What Others Are Saying

Below is a collection of quotes from industry experts, policymakers, officials, and others on various electrical grid issues.  Use the filters below to find perspectives on topics like coal retirements, reliability, regulations and more. 

Quote Filter

“As you are aware, Talen is currently prevented from continuing to run without conversion beyond its stated deactivation date under [a Reliability Must Run] framework due to a private agreement it entered into with you. Neither PJM, the federally designated regional grid operator charged with maintaining grid reliability, nor the state of Maryland is a party to this agreement.” 

“We are facing an absolute step change in the risk environment surrounding reliability and energy assurance. In recent years, we’ve witnessed a decline in reliability, and the future projection does not offer a clear path to securing the reliable electricity supply that is essential for the health, safety, and prosperity of our communities.”

“On behalf of Xcel’s South Dakota customers who very much would like their electricity to remain reliable 24/7/365 in good weather or bad, we ask you to reconsider your unfortunate decision to close King and Sherco prematurely. We do not want Xcel to be part of the impending problem of generation shortage in the MISO footprint. Reliability should be your number one commitment.”

“When I read some of the EPA documents when they were releasing the rule, one thing really struck me was a quote. They said the power sector has a broad set of tools to deploy clean, affordable energy, take advantage of ready to go advance pollution technology, create and retain good paying jobs and reduce energy costs for families and businesses. Now you can debate many of the things in that quote, but to suggest that this rule or the energy transition as a whole is going to reduce costs, energy costs for Americans? That’s just irresponsible. That is not what we’re looking at. And we can’t keep promising that to people.”

“I’m just struck when we’re talking about these reliability challenges, that in a nation that is so blessed with an abundant array of affordable, reliable energy resources like America is, it really doesn’t seem plausible that we should ever fall short. Yes, we have storms yes, there are power outages that are going to happen, but not having enough should never happen ever. So, we have is a crisis in leadership that all of us face. I include myself as a state regulator, and we have to fix that.”

“The art of ensuring reliability has not changed, even though the backdrop has. We are all guilty of complaining about long periods of gray skies, and although we don’t complain when the wind isn’t blowing our hair out of place, we can certainly acknowledge those times occur.  So, with more of the fleet made up of weather-dependent resources it’s just logical that a lack of fuel will cause them to be unavailable, and possibly for an extended period of time.”

“Reliability is something that is an expectation in our society, and it’s become easy to take it for granted.  Today, however, the landscape has changed significantly to make it much more complex to deliver electricity with the reliability our society has come to expect. Unfortunately, there is a focus on debating the virtues of different resources and letting that distract us from the realities of reliability, so I am hopeful we can get back to some of those today. These should not be seen as “grim” realities, but I like to think of them as “grid” realities.”

“Regulatory, policy, and environmental pressures on fossil-based generation resources that provide 60 percent of the nation’s electricity further threaten the reliability and flexibility of the grid. Because of these pressures, coupled with projections of electric demand growth, we are concerned about the reliability of the bulk-power system and the actions the Commission is taking or considering taking to ensure that it fulfills its mission to ‘assist consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and economically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts.” 

“Regulatory, policy, and environmental pressures on fossil-based generation resources that provide 60 percent of the nation’s electricity further threaten the reliability and flexibility of the grid. Because of these pressures, coupled with projections of electric demand growth, we are concerned about the reliability of the bulk-power system and the actions the Commission is taking or considering taking to ensure that it fulfills its mission to ‘assist consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and economically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts.” 

“As this Commission considers other potential reforms related to regional transmission planning and development, it is imperative that incentives like the [Construction Work in Progress] Incentive, Abandoned Plant Incentive, and [regional transmission organization] participation adder are all revisited to ensure that all the costs and risks associated with transmission construction are not unfairly inflicted on consumers while transmission developers and owners stand to gain all the financial reward.”

“We urge the EPA to rescind its Clean Power Plan 2.0 proposal and make affordability, reliability, and the limits of its authorities under the Clean Air Act cornerstones of any future proposal. The more time that has passed since the proposal, the more issues with the Clean Power Plan 2.0 have been uncovered. The proposal is beyond repair and must be withdrawn. Failing to do so and moving ahead with the proposal would significantly threaten the safety and reliability of the electric grid. The impact of these flaws will ultimately be borne by ratepayers through higher energy costs and the effects of reduced reliability on economic opportunity and public health and safety. Low-income and other vulnerable Americans will be disproportionately affected due to the regressive nature of energy cost increases.”

