FERC decides no rate change for coal & nuke power

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
  • Hope everyone has a wonderful and warm Thanksgiving!
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
begreen

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Hearth Supporter
Nov 18, 2005
107,093
South Puget Sound, WA
Looks like grid resilience and security won the day and coal's days are numbered. There will be no raise in rates for coal, oil and nuclear power. FERC decided to invest in strengthening the grid instead and called subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear a bad investment.
"The Proposed Rule had little, if anything, to do with resilience, and was instead aimed at subsidizing certain uncompetitive electric generation technologies."

https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-responds-ferc-decision-proposed-rule
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...nergy-departments-bid-to-prop-up-coal-nuclear
 
No where near as bright as the former head of the DOE, Ernest Moniz or Chu before him

I'm really tired of the parade of second rate sycophants, who owe their position to their competence as lickspittles and little more

Kudos to the commissioners of FERC for standing up for competent engineering policy . It is an obscure position for to those who don't follow utility policy , but from this obscurity they showed reasonable judgement, and set an example for other appointees

Well that, and nearly everyone else in the nation who had the slightest grasp of energy markets opposed the policy, and said so in the open comment period
 
  • Like
Reactions: vinny11950
As much as I like to think they did the right thing for the sake of doing good policy, I also think they were backed up by a heavy-weight player in the electricity market - fracking gas producers. Without that cover, I don't think we get this decision.

Here is a good Twitter thread on the struggling nuclear power plants.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
For me.. it started when I first put in grid tied solar in 2000.

Back then, if I overproduced, they would reimburse me at the long term rate they paid the Seabrook nuclear plant. Good wok if you can get it... buy at pennies, sell at dollars

Made me pay attention

Best way to keep up on policy and industry trends is utilitydive.com

Best way for recent power trends is the https://www.eia.gov, especially today in energy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marshy
You guys had me at lickspittle. ;lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: begreen
Not sure if it was mentioned, but 2 of 3 of the NY nuc plants shown in the twitter post above were on the list under false pretenses. Both Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 quickly submitted "retirement notifications" after it became clear that there was an energy supply squeeze and that the government could be squeezed to offer lucrative permanent subsidies. The Governor blinked and the Nuc plants got generous state subsidies paid for by the ratepayers, all spun as a "jobs" bill.

The 2000 Mw of power from the Indian Point plants didn't fare so well. It was politically advantageous to pressure their "retirement", so the State fast tracked approval for a pair of 750 Mw combined cycle gas burners and some other project I've forgotten, and suddenly we don't need that nuc power. Plus, if the Gov gets 2-3000Mw of offshore wind capacity installed as advertised, it'll be a good thing to have those "non-dispatchable" plants replaced with gas burners that can respond and move.

All is possible, so long as the ratepayers keep paying.
 
which says

"Solar, wind, and battery prices are dropping so fast that, in Colorado, building new renewable power plus battery storage is now cheaper than running old coal plants. This increasingly renders existing coal plants obsolete.....


What XCel Energy has shown us is that the price for battery storage is dropping so fast, adding it to a solar or wind project increases the total price only modestly. And that’s a game-changer.

Remember, the knock against solar and wind power has been that they are variable, so their power supposedly isn’t as useful as “baseload” (24-7) power like coal and nuclear. Indeed, that was part of the argument that Energy Secretary Rick Perry had made in his now-failed effort to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to force U.S. consumers to bail out the coal and nuclear industries."
 
woodgeek said:
Just another federally funded boondoggle causing everyone's electricity rates to skyrocket. Nothing to see here.

When will they stop picking winners??

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I'll bite... why is this a boondoggle ( open bid , low median price, and not fed funded as near as I can make out) .Or am I just irony impaired ?

That said, batteries with wind is not the most cost effective design. In the case of wind, it's cheaper to just build more wind mills than to add batteries, and then not use some of the windmills when the wind is strong
 
CaptSpiff said:
Not sure if it was mentioned, but 2 of 3 of the NY nuc plants shown in the twitter post above were on the list under false pretenses. Both Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 quickly submitted "retirement notifications" after it became clear that there was an energy supply squeeze and that the government could be squeezed to offer lucrative permanent subsidies. The Governor blinked and the Nuc plants got generous state subsidies paid for by the ratepayers, all spun as a "jobs" bill.

