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. 

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

 “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.”

“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 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.”

“… 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.”

“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.”

“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 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.”

“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.”

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

[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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“… 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.”

“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.” 

“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.”

“We are retiring dispatchable generating resources at a pace and in an amount that is far too fast and far too great, and it is threatening our ability to keep the lights on. Now the problem is not the addition of wind and solar and other renewable resources. The problem is the subtraction of dispatchable resources such as coal and gas.”

“I am extremely concerned when it comes to the pace of retirements that we’re seeing, of generators that are needed for reliability on our system. NERC and other grid operators have warned about this.”

“When you do the math — when you look at the rate of retirements, you look at the rate of growth, and you add in the current rate of throughput for our queue — we are headed for some [resource adequacy problems]. And that trouble is likely to find us later in this decade.”

“We’re either replacing plants with less capacity, no capacity, or replacing them with renewables that are intermittent and not always available.”