“We urge the EPA to rescind its Clean Power Plan 2.0 proposal and make affordability, reliability, and the limits of its authorities under the Clean Air Act cornerstones of any future proposal. The more time that has passed since the proposal, the more issues with the Clean Power Plan 2.0 have been uncovered. The proposal is beyond repair and must be withdrawn. Failing to do so and moving ahead with the proposal would significantly threaten the safety and reliability of the electric grid. The impact of these flaws will ultimately be borne by ratepayers through higher energy costs and the effects of reduced reliability on economic opportunity and public health and safety. Low-income and other vulnerable Americans will be disproportionately affected due to the regressive nature of energy cost increases.”

“The electric power industry continues to face challenges in the future. A rapidly changing resource mix, a threat landscape, extreme weather, inverter-based resources. But really focusing in on reliability, managing the pace of a rapidly-changing resource mix, which includes not only making sure you don’t retire prematurely, but also that we’re building enough resources and making sure they’re dispatchable really continues to be our greatest reliability risk in the future.” 

“There has been a strong push for quite some time to get coal power out of Maryland. In this accelerated timeline of exiting from coal-fired power plants in the coming 12 to 24 months, I think it’s going to create a major reliability concern for the state. The loss of power poses a real danger to the well-being and livelihoods of Maryland families and businesses. Until these current risks to our grid are fully dealt with, it’s a mistake to close reliable, baseload power plants too soon. That should be a concern to consumers in Maryland and businesses in Maryland that rely on dependable power.”

“This situation requires immediate attention. Failure to come to resolution on this issue could result in degraded grid reliability for over 1,000,000 Maryland consumers during peak hours, including the entirety of the city of Baltimore, for the years between the stated deactivation of Brandon Shores and the date whereby needed transmission can be constructed.”

“We are starting to see that these three objectives of reliability, affordability and decarbonization often conflict. I think it would be really helpful and I think it is really necessary to have ongoing, serious, fact-based conversations about those trade-offs to help inform policymakers – those who are elected and appointed by those who are elected – to make the right trade-offs because there are trade-offs to be made.”

“The proposed greenhouse gas rule “would inject additional cost and uncertainty [into the power sector] … by assuming the availability and affordability of unproven technologies. If the rules are adopted, consumers will pay more for a less-reliable system. “Given increasing signs of trouble on the grid, regulators should help stabilize the system, not exacerbate its problems.”

“The proposal “requires stringent and unproven carbon dioxide emissions controls for coal-fired electric generating units to be implemented in unrealistic time frames. The plan would “usurp the authority and discretion” of the state agencies responsible for implementing environmental and energy policies.”

“When it comes to concerns with the rules, one of the things that I would put forward is that timeline is one of the most important aspects when it comes to the infrastructure and technology available to it. When you look at where SRP is located out in Arizona, I would refer you to the SunZia transmission line. This transmission line between New Mexico and Arizona has taken more than 16 years to get permitted. And I think I would use that as an example of where you have adequate investment, you have interest and desire by energy entities are really just out in the west we have a significant amount of federal land and that adds to the permitting requirements, the siting requirements to actually get infrastructure built. So, while we understand and appreciate the mission that EPA is trying to accomplish, we think it needs to be met with the practicality of trying to turn plans no matter how ambition in into reality and infrastructure.”

“When we start a new transmission line today, it’s a 10-year process because nobody wants transmission. So, if it’s brand new and doesn’t have the right aways, we’re going to have to do condemnations, which is going to be tied up in court from cradle to grave. It’s a 10-year process at least so I think to say that it’s going to save the day is a fallacy right now that’s going to take more time. I get that we’re going to get there some time, but not in the short term.” 

“The technology is being developed, but it’s not here. And the EPA is pointed to a few projects, but they’re not scaled up and they’re not online so the timeframe is way too short. I mean, if you think about it, it took us 100 years to get to where we are the most reliable, dependable, affordable electric system in the world. And now we’re trying to change it in eight years. And that’s just not going to work. We need more time to get to these new technologies that are being developed.”

