U.S. regulator rejects coal, nuclear bailout, says renewable energy may double by 2020

For much of last year, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry pursued a plan that, in essence, would prop up the financially challenged U.S. coal and nuclear industries. His proposal, submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last fall, provided financial subsidies to electric-generation plants that kept 90 days of fuel onsite. Natural-gas plants are supplied continuously via pipelines, and renewable-energy sources have no "fuel" on site, so that helped only plants powered by coal or nuclear energy.

On Monday, Perry's plan was unanimously rejected by FERC. Its decision is binding and cannot be appealed. The commission's reasoning was that giving government-backed financial advantages to specific types of generation plants would interfere with natural competition on cost among numerous sources of electricity. In other words, it would distort the free market . . . .

Not only wind and solar trade groups but also natural-gas and oil-industry advocates joined together against the Perry proposal.

As The Washington Post noted on Monday, four of the five FERC commissioners who voted unanimously against the plan had been appointed by Trump. . . .

Click to expand...

LTLFTcomposite said:

Two questions:

Does a solar farm qualify as storing its fuel on site?

Click to expand...

LTLFTcomposite said:

Is the oxidizer required for combustion of fossil fuels considered part of the "fuel"?

Click to expand...