, said John T. Welch, director of power operations for Xcel in Colorado, that the utility uses 95 per cent to 98 per cent of the electricity generated by turbines. This has allowed the company to use its coal and natural gas plants less.M

Moreover, prices of wind and then solar declined slowly at first and then dramatically.

Xcel is now comfortable that existing technology will allow it to push from 55 per cent renewables in 2026 to an 80 per cent carbon reduction goal by 2030.

But when announcing their goal of emissions-free energy by mid-century in December, the company's Minneapolis-based chief executive, Ben Fowke, and Alice Jackson, the chief executive of the company's Colorado subsidiary, freely admitted they had no idea how they will achieve it. "I have a lot of confidence they will be developed," Fowke said of new technologies.

Everything is on the table, they said, including nuclear. But also including fossil fuels, if the carbon dioxide can be sequestered. So far, such technology has proven prohibitively expensive despite billions of dollars in federal support for research and deployment. They suggested it might involve new technology.

Xcel's Welch told Energy News Network that he believes solar must play a larger role, and he believes solar forecasting must improve.

Storage technology must also improve as batteries are transforming solar economics across markets. Batteries, such as produced by Tesla at its Gigafactory near Reno, can store electricity for hours, maybe even a few days. But batteries that can store large amounts of electricity for months will be needed in Colorado. Wind is plentiful in spring but not so much in summer, when air conditioners crank up.

Increased sharing of cheap renewable generation among utilities will also allow deeper penetration of carbon-free energy, a dynamic consistent with studies finding wind and solar could meet 80% of demand with improved transmission. Western US states and Canadian provinces are all on one grid, but the different parts are Balkanized. In other words, California is largely its own energy balancing authority, ensuring electricity supplies match electricity demands. Ditto for Colorado. The Pacific Northwest has its own balancing authority.

If they were all orchestrated as one in an expanded energy market across the West, however, electricity supplies and demands could more easily be matched. California's surplus of solar on summer afternoons, for example, might be moved to Colorado.

Colorado legislators in early May adopted a bill that requires the state's Public Utilities Commission to begin study by late this year of an energy imbalance market or regional transmission organization.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

DOE Grid Resilience Pricing Rule faces FERC review as energy groups challenge an expedited timeline to reward coal and nuclear for reliability in wholesale markets, impacting natural gas, renewables, baseload economics, and grid pricing.

Key Points

A DOE proposal directing FERC to compensate coal and nuclear plants for reliability attributes in wholesale markets.

✅ Industry coalition seeks normal FERC timeline and review

✅ Impacts wholesale pricing, baseload economics, reliability

✅ Request for 90-day comments and reply period

A coalition of 11 industry groups is pushing back on Energy Secretary Rick Perry's efforts to quickly implement a major change to the way electric power is priced in the United States.

The Energy Department on Friday proposed a rule that stands to bolster coal and nuclear power plants by forcing the regional markets that set electricity prices to compensate them for the reliability they provide. Perry asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider and finalize the rule within 60 days, including a 45-day period during which stakeholders can issue comments.

On Monday, groups representing petroleum, natural gas, electric power and renewable energy interests including ACORE urged FERC to reject the expedited process, as well as the Department of Energy's request that the regulatory commission consider putting in place an interim rule.

They say the time frame is "aggressive" and the department didn't provide adequate justification for fast-tracking a process that could have huge impacts on wholesale electricity markets.

"This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under the Commission's jurisdiction," the groups said in the motion filed with FERC.

"The Energy Industry Associations urge the Commission to reject the proposed unreasonable timelines and instead proceed in a manner that would afford meaningful consideration of public comments and be consistent with the normal deliberative process that it typically affords such major undertakings," they said.

The groups are requesting a 90-day comment period, as well as another period for reply comments. FERC, which has authority to regulate interstate transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas, is not required to decide in favor of the rule but, amid a recent FERC decision that drew industry criticism, must consider it.

Expediting the process or imposing an interim rule is generally limited to emergencies, the groups said. The Energy Department's letter to FERC does not even attempt to establish that an immediate threat to U.S. electricity reliability exists, they allege.

• A coalition of energy industry groups asked regulators to reject a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy on Friday.
• The rule would bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants by requiring wholesale markets to compensate them for certain attributes.
• The groups say the Energy Department proposed "unreasonable timelines" for stakeholders to offer feedback on a rule with "significant ramifications for wholesale markets."

The groups cite a recent Energy Department report on grid reliability that concluded: "reliability is adequate today despite the retirement of 11 percent of the generating capacity available in 2002, as significant additions from natural gas, wind, and solar have come online since then."

The Department of Energy did not return a request for comment.

The Energy Department's rule marks a flashpoint in the battle between natural gas-fired and renewable energy and so-called baseload power sources like coal and nuclear.

Separately, coal and business groups have supported the EPA in litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule, as documented in legal challenges brought during the rule's defense.