“Clean hydrogen is even further behind than CCS. Under proposed rules, state plans are due in the summer of 2026. It is virtually impossible for operators to make permanent decisions to meet that timeline. They will be forced into either retirement of essential dispatchable coal units, or curtailment of those units to capacity factors below 20% by 2032, and complete retirement by 2035, and curtailing the use of natural gas units to capacity factors below 20% starting in 2032. The disorderly retirement and elimination of baseload generation will leave the electricity grid with a significant deficit of dispatchable generation that cannot be replaced by intermittent resources especially during a time of economic growth.”

“EPA is proposal is not salvageable. The real question is whether reliability might be salvageable. First, even if we put aside the enormous cost involved in the proposed rule relies on CCS and clean hydrogen, neither of which are ready at levels and scales for a sound economy that requires certainty and not in all regions of the country. The infrastructure needed for both technologies is not now and will not be in place at the scale to meet EPA’s deadlines. For instance, the developer of the Heartland Greenway CCS pipeline project, relied upon by the EPA and its analysis, recently cancelled the project.”

“Overall position is that EPA ‘s proposal is unlawful and unworkable. The only way that the proposed rule will not have detrimental effects on the electric liability is for EPA to withdraw it.”

“We released a paper back in February about retirements. And we made a number of assumptions about retirements and came to a number of 40,000 megawatts between now and 2030. We’ve already been wrong about that in a number of faster retirements or retirements that we didn’t even see on the table.”

“Zone operators can require that the utilities in their zones bring certain resources to the table, they have those abilities. And so, I think it needs to go to the interconnection process where you’re bringing on or taking off resources. We need to start requiring that the resources that come on bring the attributes, they all have to have the same attributes or similar attributes, or a package of attributes.”

 “When I read some of the EPA documents when they were releasing the rule, one thing really struck me was a quote. They said the power sector has a broad set of tools to deploy clean, affordable energy, take advantage of ready to go advance pollution technology, create and retain good paying jobs and reduce energy costs for families and businesses. Now you can debate many of the things in that quote, but to suggest that this rule or the energy transition as a whole is going to reduce costs, energy costs for Americans? That’s just irresponsible. That is not what we’re looking at. And we can’t keep promising that to people.”

 “I’m just struck when we’re talking about these reliability challenges, that in a nation that is so blessed with an abundant array of affordable, reliable energy resources like America is, it really doesn’t seem plausible that we should ever fall short. Yes, we have storms yes, there are power outages that are going to happen, but not having enough should never happen ever. So, we have is a crisis in leadership that all of us face. I include myself as a state regulator, and we have to fix that.”

“New technologies are far from commercial viability. There is little doubt that technologies will mature and/or new technologies will develop that can effectively and efficiently provide the needed reliability attributes. But, we are not at that point, and we won’t be any time soon. There is another “constraint,” if you will, that has been often ignored lately.  Not only is reliability an expectation, but so too is affordability. Utilities could certainly install massive amounts of 4-hour batteries to provide the required attributes, but at massive cost. Simply put, time is needed to resolve this challenge, and, in the meantime, we have to maintain the existing sources of these attributes, understanding that their usage will decline.”

“Different resource types are different. There is a diversity of resources on the system right now. They all provide something that is needed for reliability, but none of them provide everything that is needed. The decarbonization goals being set by states and utilities mean we need significantly more renewable resources on the system. At the same time, however, we need resources that can run at high output for long periods of time to fill the void when Mother Nature is not providing renewable fuel or has forced large portions of the fleet out of service. In addition, we need highly flexible, dispatchable resources that can be moved up or down easily and quickly to counteract the variability that comes with weather-dependent resources.”

“The art of ensuring reliability has not changed, even though the backdrop has. We are all guilty of complaining about long periods of gray skies, and although we don’t complain when the wind isn’t blowing our hair out of place, we can certainly acknowledge those times occur.  So, with more of the fleet made up of weather-dependent resources it’s just logical that a lack of fuel will cause them to be unavailable, and possibly for an extended period of time.” 

“Reliability is something that is an expectation in our society, and it’s become easy to take it for granted.  Today, however, the landscape has changed significantly to make it much more complex to deliver electricity with the reliability our society has come to expect. Unfortunately, there is a focus on debating the virtues of different resources and letting that distract us from the realities of reliability, so I am hopeful we can get back to some of those today. These should not be seen as “grim” realities, but I like to think of them as “grid” realities.”