The 2000 Mw of power from the Indian Point plants didn't fare so well. It was politically advantageous to pressure their "retirement", so the State fast tracked approval for a pair of 750 Mw combined cycle gas burners and some other project I've forgotten, and suddenly we don't need that nuc power. Plus, if the Gov gets 2-3000Mw of offshore wind capacity installed as advertised, it'll be a good thing to have those "non-dispatchable" plants replaced with gas burners that can respond and move.

All is possible, so long as the ratepayers keep paying.
Click to expand...
Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 submitted early retirement papers because they were not being profitable. At the time that list was valid. They were not the only ones to which that applied in the deregulated NE market. A lot of the mid west plants in Illinois were in the same boat without legislative support. Thats the same reason Entergy closed Vermont Yankee and why Pilgrim is closing. Closure of Indian Point 100% political in nature because of their location.

What happen in NY was the great govonor of NY realized the threat of NMP1 and Fitz closing was real. Combine their closure with Indian Point 2 & 3 and NYS loses 3534 MWe/hr emission free generation.

The Gov really does have at least half a brain and fortunately used into support carbon free generation through the Clean Energy Standard. The CES has two approaches, Renewable Energy Standard (RES), and Zero-emissions Credit (ZEC). The ZEC credits ensure the nuclear plants receive a minimum price for their power. At any time If the market price of the power is greater than the ZEC minimum then no credits are paid to the generating facility. The credits are only paid for the power actually generated.

This was enacted because NY has a goal that 50% of its power is to be generated by renewable sources by 2030 as part of its strategy to reduce statewide greenhouse emissions by 40% by 2030. This is not a permanent subsidy, it's a bridging strategy to help meet the state's ambitious emissions goals. It was never advertised as a job bill. Nuclear power provides 1/3 of the total electricity in NY and makes up 50% of its carbon free generation. If the plants had closed NY would have been set back significantly and cost of power would have increased farther than what the subsidy has.
 
Marshy said:
Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 submitted early retirement papers because they were not being profitable. At the time that list was valid. They were not the only ones to which that applied in the deregulated NE market. A lot of the mid west plants in Illinois were in the same boat without legislative support. That's the same reason Entergy closed Vermont Yankee and why Pilgrim is closing. Closure of Indian Point 100% political in nature because of their location......

What happen in NY was the great govonor of NY realized the threat of NMP1 and Fitz closing was real. Combine their closure with Indian Point 2 & 3 and NYS loses 3534 MWe/hr emission free generation.
Click to expand...

We agree on a lot,... but your fanboy reference to the Governor is a bit much. :cool:

Here's my observations:
In 2015, Entergy see's longterm soft energy prices, mostly due to conservation and cheap renewables, meaning their investment was a dog.
In 2015, they also see that for 10 of the peak usage days, the NYS grid (NYISO) can't live without them and meet their planning reliability numbers.
In 2015, the Governor releases new statements on his determination to permanently close Entergy's Indian Point, effectively showing his hand.
In 2015, Entergy announces their retirement plan effective 2017, effectively laying off 600 highly paid workers in an economically struggling area.
In 2016, much political bru-ha-ha, the legislature passes a "special bill" speedily signed by the Governor to save the upstate Nuc Plants.
It is spun as a "saving the jobs" bill in the upstate region, and as a "cleaner air for all" bill in the down state region, everyone wins.
In 2017, Entergy projects longterm profits and sells Fitzpatrick plant to Excelon for $110 Million, everyone smiles for the photos.

Nov 2015 http://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_n...cle_43e01912-815c-11e5-a699-4bb0353191eb.html

Apr 2017 http://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_n...cle_8486d12a-1622-11e7-ade4-f34f5ae85141.html

The Governor has an environmental and energy vision. I get that and I mostly like it. But he doesn't really care about the cost, because he thinks the ends justify the means. And that I don't like so much. :p Let me have it, I got my High Calorie PPE on.::-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marshy
CaptSpiff said:
We agree on a lot,... but your fanboy reference to the Governor is a bit much. :cool:

Here's my observations:
In 2015, Entergy see's longterm soft energy prices, mostly due to conservation and cheap renewables, meaning their investment was a dog.
In 2015, they also see that for 10 of the peak usage days, the NYS grid (NYISO) can't live without them and meet their planning reliability numbers.
In 2015, the Governor releases new statements on his determination to permanently close Entergy's Indian Point, effectively showing his hand.
In 2015, Entergy announces their retirement plan effective 2017, effectively laying off 600 highly paid workers in an economically struggling area.
In 2016, much political bru-ha-ha, the legislature passes a "special bill" speedily signed by the Governor to save the upstate Nuc Plants.
It is spun as a "saving the jobs" bill in the upstate region, and as a "cleaner air for all" bill in the down state region, everyone wins.
In 2017, Entergy projects longterm profits and sells Fitzpatrick plant to Excelon for $110 Million, everyone smiles for the photos.