Gas, wind and solar power have eaten into coal and nuclear's share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years. That is thanks to a boom in U.S. gas production that has pushed down prices, the rapid adoption of subsidized renewable energy and President Barack Obama's efforts to mitigate emissions from power plants, which the Trump administration has sought to replace with a tune-up as policies shift.

Electric power is priced in deregulated, wholesale markets in many parts of the country. Utilities typically draw on the cheapest power sources first.

Some worry that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants undermines the nation's ability to reliably and affordably deliver electricity to households and businesses.

President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the ailing coal industry, declaring an end to the 'war on coal' in public remarks. Trump, Perry and other administration officials reject the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions from sources like coal-fired plants are the primary cause of global warming.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Philippsburg Demolition Delay: EnBW postpones controlled cooling-tower blasts amid the coronavirus pandemic, affecting decommissioning timelines in Baden-Wurttemberg and grid expansion for a transformer station to route renewable power and secure supply in southern Germany.

Key Points

EnBW's COVID-19 delay of Philippsburg cooling-tower blasts, affecting decommissioning and grid plans.

✅ Controlled detonation shifted to mid-May at earliest

✅ Demolition links to transformer station for north-south grid

✅ Supports security of supply in southern Germany

German energy company EnBW said the coronavirus outbreak has impacted plans to dismantle its Philippsburg nuclear power plant in Baden-Wurttemberg, southwest Germany, amid plans to phase out coal and nuclear nationally.

The controlled detonation of Phillipsburg's cooling towers will now take place in mid-May at the earliest, subject to coordination as Germany debates whether to reconsider its nuclear phaseout in light of supply needs.

However, EnBW said the exact demolition date depends on many factors - including the further development in the coronavirus pandemic and ongoing climate policy debates about energy choices.

Philippsburg 2, a 1402MWe pressurised water reactor unit permanently shut down on 31 December 2019, as part of Germany's broader effort to shut down its remaining reactors over time.

At the end of 2019, the Ministry of the Environment gave basic approval for decommissioning and dismantling of unit 2 of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant, inluding explosive demolition of the colling towers. Since then EnBW has worked intensively on getting all the necessary formal steps on the way and performing technical and logistical preparatory work, even as discussions about a potential nuclear resurgence continue nationwide.

“The demolition of the cooling towers is directly related to future security of supply in southern Germany. We therefore feel obliged to drive this project forward," said Jörg Michels head of the EnBW nuclear power division.

The timely removal of the cooling towers is important as the area currently occupied by nuclear plant components is needed for a transformer station for long-distance power lines, an issue underscored during the energy crisis when Germany temporarily extended nuclear power to bolster supply. These will transport electricity from renewable sources in the north to industrial centres in the south.

As of early 2020, there six nuclear reactors in operation in Germany, even as the country turned its back on nuclear in subsequent years. According to research institute Fraunhofer ISE, nuclear power provided about 14% of Germany's net electricity in 2019, less than half of the figure for 2000.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EPA Power Plant Emissions Rule proposes strict greenhouse gas limits for coal and gas units, leveraging carbon capture (CCS) under the Clean Air Act to cut CO2 and accelerate decarbonization of the U.S. grid.

Key Points

A proposed EPA rule setting CO2 limits for coal and gas plants, using CCS to cut power-sector greenhouse gases.

✅ Applies to existing and new coal and large gas units

✅ Targets near-zero CO2 by 2038 via CCS or retirement

✅ Cites grid, health, and climate benefits; faces legal challenges

The Biden administration has proposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, its most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

A rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency could force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using a technology that has long been promised but is not used widely in the United States, and arrives amid changes stemming from the NEPA rewrite that affect project reviews.

“This administration is committed to meeting the urgency of the climate crisis and taking the necessary actions required,″ said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

The plan would not only “improve air quality nationwide, but it will bring substantial health benefits to communities all across the country, especially our front-line communities ... that have unjustly borne the burden of pollution for decades,” Regan said in a speech at the University of Maryland.

President Joe Biden, whose climate agenda includes a clean electricity standard as a key pillar, called the plan “a major step forward in the climate crisis and protecting public health.”

If finalized, the proposed regulation would mark the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, following a Trump-era replacement of Obama’s power plant overhaul, which generate about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule also would apply to future electric plants and would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042, equivalent to annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, the EPA said.

Almost all coal plants — along with large, frequently used gas-fired plants — would have to cut or capture nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions by 2038, the EPA said, a timeline that echoed concerns raised during proposed electricity pricing changes in the prior administration. Plants that cannot meet the new standards would be forced to retire.

The plan is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states, much like litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule unfolded in recent years. They have accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and warn of a pending reliability crisis for the electric grid. The power plant rule is one of at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater treatment rules.

“It’s truly an onslaught” of government regulation “designed to shut down the coal fleet prematurely,″ said Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association.

Regan denied that the power plant rule was aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but acknowledged — even after the end to the 'war on coal' rhetoric — “We will see some coal retirements.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News