“As we sit here today, we cannot run a system on 100% renewables.”

“If you’re going to do a transition to a different set of generation, it’s going to take time to make that happen,” Matheson said. “What’s bad policy is forcing closure of reliable assets that therefore compromise electric reliability of the grid.”

“While CCS and hydrogen co-firing technologies show promise, they are not yet commercially or economically viable on a grid-scale basis—and there are no assurances they will become so on EPA’s optimistic timeline. If EPA’s proposed rule drives coal and gas resources to retire before enough replacement capacity is built with the critical attributes the system needs, grid reliability will be compromised.”

“The technology for a non-synchronous type of generation grid is just not there yet. And it’s going to take years for that to advance. And in the meantime, we need a bridge to be able to get to the future. And that bridge is going to be thermal dispatchable generation.”

“The recent acceleration in the pace of fleet change is increasing risks to system reliability for MISO. Dispatchable generators that we need to ensure reliability are being removed from the system before new resources with the needed reliability attributes are being brought online.”

“Transforming the grid is easy in concept, it’s very difficult and challenging in practice; there are multiple moving parts, and the timing and coordination of making those decisions is critical. If the pace of retirements gets ahead of the pace of replacing the lost reliability attributes, that’s when we could get into a reliability situation.”

“The growth of renewables has had many benefits, but because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, as a grid operator SPP has to rely on other fuel sources to ensure demand can still be met when these intermittent resources are not available.”

“I don’t think adding renewables is the reliability challenge. It’s the retirement of conventional generation. That’s our challenge.”

“We need to take the analysis of reliability impacts to the next level – choosing compliance dates and deadlines carefully and after more detailed study and analysis than has generally occurred to date in the policymaking process.”

“We urge that reliability considerations be built into the analysis of potential policies rather than either being taken for granted or considered only as an afterthought once legislation is enacted.”

“The Inflation Reduction Act created a host of new subsidies to jump-start a domestic industry in the manufacture of critical generator components. It is not at all clear, however, that this will sufficiently work to timely reverse the trend of generation retirements outpacing the development of new generation with the reliability attributes we need to maintain reliable service to customers.”

“… they could exacerbate the potential for reliability problems in the future to the extent that, again, we don’t get sufficient replacement resources to maintain overall resource adequacy and get the types of generator attributes that we need in order to replace what could retire.”

[Response to Rep. Griffith’s question on whether 2027 is the tipping point for when the grid is not reliable] “It could be that early if the pace at which replacement generation comes online does not accelerate.” 

“… in a case where there’s a low level of replacement generation that actually comes on the system, and the retirements are as significant as we think they could be, we could start recognizing some shortages as early as 2027, 2028.”

“… we think that the rule should incorporate things such as reliability analysis into things like deadlines as well as the potential for reliability safety valves.”

“Beyond the overall resource adequacy question, dispatchable generation also provides, right now, the majority of the grid services we need; the flexibility, the ramping, those types of services that we need to balance the grid to operate the grid reliably.” 

“Replacement generation seeking to interconnect is made up primarily of intermittent and limited duration resources such as wind, solar and battery storage. These resources do not replace the resources that are retiring on a one for one basis, you need more megawatts of those resources to replace what’s retiring.”

“The rate of retirements of fossil fuel resources largely due to state and federal policies is clearly outpacing the construction of new renewable resources.”

“In 1990, two-thirds of the generating capacity in this country was coal and gas and today almost two-thirds of the generating capacity is still coal and gas. But what’s happened is in 1990 about half of our capacity was coal and only about 10% was gas, and now it’s reversed. In 1990 we were using gas almost exclusively for gas peakers, turn them on at peak and that’s it. Now, we’re running gas as baseload and that takes a lot more gas and we don’t have the infrastructure—that’s the real energy transition by the way, the coal to gas that’s taken place in this country since 1990.” 

“The world that we are operating is a lot more complex, so to maintain the reliability we’ve become accustomed to, we will need to adjust our markets and processes.” [Remarks to the Board – saying MISO and members have been “fortunate” to preside over smooth operations and manage them with simpler market tools. However, he said a multitude of renewable resources and increasingly unstable weather is poised to further drive volatility and riskier operations.]

[While MISO remains fuel neutral] “We’re big fans of reliability.” 