Nov 2015 http://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_n...cle_43e01912-815c-11e5-a699-4bb0353191eb.html

Apr 2017 http://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_n...cle_8486d12a-1622-11e7-ade4-f34f5ae85141.html

The Governor has an environmental and energy vision. I get that and I mostly like it. But he doesn't really care about the cost, because he thinks the ends justify the means. And that I don't like so much. :p Let me have it, I got my High Calorie PPE on.::-)
Click to expand...
Fanboy reference lol. Thanks for the laugh. ;lol You're from LI, all us upstate folk think all you down state folk are his fan boys. Is that not true, are we living a lie? I thought he was well liked in your area. ;lol

I agree with nearly all you said (see above lol). Yeah there was some rally around saving jobs but from my perspective it was never a really strong driving factor. I live in this area and I never got the sense thst it was a job saving bill. I can see why others would think that though. Yeah, job saving was mentioned, no argument there but it always seemed like collateral benefit.

Now, if we can get the necessary changes to the transmission infrastructure the subsidy will not be needed. The price of power in this sector is very low and if they could access the sectors that Indian Point have there would be no need to subsidize.
[Hearth.com] FERC decides no rate change for coal & nuke power

(broken link removed to http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jsp)
 
Last edited:
Without massive subsidies, how will politicians get elected? Would someone please think of our poor poor politicians?

Our governor is a criminal...through and through.

From a more common sense perspective...what 30+ year old technology combined with 30+ year old equipment is economically viable today? Wouldn't new nuclear plants be much more efficient? Steam turbines have made leaps and bounds in efficiency in the last 30 years.

Isn't there a reason the EU still does about 30% of its power from nuclear?
 
Last edited:
Re nuclear costs in NY

If I get this right, the 2 plants in the boonies will continue, but the indian point one near NYC will close down

Couldn't this have something to do with killing all those people in NYC should something go wrong. If you loose NYC you loose one of the most productive places in the world

If you blow up the boonies what do you loose, a couple of cows, a few pigs, and the odd rabid squirrel?


Do the math
 
  • Like
Reactions: vinny11950
Marshy said:
Fa....
(broken link removed to http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jsp)
Click to expand...

The map was very informative, and makes a strong case for new transmission lines I notice hydro quebec has the lowest cost( and enough supply).. Are there any plans to wheel power from HQ down to NYC?
 
Re indian point

At least one pol agrees with me

"For years, my office has been fighting to address the serious risks posed by Indian Point to the surrounding communities and the environment,” New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement emailed to The Verge. “If we can shut-down Indian Point under an agreement that enhances public safety and kick-starts investment into safer and more reliable renewable energy sources, that will be a major victory for the millions of New Yorkers who live in the region.”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/1...e-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant-close-2021
 
georgepds said:
The map was very informative, and makes a strong case for new transmission lines I notice hydro quebec has the lowest cost( and enough supply).. Are there any plans to wheel power from HQ down to NYC?
Click to expand...
They already do!
You might be reading the map wrong. That is the price of power in that region. The I infrastructure does not allow NYC to choose the region the power comes from, that's just market price at that time in that specific region. If youre a generatior in the region that is how much revenue they are making on the sale of power at that time, not what they are willing to sell it for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Coal Plant Retirements
Replies
28
Views
3K
The Green Room
semipro
semipro
G
Powelson rejects Polar Vortex arguments
Replies
35
Views
3K
The Green Room
georgepds
G
webfish
  • Locked
Central Furnaces,Boilers and OWB CENTRAL HEAT FROM WOOD, PELLETS, CORN OR COAL
Replies
0
Views
5K
Articles
webfish
webfish
tradergordo
  • Locked
Massachusetts and Connecticut folks - consider installing your own power plant!
Replies
20
Views
4K
The Green Room
senorFrog
S
Top Bottom