“I want to make sure we have a heightened sense of urgency.” [Bear said MISO is up against a wave of generation retirements and similarly tapering reserves at PJM and SPP, which means MISO won’t be able to rely on imported power from neighbors in the future.] 

“We’re facing reality very, very simply. I think everybody knows that,” Christie said. “The question is, is there going to be the political will to make a turn in policy and recognize that we’re not going to get to where everybody wants to get, which is a lower-carbon grid, without reality being part of the equation, because reality will track you down. We’re headed to some bad outcomes and none of us want to be around when those outcomes hit, because that’s when the finger-pointing starts.” 

“And by the way, that is before the EPA came out with the power plant rule, which is going to make that number even worse, as every RTO knows. The numbers don’t add up. You lose 8 gigs of dispatchable, and you pick up 24 gigs of wind and solar, [you think] you’re fine right now. You’re not fine, because as we all know, a megawatt of nameplate wind and solar is not equal to a megawatt of nameplate coal or gas. It’s just reality.”

“The first rule of holes is if you’re in one, stop digging. “If the fundamental problem we’re facing is we’re shutting down dispatchable resources far too prematurely, then the answer is to stop shutting down dispatchable resources far too prematurely.”

“Right now, when it comes to the reliability of our grid, the United States is facing a rendezvous with reality. Reality is just around the corner. You may think you can avoid it for a while, but reality will track you down. And reality is tracking us down when it comes to the reliability of our grid.”

“Commissioner Christie said the red lights are flashing, problems are coming. The problem generally is not the addition of intermittent resources primarily wind and solar but the far too rapid subtraction of dispatchable resources especially coal and gas.”

“We like to play games. You create the rules of the game, and everyone plays it, and it’s all about who can get the lowest cost because we’ve turned electricity into a commodity instead of an essential service. At some point, there has to be a financial metric rule, some payments, something somewhere to pay for that reliability. Otherwise, everyone’s going to keep playing the game and just chasing the cheapest electron.”

[In calling for fairness in meeting reliability commitments] “We’re propping up reliability, but we get paid nothing for it. When the wind blows hard enough or the sun shines bright enough, we have to pay the market to just keep our resources online to prop up the market to be there for reliability. So when [prices] go negative, I’m paying to keep that resource online.”

“We know we can’t afford a 100% reliable system. We’re going to have to make important tradeoffs between reliability and those three parameters [frequency, duration and scale] and how much we will be paid to avoid that. Resilience and reliability is not free.”

“A wind drought, solar drought, cloud cover, unexpected cloud cover, extreme cold weather affects the ability of large amounts of generation to operate, so this whole notion of kind of random failure being the driver of how much generation we need isn’t sufficient.”

“These results (Summertime Capacity Projections) continue to illustrate the reliability risk we face and reinforce the need for dispatchable, long-duration resources to be maintained and brought online to manage the transition to weather-dependent, low-carbon resources.”

“PJM has recently said that we are facing imminent resource scarcity and yet in the last procurement auction the capacity prices dropped. During times of scarcity, if a market functions correctly, obviously the prices should go up. This is proof that the subsidies are working ill on the markets right now.” 

“We are heading for potentially very dire consequences potentially catastrophic consequences in the United States in terms of the reliability of our grid.”

“In the jurisdictional markets, the subsidies have effectively allowed intermittence to bid into the capacity markets at a price. Since the price signal that the electricity power is free, which it isn’t, it has depressed the prices for the entire market such that those units have to bid in their actual costs. [those units] are not going to clear the market and will not get a capacity ward. The result of that is premature retirement and the dispatchable resource are those that have things like fuel costs, regardless of what that fuel is. You have to put that fuel cost in, and they are pushed out of the market before their life is over, and the intermittence will end up making a larger percentage of the fleet going forward.”

“The spinning mass that has been the basis for our generation fleet for ages is what allows us to ride through the voltage disturbances that are inevitable in a dynamic system like this. And even if you have grid-forming inverters, the likelihood that they would have that level of resilience given the fact that intermittents can turn on and off in a moment’s notice is very unlikely.”

“The US is heading towards a reliability crisis in our electric markets. This reliability crisis is being driven by two primary factors. The first is the effect of subsidies and the second is the commission’s… abandonment of its long-standing commitment to the rule of law.”

“You can’t just shut down your dispatchable generation overnight or within the matter of a few years and think that you can keep the lights on by simply trying to replace. My point of the megawatt versus a megawatt is the capacity value of the wind or solar megawatt is simply not equal to the capacity value of a megawatt. You can’t just keep the grid running with a 1-1 replacement – the numbers don’t add up.” 

“I think it’s important to understand that FERC doesn’t order generating units to be built and FERC doesn’t order generating units to be shut down. We regulate the markets that have a big effect on how those decisions are made. In MISO, and really throughout the country, it’s states who decide what to build and states can decide what to retire. FERC has a huge impact because of the way we regulate the markets, but it all interacts.”

“It would be wonderful if carbon capture technology could be mature to where you could run coal or gas generating units with carbon capture and actually remove all the carbon and have that benefit. I don’t think the technology is anywhere near being mature yet, but time will tell.”

“… there’s an accusation there’s fear mongering going on with those of us expressing concerns about loss of dispatchable resources. I don’t think the head of NERC is fearmongering when he repeatedly says that this is a coming danger. I don’t think the head of PJM is fearmongering when he has said, we’re losing dispatchable resources at a rate we cannot sustain.” I don’t think the head of MISO is fearmongering when he says we’re losing dispatchable resources at a rate we can’t sustain.” I don’t think it’s fearmongering when the head of New York ISO last week said the same thing. I think we need to listen to the engineers, not the lobbyists. And I think we need to be doing what’s right for rate payers and not political narratives.”

“But I want to emphasize, states decide what units get built, states decide what units get shut down.”

“We are heading for potentially very dire consequences, potentially catastrophic consequences in the United States in terms of the reliability of our grid.”

[Will the “current and proposed EPA power generation regulations make the problem with gas fuel supply worse?”] “Yes, because they’re going to drive up the cost of operating a coal generating unit. And if you drive up the cost, obviously that has to be paid for. Now, if the unit is in rate base, meaning in a vertically integrated state, well, then, consumers ultimately would have to pay the cost because cost in a per unit that’s in rate base, they get cost recovery through that mechanism.” […] “So, that unit could potentially stay open with consumers paying the additional cost. If the unit is in one of our RTO markets and they’re already at a point where they’re not recovering their capital costs or their operating costs through the market, then you know, you add additional costs, it just makes them even less financially viable. So, they’ll close even sooner.”

[On carbon capture technology] “It would be wonderful if carbon capture technology could be mature to where you could run coal or gas generating units with carbon capture and actually remove all the carbon and have that benefit. I don’t think the technology is anywhere near being mature yet, but time will tell.”

“You can’t just shut down your dispatchable generation overnight or within the matter of a few years and think that you can keep the lights on by simply trying to replace. My point of the megawatt versus a megawatt is the capacity value of the wind or solar megawatt is simply not equal to the capacity value of a megawatt. You can’t just keep the grid running with a 1-1 replacement – the numbers don’t add up.”

“Well, building generating capacity takes time, but the biggest problem we have right now is we’re losing existing generating capacity that could be running and it’s shutting down and it’s shutting down prematurely. So, we’re losing assets that could be providing power right now.”

[On whether we are getting enough gas units build] “Looking at the PJMQ which is the line of units that want to get in and interconnected, about 90% of it is Wind, Solar or Batteries. I think only 4% is gas. The problem is that we are not getting enough new gas generation to provide backup to the increased deployment of wind and solar. The answer is no, we are not getting enough new. The bigger problem is the gas units we have increasingly can’t get the fuel supply to run as either baseload units that run all the time or as peaker units that have to be called in. It really is a matter of supply. If they can’t get the fuel supply then they can’t provide the power supply.”

“We’ve been watching carbon capture technology for some time, and it’s at least seven to 10 years to put a system into place in a commercial basis if it would work which is unclear to us at this time. The rule requires it by 2030 and there’s just no way we can make that.”

“I believe there’s a tipping point that is going to occur in 2028 because all the plants that are announced to close in 2028 — most of these coal plants are tied to specific regulations in the EPA. So, they are going to close. So, you have got between now and 2028 to come up with solutions.”

“First, coal plants are being prematurely retired. Second, there is no technology to deliver around-the-clock base load electricity to replace this retired generation. It has to be tested, proven, financeable, and also connected to the transmission grid by 2028 when all these coal plants are retired. In fact, it’s doubtful anything will be ready by about 2035.”

“Number one, the dispatchable generation we rely upon today to balance the grid is retiring, and it’s retiring at a rapid rate, and it’s retiring mostly driven by policy considerations. Second, electrification and large-scale data center construction is poised to create significant load growth in our footprint. Third, our new generation queue is largely intermittent, and so we need multiple megawatts of the new generation to replace one megawatt of the retiring generation. And, finally, the new generation is coming online slower than anticipated.” 

“I just want to note the markets have worked… But what is different is that there is this massive policy pressure. It’s really pressure for generators that are dispatchable to retire. And the retirement dates are not tied to demonstration that the replacement capacity is there.”

“I think people need to understand the scale of this industry is enormous. So last year, we put 20 gigawatts of solar onto the system. That’s the most we have ever put on in a single year. And that’s only about 2 percent of the capacity of the United States. So even with everything that we have done to speed the development of renewables and so forth, with a static grid, we are on a 50- to 75-year trajectory to replace it. And the grid is not static because we are also trying to electrify transportation.”

“The combination of inverter resources and batteries is a very powerful one. But you need to be cognizant of the scale and duration of protection that you are getting. Four hours is four hours, which is terrific if you have got a three-and-a-half-hour event. If you have a two-week outage associated with a major hurricane, if you have six weeks of cloud cover that you can’t generate from, you need longer-duration storage than four hours.”

“… one of the important things that these plants provide is the ability for the grid to maintain voltage and maintain frequency and to resist disturbances. Other resources can’t do that nearly as well as large spinning mass generation. And that’s why the loss of coal plants and natural gas plants and nuclear plants is so concerning from a grid reliability perspective.”

“Our assessments demonstrate that the electric grid is operating ever closer to the edge where more frequent and more serious disruptions are increasingly likely.”

“… the pace of the transition must be carefully managed to avoid pushing grid operations toward cliff-edge operating vulnerabilities. We certainly don’t want to see many [fossil units] coming off at once. The systems simply cannot be changed overnight.”

“We have significant concerns about this proposed rule landing at a time when the promises of job creation and job retraining in the coalfields remain little more than words on paper. The next round of coal-fired power plant closures is coming. But the coal-producing areas of the country are still reeling from the last round, and they are not prepared for this one.” 

“By imposing unworkable deadlines and unproven technologies not commercially available, this latest version of Democrats’ so-called Clean Power Plan poses an existential threat to providers of affordable and reliable American energy.”

“The EPA’s new power plant rule will further strain America’s electric grid and wipe out decades of work to build the power generation capacity to keep the lights on across the country, dependably, with the flip of a switch. This proposal, if enacted, would disrupt domestic energy security, force reliable coal power plants to close, and make new natural gas plants almost impossibly difficult to get up and running.” 

“Mandating more electrification while making it harder to produce electricity is a recipe for disaster. The Biden EPA’s new proposed rules for power plants will put Americans at risk of blackouts, energy shortages, and higher prices by shutting down reliable energy sources.” 

“The EPA’s new proposed rules would kill jobs in Wyoming and raise energy costs for families across the country. We can protect the environment and unleash clean, affordable, and reliable American energy at the same time.” 

“Today’s proposal further risks the security and reliability of our country’s electric grid, which could lead to energy shortages and rolling blackouts like those experienced across several states this past winter.”

“This proposal (Carbon Rule) will further strain America’s electric grid and undermine decades of work to reliably keep the lights on across the nation. And it is just the latest instance of EPA failing to prioritize reliable electricity as a fundamental expectation of American consumers. We’re concerned the proposal could disrupt domestic energy security, force critical always available power plants into early retirement, and make new natural gas plants exceedingly difficult to permit, site, and build.”

“With these new proposed rules, the Biden administration continues to wage war not only against U.S. energy companies but also against all the everyday Americans who rely on energy simply to maintain their homes and take care of their families.”

“Based upon what we currently know about this proposal, it is not going to be upheld, and it just seems designed to scare more coal-fired power plants into retirement—the goal of the Biden administration.” 

“Forcing power plants to close or adopt costly modifications will further harm electricity reliability and raise energy bills for Americans. If the president doesn’t start encouraging conventional energy alongside renewable development, consumers are going to pay a heavy price.”